Loading...
2009-11-03 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY NOVEMBER 3, 2009 6:00 P.M. Time: Tuesda November 3, 2009 6:00 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street a rf Q n r� -1 I. Roll Call Cit Council 2. Public Comment on A Items Onl An wishin to address the Council on a items onl ma speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3-A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION 54956.9 (b) Number of cases: One 3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS A ne Karen Willis and Crai Jor Emplo or All Bar Units 0 Announcement of Action Taken in closed Session, if an 5. Adjournment Cit Council 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA •CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. AGENDA REGULAR MEET -NG OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY NOVEMBER 3, 2009 7 :30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7 :30 pm, City Hall, Council. Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and 0ak 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 S. City Manager Communications 6. Agenda Items 7. Oral Communications, Non- Agenda (Public Comment) 8. Council Referrals 9. Communisations Communications from Council) 10. Adjournment Public Participation. Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda .items or business introduced by Counci Imembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda (C Session) SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7:31 P.M. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Sep arate .Agenda PLEDGE OF AL�EjGIANCE Honorary Councilmembers Annie Lynch and Bria M. Wade 1. ROLL CALL City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3--A. Presentation by Alameda County Congestion Management Agency on 1 operational and Safety Improvements at 29 Avenue and 23 rd Avenue Overcros s ings (Publ Works 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by One motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public 4-A. Minutes of the Special Joint Ci y Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on October 20, 2009, and the Special :Taint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on October 27, 2009. (City Clerk) 4-B. Bills for Ratification. (Finance) 4-C. Recommendation to Accept Transmittal of Certificate of Sufficiency of an Initiative Petition Entitled "Alameda Point Development (City Clerk) 4-D. Recommendation to Accept a Grant from the Assistance to the Firefighters Grant Program for $65,127 to Develop and Administer a Multi- Hazard Injury Prevention Program for Residents 65 Years of Age and older, Appropriate $13,026 in Fiscal Year 2009 Community Development Block Grant Funds to Meet the Grant Applicat ..on 20% Match Requirement, and Authorize Staff to Make the Appropriate Budget Adjustments. (Fire) 4 E. Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute All Required Agreements B etween the W ater Emergency Transportation Authority (ETA) and the Ferry Operators to Place the MV Pisces, Scorpio, and Gemini in operation on the Alameda Ferry Service. [Contracts: META, Harbor Bay Maritime, and Blue Gold Fleet] Public Works) 4- Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Interim. City Manager to Enter into an Agreement with the Bay Area Air Qua.ity Management District for Carl Moyer Program Grants to Replace Two Ferry vessel Diesel Engines, Conduct an open Market Purchase of Two Ferry Vessel Diesel Engines and Two Diesel Generators Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter, and Execute All Necessary Documents. (Requires Four Affirmative Votes) [Contract: Valley Power Systems Public Works) 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Adopting the City of Oakland's Deficiency Plan for State Route 185, Acknowledge that the Implementation of the Deficiency Plan will be Monitored Biennially by the Alameda county Congestion Management Agency as Required by State Law, and that the Schedule and Progress for Implementation of the Deficiency Plan will be Considered as Part of the Annual Conformity Requirements for the Congestion Management Program.. Public Works) 4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Modify the Measure B Paratransit Program for Fiscal Year 2009- 2010 and Make the Appropriate Revenue and Expenditure Budget Adjustments Based on the Proposed Changes. (Public Forks) 4-1. Int roduct ion of ordinance Amending ordinance No. 2130, New Series, Updating the Civil Service System of the City of Alameda. (Human Resources) 4 -J J. Final Passage of ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 30 -5.14 (Barriers and Fences) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) by Adding Subsection 30- 5.14 (e) to Require Administrative Use Permits in Non Residential Districts for Temporary or Permanen.t or Fences Within a Required Setback or Along a Property Line that Faces a Public Street or a Public Access Easement. (Community Development) 4-K. Final Passage of ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Adding Article I. Section 13 -13 (Alameda Green Building Code) to Adopt the 2008 Edition of the California Green Building Standards Code. (Community Development) 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from City Manager) 5 -A. Fire Department Response Standards 5 -B. Scheduling Date Joint City Council /School Board Meeting REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 6-A. Public Hearing to Consider Adopting Amendment #1 to the Fiscal Year 2009 -2010 Community Development Block. Grant Action Plan, Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements and Modifications, and. Authorizing Staff to Make the Appropriate Budget Adjustments. Economic Development) 5 -B. Adoption of Resolution Calling an Election in the City of Alameda on February 2, 2010 for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors an Initiative Regarding Development at Alameda Point. (City Clerk) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment Any person m ay address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not oil the agenda 8. COUN�.IL REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item 9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended. 9 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Library Board. 10. ADJOURNMENT City Council Materials related to an item on the agenda are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office, City Hall, Room 380, during normal business hours Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please Contact the City Clerk at 747 --4800 or TDD number 522- -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting 0 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 materia -s in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting CITY OF ALAMEDA *CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) TUESDAY NOVEMBER 3, 2009 7:31 P.M. Location-, C1t CounciLl Chambers, Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street Public Participation An wishin to address the Council/Commission on a items or business introduced b the Council/Commission ma speak for a maximum 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 2. MINUTES Cit Council, CIC 2-A. Minutes of the Special Joint Cit Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit and Communit Improvement CO.-MLission Meetin held on October 20, 2009. [Cit Council, CIC Cit y Clerk) 3. AGENDA ITEMS 3-A. Recommendation to Approve an Amended and Restated Promissor Note in the amount of $190,000 and an Amendment to the HOME Re A for 461 Hai Avenue Between the Cit and ALL Housin Inc. [Cit Council and Recommendation to Approve a Grant A in the Amount of $80,000 and an Affordable Housin Maintenance Covenant for 461 Hai Avenue Between the Communit Improvement commission and ALL Housin Inc. CIC (Economic Development) 3-B. Recommendation to Accept Public Streets Within Ba Alameda, Approve a Lease for the Use of the Communit Buildin and C-1 Reciprocal Easement A Per the Joint Use A Between the Alameda Unified School District and the Cit and Authorize the Interim Cit Mana to Execute and Authorize Execution of Documents for Completion of Ba Alameda Project Obli [Cit Council] and Recommendation to Approve Quit Claim Deeds Conve the Public Streets and Ba Park and Storm Treatment Pond Properties from the Communit Improvement Commission to the Cit Approve an Access and Maintenance Easement from the Communit Improvement Commission to the Cit for Se of the Storm Drain S Adopt the Ba Project Bud for Fiscal Year 2009-2010, and Authorize Execution of Documents for Completion of Ba Alameda Project Obli CIC (Economic Development) 4. ADJOURNMENT Cit Council, CIC OWN% teverl 4rhi avor Chair, CI UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOIN'S CITY COUNCIL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (PUB) MEETING TUESDAY OCTOBER 20, 2009- --6:00 p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 P.M. ROLL, CALL Present: Counc i lmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tarn, and Mayor Johnson: Board Members Gallant, Hamm, Holmes, McCahan, McCormick 10. Absent: None. 09- conference with Legal Counsel Existing :jitigation (5 Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section. 54956.9; Name of Cases: vectren Communication Services, Inc. v. city of Alameda; Nuveen Municipal High Income Opportunity Fund, et al. v. City of Alameda, et al, Bernard Osher Trust v. City of Alameda, et al. 09- conference with Legal counsel Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of Cases: one. 09- Conference with Legal counsel Existing Litigation (54956.9) Name of case: Safeway v. city of Alameda. 09- workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) Claimant: Arthur Brandt; Agency claimed against: City of Alameda. Following the closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding vectren the City Council and PUB received a briefing on the status of the litigation and gave direction in advance of a scheduled settlement conference; regarding Anticipated Litigation, Legal Counsel discussed a matter of potential litigation with the City council; no action was taken. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 12:15 a.m. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened. and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Safeway the city Council gave direction to the city Attorney regarding settlement parameters; regarding workers' compensation Claim the City Council gave direction to Legal counsel regarding potential settlement of Special Meeting Alameda City Council October 20, 2009 claim. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meetinc Alameda City Council October 20, 2009 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- OCTOBER. 20, 2009 -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.M. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES 09- Mayor Johnson announced that Resolutions of Appointment [paragraph no. 09- would be addressed before the. Consent Calendar. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 09- Proclamation. Declaring October as Domestic violence Aw areness Month. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Economic Development Director. The Economic Development Director stated that she is accepting the proclamation on behalf of the City's domestic violence partners; the issue has been a high priority of the Community Development Bloc. Grant Program and social Service Human Relations Board; thanked Council for continued support and recognition. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 09- Resolution No. 14391 "Appointing Nielsen Tam as a Member of the Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted; 09 A Resolution No. 14 3 92 Appoint ing Suzanne Whyte as a Member of the Library Board." Adopted; 09 B Resolution No. 14393 Reappointing Michael B. Cooper as a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission." Adopted; and 09 C Resolut No. 14394 "Reappointing Terri Bertero Ogden as a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission." Adopted. Counc i ..member Gilmore moved adoption of the resolutions. Counci� member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 20, 2009 The City Clerk administered the oath of Office and presented, certificates of appointment to Nielsen Tam and Suzanne Whyte. Mr. Tam thanked Council for the opportunity to serve; stated that he is looking forward to Saturday's event [Special Services Resource Faire l. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the ordinance No. 3008 [paragraph no. 09- 1 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Count i lmember Gilmore 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 and Regular City Council Meetings held on October 6, 2009. Approved. *09- Ratified bills in the amount of $2,356,538.45. *09- Recommendation to Award the Abandoned vehicle Towing Contract to A &B Towing. Accepted.. *09- Resolution. No. 14395 "Approving the Form of and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a Purchase and Sale Agreement and Related Documents with Respect to the Sale of the Seller's Proposition 1A Receivable from the State; and Directing and Authorizing Certain other Actions in Connection. Therewith." Adopted. 09- ordinance No. 3008 "Amending ordinance No. 2497, New Series, By Amending Subsection 19 a (Medical Insurance) and By Amending Subsection 19 (b) (Dental) of Section 19 (PERS Pension Fund) Regarding Public safety Employees Hired After November 1, 2009." Finally passed. The City Attorney suggested changing the November 1, 2009 date to January 2, 2010, which is the date both the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) and Alameda Police officers Association (APOA) Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) expire. Coun.cilmember Tam stated that she appreciates the clarification for changing the date; she abstained on the first reading of the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 October 20, 2009 ordinance because she needed more information; she opposes the ordinance; she agrees that pension reform is very much needed; IAFF and APOA have been very cooperative in establishing a committee to review reform for post retirement benefits; the ordinance is premature because firefighters and police offers are not being hired right now; the 1079 and 1082 provisions do not apply to future employees; the MOUs .include a collaborative process; that she agrees with the majority of voters polled last week regarding changing pension benefits; public safety employees deserve more generous benefits. Mayor Johnson inquired what polling was done. Councilmember Tam responded the State conducted a poll on October 16. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the poll provided an understanding of public safety benefits. Councilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated voters endorsed the idea of continuing more generous pension benefits for public safety employees; voters oppose a more stringent proposal to impose a surtax on retiree income exceeding $50,000. Mayor Johnson stated the public has a misunderstanding of the reality of public safety pay and benefits; lifetime benefits are also provided to the spouse [in Alameda]; inquired whether a new spouse would receive medical benefits after an employee retires, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a former spouse would receive the benef it to which the City Attorney responded the benef it would be lost through divorce; other cities are not as generous as Alameda]. Councilmember Gilmore stated amending the ordinance is a condition precedent to having the committee get together and having a meaningful work product; an ordinance would be needed for a new agreement. The City Attorney stated that Councilmember Gilmore is correct; City staff and bargaining units have no jurisdiction to negotiate if the ordinance already sets benefits; Council has the legislative freedom to change the ordinance; future employee benefits would be whatever results from the meet and confer process under the Meyers Milias Brown Act. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the four public safety unions Regular Meeting Alameda City Ccuncil 3 October 20, 2005 have agreed to meet and confer. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the unions have agreed to specifically review medical benefits for future employees with the understanding of creating a second tier system. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether other public safety MOUs expire on January 2, 2010. The Human Resources Director responded that the IAFF and APOA MOUs expire on January 2, 2010; Fire and Police management MOUs expired on January 1, 2008. Councilmember Matarrese stated the proposed amendment would suspend the other Post Employment Benefits benefits, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese moved, final passage of the amended ordinance with the January 2, 2010 date. Nice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ages: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson 4. Noes: Councilmember Tam 1. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS 09- civic Center Plan Carnegie Referral) The Interim. City Manager gave a brief presentation. The Planning Services Manager provided a handout and gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether „Option B would allow the basement and main level to be open but not the mezzanine. The Planning Services Manager responded the mezzanine could be used as office space, but not for assembly use. The Planning Services Manager continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City's Assets Management strategy is limited to assets within the identified areas or assets in general. The Interim City Manager responded assets in general; stated the Carnegie Building would be packaged with a combination of sites for a blended pro forma; the City has some unique assets to bring to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 October 20, 2009 the table and /or sell for development uses; the bottom line pro forma could facilitate bringing additional money to the Carnegie Building; the recovery would be a little easier on the capital outlay because more tenants would be in a larger pool. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the overall Civic Center could be a catalyst which could stimulate the economy. The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the employee parking lot has been considered for infill development; the property value is approximately $1 million; cash could be brought to the table in terms of a blended pro forma if the parking lot was sold to the Housing Authority; the same situation would hold true for other sites within the Civic Center plan. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Carnegie Building has been dormant for quite a while; inquired whether the buildings could lay dormant for another three or four years because State funding would be needed. The Interim City Manager responded that she does not think the Carnegie Building would be dormant for another three or four years; bundling the Carnegie Building with City owned public assets as well as other private sites could create a blended pro forma with capital infused in the Carnegie Building sufficient to get a nominal recovery in terms of potential rents or free space for public activity; opportunities exists; the intent would be to have a concept plan and staff would be prepared to bundle something up in the spring. Mayor Johnson stated the concept would result in rehabilitating the Carnegie Building sooner. The Interim City Manager stated that she would like to have a very targeted, limited vision plan with pictures and graphics, not a lot of narrative; the City has approximately $55,000 in predevelopment money among different funds; everything needs to be tied together; interest in the downtown area is picking up considerably. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether three months is an adequate amount of time; stated the idea sounds exciting. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff would work with professionals; a draft Gould be provided within. three months; community meetings would not take place within the three months; the first community meeting would be in March. Vice Mayor deHaan stated it appears as though staff has already reviewed the issue. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 October 20, 2009 Councilmember Matarrese stated that he was involved in the 2000 Vision Plan which started in 1991; that he is confident staff can provide something to Council within three months; the pieces are already in place; the Library, theater, and parking structure have been built; that his preference is a public gathering place; direction should be given to proceed and hold to the three month t ime f came The Interim city Manager stated there is an opportunity to create a concept plan based on today's fiscal reality. Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates all the hard work; presentations were made two years ago when there was a potential funding stream from building and permit fees; part of the RFP would be to look at financial sustainability beyond capital costs and could be bundled up with public and private partnerships such as `I`owata Florist and the gas station across from city Hall; bundling up would help to provide capital outlay and long -term financial revenue streams. The Interim City Manager stated critical mass is needed. in order to bundle things up. Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has been very focused on development and construction costs in the past; on -going maintenance costs have not been taken into account. The Interim city Manager stated the process would involve having a concept plan and a RFP for different sites which would include maintenance costs, etc. Vice Mayor deHaan stated costs have been provided for rehabilitating the Veterans Building; inquired whether the matter would be part of the equation; leasing opportunities exist. Mayor Johnson stated the Veterans Building is crumbling away. Councilmember Matarrese stated rehabilitating the Veterans Building would cost more than $4 million..; the Carnegie Building has the benefit of a retrofit. The Interim City Manager stated the matter would be reviewed. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 09- Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for Fiscal Year 2008 -2009. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 October 20, 2009 The City Treasurer gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Tarn stated Council adopted a resolution tonight on the securitization of the $2.28 million that the State will borrow from the City under Proposition 1A and return with interest of 2% within three years; the City expects to get 2.4% on investments; inquired whether it is possible to get up to 3.5n in the same investments. The City Treasurer responded in the negative; stated 3.5% is the current yield on owned securities; new securities would be purchased at the current interest rate. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the rate is more along 2.4 to which the City Treasurer responded possibly for a three -year term.. Councilmember Tam stated that securi t i z i.ng is a good idea; moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. 09-- 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) 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. The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired how long a fence could remain, to which the Planning Services Manager responded the timeframee could be conditioned through the use permit process. Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should include an outside time period; property owners should not consider a fence as a long -term situation; a distinction should be made between an on -going business and vacant lot_ Councilmember Matarrese stated a time limit is needed. The Planning Services Manager stated the administrative use per mit could have a time limit of six months; the property owner would have the ability to come back and request another six months under Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 October 20, 2009 unusual circumstances; a year may be too long. Mayor Johnson stated six months is sufficient. The Planning Services Manager stated the administrative use permit limit of six months would be included for the second. reading. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance includes boarded up windows. The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated the City has some control over boarded up windows. Proponents (In support of ordinance) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) Kathy Moehring, west Alameda Business Association (WAB.A.) Following Mr. Ratto' s comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether a fee would be included. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the use permit process allows situations to be reviewed individually. Mayor Johnson stated renewals would not be automatic and should be limited to one. councilmember Matarrese stated renewals should escalate, should not be administrative, and should be a [Planning Board] hearing. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how existing fences would be handled. The Planning Services Manager responded businesses would be advised that a use permit would now be needed; stated that he cannot commit to finding every fence on a commercially zoned property that does not have a use permit; any non conforming use would be addressed. Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Department would need to prioritize enforcement; the Planning Department needs to do a better job of prioritizing, particularly in the downtown area; other areas cannot be neglected. The Planning Services Manager stated that staff would work with wABA and PS Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Collins property is fenced and also has graffiti. Regular Meeting .Alameda City Council 8 October 20, 2009 Mayor Johnson stated the City has been too passive in dealing with blight. Nice Mayor deHaan inquired whether additional language needs to be added to the ordinance. The Planning Services Manager responded direction is clear; stated the ordinance does not need additional language; Council has asked for better enforcement. Mayor Johnson stated Council has requested staff to find better ways to deal with blight. Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with amendment to include an outside six -month time limit and an escalation beyond the six months. Vice Mayor d.eHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. 09- Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Adding Article I, Section 13 -13 (Alameda Green Building Code) to Adopt the 2008 Edit ion of the California Green Building Standards Code. Introduced. The Building official gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance would put Alameda in line with other Alameda County cities that have adopted a Green Building Ordinance. Councilmember Tam stated that she is concerned with water usage; inquired what would be the baseline for the 20- indoor water usage reduction, to which the Building official responded the 20 reduction would be based upon existing usage. Councilmember Tarn inquired what if water saving fixtures and flow restrictors are already used. The Building official responded the State made the ordinance voluntarily so details could be addressed. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the solar panels issue has been resolved. The Building official responded in the affirmative; stated the Fire Department needs to have access around panels. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 October 20, 2009 Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NNON AGENDA 09- Ben. Delaney, chief Executive Officer of Reliatech, stated Reliatech is the social venture of the Stride center which is a ten -gear program that trains low-income individuals to become technicians; Reliatech is located within the St. Vincent de Paul. space. Mayor Johnson inquired whether people can bring in computers and other electronics for service repair. Mr. Delaney responded computer related equipment can be brought in for service; stated St. Vincent de Paul accepts e-waste; Reliatech refurbishes computers. Mayor Johnson inquired whether people can buy computers at Reliatech, to which Mr. Delaney responded in the affirmative. COUNCIL REFERRALS (09- Analysis of SunCal Initiative Mayor Johnson stated that she has received questions from the School District; suggested having a special joint meeting with the School District so that questions can be addressed. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mayor Johnson was referring to the two -part executive summary, which outlined financial and transportation impacts. The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the two reports are on the website; scheduling a joint meeting with the School District would require three [affirmative] votes since the item is a Council Referral. Speakers Honora Murphy, Alameda; John. Knox White, Alameda; Diane Lichtenstein, Home Ownership Makes Economic Sense (HOMES Doug Linney, Alameda. Mayor Johnson requested an update on on -going efforts with SunCal. The Interim City Manager stated that both sides are working to meet Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 October 20, 2009 the terms of the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement; the purpose of the Counci 1 Referral is to focus on the two election reports only; staff meets with SunCal every Thursday from 9:00 a m. to 4:00 p m. along with other Technical Advisory Committee meetings. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what are the available election dates. The City Clerk responded the matter would be on the next agenda; the upcoming election dates are February, April, June and November 20 Councilmember Gilmore stated educating the public in advance is vital; that she is concerned about the potential for voter confusion; that she is not sure how advanced information would be provided to the public if the City and SunCal reach an agreement over what is being discussed in negotiations; that she would like to have a holistic presentation to the community. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore is stating that Council should set a time limit for negotiations. Councilmember Gilmore responded perhaps a tentative date could be set for January and then check back. Mayor Johnson stated a meeting could be set in January and adjustments could be made if something changes. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that staff has already completed a detailed, two -part analysis of the initiative; a presentation and review is lacking. Mayor Johnson stated the Interim City Manager could provide a status of discussions if something happens. Coun.cilmerrber Gilmore stated questions from the public have more to do with on -going negotiations and how the negotiations tie into the initiative. Mayor Johnson stated perhaps SunCal would agree to allow public discussions. Councilmember Tam stated the City received two letters today from SunCal as well as earlier correspondence indicating SunCal s willingness to be open and transparent about negotiation points; a lot of the negotiation pints arise from fiscal issues as well as traffic mitigation; Councilmember Gilmore is suggesting to combine the two to ensure that the public understands the full context of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 October 20, 2009 the negotiations. Councilmember Gilmore stated the City Clerk stated the ballot date would be set at the next City Council meeting; perhaps the ballot date should be set and work backwards from there. Councilmember Matarrese stated the fiscal impact report published in May had a number of items stating there was not enough information to make a determination; the landscape of the fiscal situation has changed since May; the report needs to be updated; the State has taken away close to $5 million in the last two fiscal years; the administration in Washington, D.C. said that a no cost or low cost conveyance would not occur; the initiative put a lot of numbers out in the public arena; inquired whether said numbers or staff's evaluation of the numbers can be discussed in public. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the numbers and financial information extracted from the initiative is public. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City has a good plan and the financial means to deliver the plan; the matter needs to come back to Council sooner rather than later; the proprietary nature of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement is driven by SunCal's status as a private company; the City's negotiating team should explore having an agreement with SunCal on how to release information regarding the negotiations so the public would have a better chance of reviewing the initiative with an educated eye. Councilmember Tam read an excerpt of SunCal's October 19, 2009 letter addressing confidentiality; stated SunCal has no problem releas in.g inf ormat ion other than proprietary inf ormat ion. Mayor Johnson stated an agreement should be formalized with SunCal to make information public. Councilmember Tam stated SunCal could be present at the presentation. Mayor Johnson stated the public needs full access to all information, not just inf ormat ion that SunCal or the City is willing to release. The Interim City Manager stated the focus is to stay very targeted on the election report and what the Election Cade requires; staff needs to have discussions with SunCal. Councilmember Matarrese suggested that s taf f talk with SunCal about what to disclose; stated SunCal is a private company and wants to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 October 20, 2009 keep some things from public view; staff could explore the matter with SunCal and bring information back to Council. Mayor Johnson stated further analysis is needed because the scope of the election review is limited to the initiative. Councilmember Tam stated some things have been overtaken by events because of the Mayor's press release and ghat 's posted on the website; it is clear that the City has been in negotiations with SunCal for the last five months; information needs to be provided, to the public on whether or not ,issues are fixable; problems identified in the election report can be addressed by the City and SunCal. Councilmember Gilmore stated if SunCal is willing to release some of the information, a comprehensive review would be needed. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Council received the October 19 letter, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded that she received the letter via email. Vice Mayor deHaan stated some of the issues have been addressed and allows for dialogue. The Interim City Manager stated SunCal's signature needs to be on the bottom line to ensure the City is not at risk. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City Attorney has reviewed the letter. The City Attorney responded that she has not read the letter; stated SunCal controls the financials of the pro forma; SunCal. s willingness to make the pro forma public would not be a problem; the terms of the initiative cannot be negotiated; the initiative is going forward; the City cannot change ghat is in the initiative; the terms of the Disposition and Development Agreement, which is a separate document, could be negotiated. Mayor Johnson stated a date does not to be picked; the City does not have a problem with releasing information; having a fair characterization on all information is important; released information should be by topic. Councilmember Gilmore stated having the information by topic makes sense. Vice Mayor deHaan stated for the briefing, the two -part analysis needs to be updated with SunCal's input to provide a better Regular Meeting Alameda Cwty Council 13 October 20, 2009 understanding of the initiative as written. Mayor Johnson stated staff needs to check with the School Bcard about having a joint meeting to address concerns. The Interim City Manager stated three [affirmative] votes are needed in order to schedule a joint meeting with the School District; that she wants to ensure that the City is not placed at risk with disclosure. Councilmember Tam stated Council seems to be very supportive of the Mayor's desire to have the community informed about ghat is in the initiative; the community needs the full context of issues Council has identified; that she would like the City Attorney to interpret Section 14 -A (2) that addresses an amendment to the initiative if an agreement is reached with SunCal. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney's analysis could be made public. The City Attorney responded the City .Attorney's office would provide the analysis and make it public if possible. Councilmember Tam moved approval of providing direction for staff to return with a presentation to Council. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wc-Lnt s to be clear that information would be updated and financials would be measured in today's environment in order to reasonably predict the costs associated with figures identified in the public domain, not just the initiative. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote 5. 09- Consider Supporting Proposed AC Transit Board Resolution 09 -51 Setting Policy for Buying American Goods. Councilmember Matarrese stated AC Transit Board Member Elsa Ortiz requested support for the resolution; AC Transit's fleet is largely made in Europe; the AC Transit Board adopted the resolution on October 14, 2009; no action needed. Mayor Johnson stated a Hayward company manufactures and sends buses to all parts of the United States. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 October 20, 2009 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS 09- Cou.n.cz lmember Gilmore stated that she attended. the California Redevelopment Association briefing last week; the two major tops of discussion were potential actions the Association will take as a result of the State's takeaways; filing a lawsuit was discussed; another item addressed was revamping the Association in order to have a personal face present; the Association is trying to motivate and educate members to be a more effective lobbying tool; Mike Madrid, League of California cities Public Affairs Director, will help guide the Redevelopment Association along the path. The Economic Development Director stated the lawsuit was filed today. 09- Council member Matarrese requested a call for Review of the Planning Board decision last Monday regarding a convenience store Use Permit at 1623 Park Street. 09 Cou.ncilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of California Cities East Bay Division dinner; an update was provided regarding efforts to place a ballot initiative on the November 2010 election; the proposed ballot measure would be on track if each Councilmember within. the 488 cities gets 100 signatures; Lisa Vorderbrueggen, Contra costa Times Political Columnist, discussed how difficult times are in the news media; the Contra costa Times will charge for on --line subscriptions. 09- Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he attended a Good citizen recognition for Jim and Jean Sweeney given by the Alameda Public Affairs group; Senator Hancock, Assemblymember Swanson, Congressman Stark, and Supervisor Lai- Bitk.er were present to recognize the Sweeneys for Alameda Beltline efforts; council should do likewise. ADJOURNMENT There be ing no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:5"7 p m Respectfully submitted., Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 October 20, 2009 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEV ELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA MEETING TUESDAY OCTOBER 27, 2009- W-6:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call Present: Councilmembers /Board. Members deHaan, Gilmore, Mat arre se Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson 5. Absent: None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: 09- CC Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Karen Willis and Craig Jory; Employee organizations: All Bargaining Units; and 09- CC A Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency negotiator: City Council Subcommittee; Employee: Interim City Manager. 11."..1_­...____ ARRA Conference with Real Property Negotiators (54956.8); Property: Alameda Point Negotiating parties: ARRA and SunCal; Under negotiations: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was reconvened and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that regarding All Bargaining Units and Interim City Manager the City Council received a briefing regarding labor negotiations and provided direction to negotiators; and regarding Alameda Point Real Property Negotiators provided an update on the negotiations with SunCal and direction was on negotiations was provided. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority October 27, 2009 CITY OF ALAM E D Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Lisa Goldman Deputy City Manager Gate: October 29, 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 Numb 223575 223934 EFT 751 EFT 752 EFT 753 EFT 754 EFT 755 EFT 755 Void Checks: 223490 GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Manager Council Warrants 11/03/09 Amount $2 $11 ,953.50 $23,559.58 $33,101.88 $4,392.65 $51,744.98 $325,252.19 ($194,99) $2,714,803.72 BILLS 44 -B 1113/2009 CITY OF AL M EDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Lara Weisiger City Clerk Date: November 3, 2009 Re: Accept Transmittal of Certification of Sufficiency of an Initiative Petition Entitled "Alameda Point Development BACKGROUND A Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition amending the City Charter and General Plan and adopting a specific plan was received on March 20, 2009. The Petition was filed .on September 23, 2009 at which time it was transmitted to the Registrar of voters for examination of the signatures. DISCUSSION On October 14, 2009, the City Clerk received the Registrar of voters' report that the Petition contains a total of 9,185 signatures, of which 423 signatures were found to be sufficient representing 123% of the total number of signatures needed to qualify the initiative based on the random sample examination. Because 15% of the qualified voters of Alameda signed the Petition, the City Council is required to submit the proposal to the voters. The Council will adopt a Resolution to submit the proposal to the voters as a separate action. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Registrar of voters charged $11 ,378.09 to examine the signatures. There is no budget for elections in the FY09 -1 0 adopted budget. These expenditures will be charged to the City Clerk Elections Program 2220, which will require approval of a source of funds by June 2010, in order for the budget to remain balanced. RECOMMENDATION Accept transmittal of a Certification of Sufficiency of an initiative petition entitled "Alameda Point Development." City Council Agenda Item ##4-C 11 -3 =09 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Citv Clerk Approved as to funds and account, November 3, 2009 Wage 2 of 2 Attachment: 1 Certificate of Sufficiency CLERK'S CERTIFICATE TO ORIGINAL PETITION, ENTITLED ALAMEDA POINT DEVELOPMENT, PROPOSING A CHARTER AMENDMENT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLANT ADOPTION PROPOSING A DEVELOPMENT PLANT FOR ALAMEDA POINT, WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM MEASURE A I, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk of the City of Alameda, State of California, hereby certify that the foregoing Petition was filed in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Alameda on the 23rd day of Septern.ber, 2009; that said Petition contains 9,185 signatures purporting to be respectively the signatures of qualified electors of said City and the dates said signatures were obtained on the Petition. That after said Petition was filed as aforesaid, I as said Clerk, in accordance with Sections 9114 and 9115. of the California Elections Code, caused a random sample examination of the Petition signatures to be undertaken. From that examination, as set forth in Section 9115 and the formula prescribed by the California Secretary of State, the Registrar of voters determined that the Petition contained 423 valid signatures of qualified registered voters in the City of Alameda, and the number represents 123 percent of the total number of signatures needed to qualify the initiative. (Attaclu 1) That said random sample examination indicates at least 6,369 signatures submitted are of qualified voters of this City, which qualifies the initiative. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 15th day of October, 2409. Lara Weisiger City Clerk Office of the City Clerk 2263 Santa Clam Avenue, Room 380 Alameda, California 94501-4477 5M747.4800 a Fax 510.747.4805 a TDD 510322.7535 City Council Exhibit to Agenda Item ##4 -C 1 -3mO9 C► Printed on Recycled Paper REGISTRAR OF VOTERS CERTIFICATE TO PETITION I, Dave Macdonald, Registrar of Voters for the County of Alameda, State of California, hereby certify that: an Initiative Petition Entitled: "The Alameda Point Revitalization Initiative" was filed with the Alameda City Clerk within the statutory time limit and forwarded to this office for verification on September 23, 2009 and; The petition contained unverified signatures; and Pursuant to California Elections Code section 9215, in order to be sufficient, the petition must have been signed by qualified registered voters of the City of Alameda, that the number being equal to fifteen percent of the total registered voters of the City at the last .Report of Registration to the Secretary of State; and I have examined, or caused to be examined, signatures on the petition pursuant to California Elections Code sections 9211 and 9115; and Have determined that the petition contained 423 valid signatures of qualified registered voters in the City of Alameda based on the random sample examination set forth in section 9115 and the formula prescribed by the California Secretary of State; and That this number represents 12� of the total number of signatures needed to qualify the initiative therefore; The petition is found to be sufficient to require the City Council of the City of Alameda to take the appropriate action specified in the California Elections Code. IN WI'T`NESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 12thday of October, 2009. Dave Macdonald Registrar of Voters County of Alameda State of California CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: November 3, 2009 Re: Accept a Grant from the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program for $65,127 to Develop and Administer a Multi Hazard injury Prevention Program for Residents 05 Years. of Age and Older, Appropriate. $13,026 in FY09 -10 Community Development Block Grant funds to. beet the Grant Application 20 Match Requirement, and Authorize Staff to Make the Appror)riate Sudaet Ad iustments The Alameda Fire Department (AFD) requested funding in the 2003 Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistance to Firefighters Fire Prevention and Safety Grant Program. On August 10, 2009, the AFD was awarded the grant to develop and administer a multi- hazard injury. prevention program for the senior community. The grant will target low- and moderate income seniors who lack the knowledge and resources to make their homes a safer place. DISC USSION The funding from this grant will allow the city to enter into a partnership. with local community organizations to begin a much- needed comprehensive Fire Safety, Prevention, and Risk Abatement. Program for. the growing senior community. The program is tailored to address the special needs of the senior population and includes the following components;. fall prevention; home and. fire. safety. assessments :and hazard abatement; education on home fire safety /prevention through workshops, videos and brochures; and smoke. detector installation for seniors living in public or non-profit housing and for those in private homes. The performance ..period of the grant is one year from the date of award. one .of the goals of the program is to provide training to community group partners that will continue to provide this outreach to the community far beyond the grant performance period. The community group partners include Alameda hospital, [Deals on Wheels, City Council Agenda Item ##4 -D Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2009 Members of the City council Page 2 of 2 Friendly Visitors, Alameda Fire Department community Emergency Response Teams, Mastick senior center, Alameda Boy scouts council, and other community groups, FINANCIAL IMPACT The FY09 -10 Community Development Block Program Action Plan has $13,020 for the 20% snatching funds for this grant. The Public services Program will transfer $7,525, and the Residential Rehabilitation Program will transfer $5,201 to meet the City match obligation. The grant is not part of the adopted FY09 -10 budget. Budget adjustments are required to establish a new Grant Fund and revenue and expenditure accounts for the 9. rant amount of $65,127, and to transfer $13,026 for the snatching amount from the CDBG Fund 230 to the Grant Fund. I V X9101 0 Accept a grant from the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program for $65,127 to develop and administer a Multi- Hazard Injury Prevention Program for residents 0.5. y ears of age and older, appropriate $13,026 in FY09 -1 0 Community Development Block Grant Funds to meet the grant application 20% match requirement, and authorize staff to snake the appropriate budget adjustments. Respectfully submitted, David A. Kapler Fire chief Approved as to funds and account, Glen Interim Finance Director CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Cit Mana Date: November 3, 2009 Re: Authorize the Interim Cit Mana to Ne and Execute all Re A Between the Water Emer Transportation Authorit and the Ferr Operators to Place the MV Pisces, Scorpio, and Gemini in operation on the Alameda Ferry Services LT f 10M Since 20087 the Cit has chartered two Water .Emer Transportation Authorit WETA -owned vessels for use in the ferr services. The Pisces operates on the Alameda Harbor Ba Ferr (AHBF service and the Gemini operates on the Alameda/Oakland Ferr Service (AOFS). In mid-November 2009, WETA expects a third vessel, the Scorpio, to be available for service and has offered it for use on the AOFS. With the Scorpio placed in operation on the AOFS, the Gemini would be reassi to the AHBF and be operated in combination with the Pisces. DISCUSSION Acceptance of the Scorpio and reassi .of the Pisces re amendments to existin a between the Cit WETA,.and.the ferr operators for the AOFS and the AHBF, as well as a new a to allow the use of the Scorpio. Public Works staff has ne the principal terms of these a A brief discussion of each a follows. Water Emer Transportation A of Alameda Bareboat Charter Scorpio): The contract specifies the terms under which the Cit can charter the Scorpio and then subcharter the Scorpio to Blue Gold Fleet (B&GF) for AOFS operations. The Charter term ends on June 30, 2010. First Amendment to the Bareboat Charter/Gemini: The amendment specifies the terms under which the Cit can subcharter the 'Gemini to Harbor Ba Maritime HBM) for AHBF operations. The Charter term is extended to June 30, 2010. cit Council em #4-E A 11 =3-09 Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council November 3, 2009 Pa 2 of 3 First Amendment to the Fundin A Between WETA and the Cit The amendment adds the Scorpio maintenance, insurance, and certain operatin expenses to the list of expenses reimbursable b WETA. Seventh Amendment to the Sixth Amended and Restated Operatin A for the AHBF: The amendment re HBM to operate, maintain, and insure the Gemini in the same manner as HBM operates the WETA-owned Pisces. In addition, HBM must compl with Gemini operatin and reportin re set b WETA in the Charter. Twelfth Amendment to B&GF Operatin A g reement (Amendment): The amendment provides for the Cit to subcharter the Scorpio to B&GF and for the re- deliver of the Gemini to the Cit Copies of the a are on file in the Cit Clerk's office. FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds for AHBF are bud in the Harbor Ba Ferr (East) Fund 621.1 and the Alameda/Oakland Ferr (West) Fund 621.2, with funds available from the Measure B Transba Ferr the Re Measure 1 -2% .Brid Toll pro the Transportation Improvement Fund (TI F), and the .farebox revenue. Additional costs for Scorpi o -related expenses are provided throu the Re Measure 2 pro administered b the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. There is no impact to the General Fund associated with AHBF or AO FS operations. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. The Cit Ferr Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element. Honorable Ma and November 3, 2009 Members of the Cit Council Pa 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Interim Cit Mana to ne and execute all re a between WETA and the ferr operators to place the MV Pisces, Scorpio, and Gemini in operation on the Alameda Ferr Services. Approved as to funds and account, CITY OF ALAI DA Memorandum To: Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Cit Mana Date: November 3, 2009 Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizin the Interim Cit Mana to Enter into an A with the Ba Area Air Qualit M Di for Carl Mo Pro Grants to. Replace Two Ferr Vessel Diesel En Conduct an Open Market Purchase of Tw Ferr Vessel Diesel Engine Two Diesel Generators Pursu to Section 3-15 of the. Alameda Cit Charter, and Execute all Necessary Documents (Requires Four Affirmative Votes) #KAX01X91 On June 6, 2009, the Ba Area Air Qual Mana Di approved a $21x',644 Carl Mo Pro (CMP) g rant to. .r e place .two m ain en g in e s on the.. Ba Breeze, No. P.W. 08-09-25. In March 2009, the Cit and the BAAQM.D.en.tered. into CMP A 1 OMOY1 62 to replace two. g enerators on.the Bay Breeze. The CMP provides funds to implement projects that reduce emissions from heav dut diesel en g ines, No. P.W. 10-09-28. DISCUSSION Ba Breeze Main En Replac When the B..ay Breeze.wa.s b in 199.4, the main en were built b MTU /D e troit Diesel, Inc. These en es were replaced with MTU/Detroit Diesel 16V 2000 en in 2000. Based on a and wear, these en currentl re a ma overhaul or rep la cement. placement. T.he.CM will enable the:City to replace the en with state-of-the-art models that meet .the newest Environmental Protection A (EPA) emission standards (Tier 2). While other manufacturers fabric i ate marine en staff proposes.. to replace th en wi MTU/Detro.it Diesel 1 6V200OM70 models to reduce the cost and expedite the i S pecificall Installation of the MTU D et r oit Dies 1 6V200OM70 en will permit the use of the existin en foundations a g earbox arran without modifacati 1 on. Purchasin en from a re modification of en mountin foundations, pipin exhaust, wirin a c ouplings requ rin a time and mo This work would re at.least 1hree weeks of ship time durin which there would be no fast boat replac n t with similar passen carr capacit for the Alameda Harbor Ba -Ferr AH B F Walt En Services estimates that these modifications would add approximat $225,000 to pro costs. Cit Council Report Re: A Item #4=F Ila-3-09 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council November 3, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Engines from other manufacturers, such as Cummins and caterpillar, neigh more than the MTU /Detroit Diesel18V200OM7o models. This would result in at least a one percent. increase in fuel consu mption per yee.r over the life. of the en g Ines. As the AHBF uses approximately 120,000 gallons per .year, this would result .in an increase of about 1,200 gallons per year and an additional cost of $3,240 Y per ear, p assuming $2.70 per gallon. For these reasons, staff proposes to purchase the. MTU/Detroit Di.esell.W20.0.OM70 engines from Valley..Po er Systems North, I nc., the authorized MTU/Detroit Diesel representative. Cost for both rain engines. is approximately $395,090. This p rocess has been used successfully by the City in the past for. the .Peralta main engine1 replacement project in 2008. Bay Breeze Generator Replacement: CM P Agreerne nt .1 0l1 OY102 provides p artial funding to replace. both of the Bay Breeze generators with state -of -the -art models that meet the newest EPA emission .standards (Tier 2 Both existing ge nerators were built by. izuzu. While.other companies.manufacture generators, staff proposes to replace the Ba y Breeze generators with the Northern .Lights M5502 model. This will redu installation costs and long -term maintenance expenses. Specifically, installation ofthe Northern L ht M155C2 0. model will: Reduce maintenance and crew training. costs. Purchasing Northern Lights generators. will allow for the use of generator spare parts. among :the ferry boats, including the .Bay. Breeze, Gemini, Peralta. Pisces, and. Sco This.will.simp lif y generator Servicing reduce manufacturer representative on -site. sere cing costs, and enable one factory representative to service both generato.r&o single service nail. For these reasons, staff proposes to.purchase.the..Northern Lights generators from Valley Power systems North, `Inc., the Northern California authorized N rthern Lights factory representative. The cost for both generators is approximately .$52,000, and shipyard installation is estimated.at $48,000... Funding will come from a Carl .Moyer Grant 39 and the Transportation Improvement Fund ($61,604 Section 3-15 of the .city. charter provides that the City council rnay, by four votes, either with or without pri or: adve r ising as hereinabove set forth, determine that nits opinion:the public work or i mpro vements. in question will be performed m ore eco icali� key the City without contract, or that the materials or supplies can be purchased at a lower. price ire the open market. Open market purchase of two ferry vessel diesel en gines and two diesel generators gill provide a lower price benefit and .will: reduce project costs. by approximately $225,000; reduce .the time the. Bay Breeze is out of service by three weeks; and reduce long terra maintenance and fuel .costs. Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council FINANCIAL IMPACT November 3, 2009 Page 3of3 The funds for these projects are budgeted in the Harbor Bay Ferry (East) Fund 621.1 fund (Project No. 09 31), with funds available for the engine replacement from the CMP, the Regional Measure 1 2% Bridge Toll program, the Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF), and the countywide Measure B half -cent sales tax for transportation. The Bay Breeze generator replacement is funded from the CM P and the TI F. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the replacement of the ferry engine and generator project is Categorically Exempt under the City's certified Negative Declaration pertaining to original ferry service operations; however, this project is categorically excluded because it merely maintains existing services. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution authorizing the Interim city Manager to enter into an agreement with the BAAQMD for Carl Moyer program grants to replace two ferry vessel diesel engines, conduct an open market purchase of two ferry vessel diesel engines and two diesel generators pursuant to Section 3 of the Alameda City Charter, and execute all necessary documents (requires four affirmative votes). Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio 'Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, JAI CITY OF ALAI'rfIEDA RESOLUTION NO. 0 U. AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR CARL MOYER PROGRAM GRANTS TO REPLACE TWO FERRY VESSEL DIESEL ENGINES, CONDUCT AN OPEN MARKET PURCHASE OF TWO FERRY VESSEL DIESEL ENGINES AND TAO DIESEL GENERATORS PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 -1 OF THE ALAMEDA CITY k0 CHARTER, AND EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS (REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES) WHEREAS, on June 0, 2009, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District a roared $21 544 in Carl Mo er Pro rare F (BAAQMD) Pp y 0 grant funds for the City Tx Alameda harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF) for the purchase of two main ferry vessel diesel ry engines; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2009, the City and the BAAQMD entered into Carl Moyer Program Grant Agreement 10MOY102 for the City's Bay Breeze ferry boat for the purchase of two generators; and WHEREAS, the Carl Moyer Program provides funds to implement projects that reduce emissions from heavy -duty engines; and WHEREAS, section 3 -15 of the City Charter provides that the city Council, by four affirmative votes, can authorize an open market purchase if it determines that materials or supplies can be purchased at a lower price in the open market; and WHEREAS, the city Council finds that purchasing diesel engines from the same manufacturer as the existing engines will result in a savings of $225,000, reduce the time the Bay Breeze is out of service by two creeks, and reduce long term maintenance and fuel costs, thereby demonstrating price savings by open market purchasing; and WHEREAS, the City council finds that purchasing diesel generators from the same manufacturer as the existing generators for the Bay Breeze will reduce installation costs of approximately $100,000, reduce maintenance costs, and reduce on -site servicing costs, thereby demonstrating price savings by open market purchasing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda, that the Interim city Manager is hereby authorized to enter into an agreement with the BAAQMD for the Carl Moyer Program grant funds to replace two ferry vessel diesel engines. Resolution #4 CC 1 -03N49 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that, pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the City Charter, and by four affirmative votes, the City Manager, in cooperation with the Public Works Department, is hereby authorized to conduct an open market purchase of two ferry vessel diesel engines and two diesel generators from the same manufacturers that provided the existing equipment, and execute the appropriate purchase agreements. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 3rd day of November, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set ray hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 4th day of November, 2009. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Cit Mana Date: November 3, 2009 Re: Adopt a Resolution Adoptin the Cit of Oakland's Deficienc Plan for State Route 185, Acknowled that the Implementation of the Deficienc Plan will be Monitored Bienniall b Alameda Count Con Mana A as. Re b Law, and that the Schedule and Pro for Implementation of the Deficienc Plan gill b e Considered as Pa of the Annual Conformity Requirements for the Conqestion Manaciement Prociram BACKGROUND The Alameda Count Con Mana A (ACCMA) bienniall monitors Level of Service LOS on Alameda Count roadwa as part of the Con Ma ent Pro (CMP) re The CM establishes LOS "E" as the standard for all se on a g iven CMP network. The results of the 2008 biennial LOS Mo Stud identifi .westbou.nd.international nd Boulevard (SRI 85) between 46 th Ave.n 42. Avenue.in Oakland as deficient.. As per the CM .P re preparation. of.. a Deficienc Plan is re d to. address the deficienc The .CIVIP le providesfor deficienc plans as a wa for the local j urisdiction to remain in conforman frith.the.CMP. when. LOS. deteriorates b elow the established standard.. Si the deficient.se is in .Oakland, that Cit is re to serve as the lead a in the preparation.and implementation of the. Deficienc Plan The CMP le also re all jurisdictions whi contribute at least te n percent of the traffic volume to the deficient se to participate in an plan that corrects. the deficienc The Cit of Ala. a pa in the Deficienc Plan preparation.as it contributes at least ten percent of the traffic on this .deficient se The attached Deficienc Plan is based on the 1995 CMP Deficienc Plan Guidelines., and was prepared with input f the Cit of Oakland and the. Cit of Al.ame da.. Upon adoption of the Deficienc Plan b t Councils rn e .of the Cit of Oakland and the Cit of Ala it will be forwarded to the ACCMA Board for acceptance. Cit Counci I Report Re: A Item #4-G aipmfl�41 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council DISCUSSION November 3, 2009 Page 2 of 3 State law requires the jurisdiction in which the deficiency occurs to take the lead in preparing the Deficiency Plan. Since the City of Alameda.contributes ten percent of traffic to the deficient segment, its .staff worked with the City f Oakland staff in preparing the y p p g attached Deficiency Plana Caltrans, as the owner and operator of SR 185, has participated at the technical level during the formulation of the Deficienc y Plan. In response to the ACCIVIA's deficiency determination for SR -185, the City of .Oakland conducted a follow -up analysis and found the .segment operating t a .acee table LOS. g p To rneet the ACC MA's requirements, the City of Oakland prepared the attached Deficienc Plan that outlines a .process should the SR185 segment be re-identified as. a deficient segment in the future. All measures proposed for .implernentati shall be agreed upon by the City of Oakland and the City of Alameda prior to implementation to ensure that additional impacts are not created. The foilo ring combination of sho rt- term and long- terrn.measures.is antisi p ated.to improve the LDS for the CMP segment of SR 188. between 48th Avenue and 42nd Avenue. Short-Term Measure: I mplement a new signal tinning plan for the segment. Implementation of the short -terra measure by.the City.of Oakland is anticipated to imp the Los along the network segrnent.te an acceptable level E or better if the s e g ment is g re- identified as deficient in a future.LOS:Monitoring.Study. Long -Team .Measure: High street and 42 Avenue Im..provernent p ro'ectwould serve as a long -term benefit to the transportation network in the area. This project involves extending 42nd Avenue to improve circulation and access at the on- and off-ramp and improves access to Alameda- bound traffic. The .C.ity of Oakland is .the project sponsor. The project is. cu. rrently.in the right -of -gray phase.. and is scheduled for construction in 2014, pending completion of a Caltrans seismic retrofit project of the overpass in the same area. FINANCIAL IMPACT The cost associated. w signal re- tinning would be. absorbed into the City of Oakland's regular signal operation and management budget. The. long-term measure 42 Avenue Improvement project) is currently fully funded. There is no financial impact for the City. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. Honorable Mayor and November 8, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3 RECOMMENDATIOld Adopt a resolution adopting the City of Oakland's Deficiency Plan for SR 185, acknowledge that the implementation of the Deficiency Plan will be monitored biennially by the ACCMA as required by State law, and that the schedule and progress for implementation of the Deficiency Plan will be considered as part of the annual conformity requirements for the CM P. Approved as to funds and account, Olend J y Interinl ina e Director VP.gc Exhibit(s): 1. Deficiency Plan SR -185 Deficiency Plan City of Oakland City council Exhibit to Report Re: Agenda Item #4w 11-3-09 SR -185 Deficiency Plan City of Oakland Introduction and settin In 1990, California voters passed Propositions 108 and 1 11 that mandated the creation of Congestion Management Programs (CMP's) in all urban counties. The goal of these programs is to improve air quality and decrease vehicle congestion. Congestion management agencies undertake a variety of programs to do this. This state mandate requires all local jurisdictions to remain in conformance with the CMP by meeting certain requirements. One of the requirements is the monitoring of traffic speeds during peak hours on CIVIP streets. In Alameda County a monitoring program of CMP roadways is undertaken biennially to ensure conformance with the state mandated requirements. If the afternoon peak hour vehicle speeds on any segment of a CMP roadway fall to a Level of Service F, the street is no longer in conformance with the CMP. The Level of Service (LOS) methodology quantifies the level of congestion along a network segment. These measurements range from LOS A representing the best operation conditions (free flow and no congestion) to LOS F representing the worst level of congestion (stop and go traffic). Should a roadway segment perform at LOS F during the monitoring process, after certain applicable statutory exemptions, a deficiency plan is required from the affected jurisdiction(s). Based on the 2008 LOS Monitoring Study conducted in Spring 2008, Westbound International Boulevard (SR1 85) between 46th Avenue and 42 Avenue in the City of Oakland was identified as deficient by the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency in July of 2008. Therefore, a deficiency plan was required from the City of Oakland. M lti- Jurisdictional Participation State law requires the jurisdiction in which the deficiency occurs to take the lead in preparing the deficiency plan., However, other jurisdictions must participate and adopt the plan if they contribute ten percent or more to the traffic volumes found on the deficient segment. In this case the City of Alameda was identified as the Participating Agency for the deficiency plan. Caltrans, being the owner and operator of the SR 185, has participated at the technical level during the formulation of the plan. Existing Setting Westbound International Boulevard between 46� Avenue and 42nd Avenue is a 5 lane arterial, 2 lanes in each direction with center left turn lanes. Figure 1 shows the location and the segment. The roadway segment is State Route 185 and is in the Caltrans right of way, with two signals one at High Street and another at 42 Street intersections being operated directly by Caltrans. The arterial is parallel to the 1 -880 freeway and part of Intelligent Transportation System corridor. International Boulevard is the primary east -west arterial in East Oakland, carrying approximately 28,000 vehicles daily. The land use abutting the deficient segment is primarily retail and commercial. r Figure 1: Location Map of Deficient Segment if F� Or IN FrolvoW A 8 n e r 4b Ave 5 0 t�P�� FoDsi J}y air P tt`. 8ar►roTE Are ry Br�aaitArw 4 41 F Sj Yt b .i. r o. Y irmd3 AVe Alamed8 AVU r q u s Deficiency analysis Deficienc yiddentified by the CMA Westbound International blvd (SR 185) between 45th Avenue and 42nd Avenue is classified in the Congestion Management Program (CMP) of the CMA as Arterial 11. For Arterial II roadways, the Level of Service becomes F when the average speed falls below 10 mph. The CMA's 2008 LOS Monitoring Study conducted travel time runs in Spring 2008 during the afternoon peak period of 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. and found that this roadway segment was operating at an average speed of 7.5 mph. City staff evaluated the deficient segment via several site visits, and field observation during the peak hour. Travel time runs were also conducted by the City on May 12, and 15 of 2009 following the same procedures identified for the data collection in the LOS Monitoring Study. A total of 9 runs were conducted. A comparison of the results of the City and CMA studies are presented below in Table 1. Table 1: Comparison of CMA and Citv of Oakland Travel time Studies *For the detailed run data please refer to the Appendix. Although the travel time runs were conducted by the CMA and the City one year apart, they occurred during the same time of the year. An explanation for the improved level of service could be the effect of the economy on traffic volumes. 3 Deficiency Analysis During the city's site evaluation, traffic congestion, if any, occurring in the westbound direction was determined to be a function of signal timing. The signal at High Street is coordinated with the signal at 42 nd Avenue for the eastbound direction since it has higher volumes than the westbound direction during the pm peak hour. Should a vehicle not make both greens along International Boulevard between High Street and 42 Avenue there is a possibility of a resulting LDS F for that particular vehicle Therefore, an adjustment of timing would be necessary to mitigate the deficiency, if this segment is proved to be functioning at LOS F in a future travel time run. Actions and Implementation Plan Based on the most recent floating car runs, westbound International Blvd (SR 185 between 46th Avenue and 42nd Avenue is found to operate at an improved level of service. However, should it be re- identified as a deficient segment in the future, the following proposed action plan should be activated. The following combination of short term and long term measures are anticipated to improve the level of service for the CMP segment, westbound International Blvd (SR 186) between 46th Avenue and 42nd Avenue. All measures proposed for implementation shall be agreed upon by the Cities of Oakland and Alameda prior to implementation to ensure that additional impacts are not created. 1. Short term measure: Implement a new signal timing plan for the segment to bring it to an acceptable LOS. 2 Long Term measure High and 42 Avenue Improvement project would serve as a long term benefit to the transportation network in the area. It involves extending 42 Avenue to improve circulation and access at the on and off ramps, and improves access to Alameda bound traffic. The City of Oakland is the project sponsor. The project is currently in the right of way phase and is scheduled for construction in 2014 pending completion of a Caltrans seismic retrofit project of the overpass in the same area Schedule Fundin and Res onsibili Implementation of the action plan summarized above is anticipated to improve the level of service along the network segment to an acceptable level (E or better) should the segment be re-identified as deficient in the future (The next LOS Monitoring is scheduled for Spring 2010). The cost associated with signal re- timing would be absorbed into the City of Oakland's regular signal operation and management budget. Action plan item 2 is currently fully funded. 4 Appendix City of Oakland's Floating Car Study Data U) C3 v E 0 A n v s D U J V) CL Lot L_� Cie -I.- c 0) E m CD Ul o 1 a a U �n A a D W" Gn N N 4� N U w N C a' QN Z D G 0 U y E� O A U U b u x Eel CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. R 0 i0 ADOPTING THE CITY OF OAKLAND'S DEFICIENCY PLAN FOR STATE ROUTE 185, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE I111'IPLEMENTATION OF THE DEFICIENCY PLAN WILL BE MONITORED BIENNIALLY BY THE ALAMEDA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT AGENCY AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, AND THAT THE SCHEDULE AND PROGRESS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DEFICIENCY PLAN WILL BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE ANNUAL CONFORMITY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the State Legislature has determined that an integrated and coordinated traffic congestion Management system is an important aspect of a healthy State economy and environment (Government Code §05088, et seq.); and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA) is the local agency responsible for determining when a Deficiency Plan must be prepared by jurisdictions within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, a Deficiency Plan is required when peak hour vehicle speeds fall to Level of Service (LOS) rated "F" (stop and go, possibly gridlock) on any Congestion Management Program (CMP) route; and WHEREAS, State Route (SR) 185 on International Boulevard is within the City of Oakland and the Alameda County CMP network area; and WHEREAS, the ACCMA has notified the City of Oakland that it must prepare a Deficiency Plan for SR 185 on International Boulevard between 48 Avenue and 42" Avenue because traffic congestion on that route has reached a LOS rate "F and WHEREAS, the City of Oakland, is required to prepare and implement a Deficiency Plan to mitigate traffic congestion; and WHEREAS, the CMP requires a jurisdiction to participate in the preparation of a Deficiency Plan if it contributes ten percent (10 of the capacity of the roadway; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda meets the above threshold requirements and is thereby required to participate in the preparation of the SR 185 Deficiency Plan and adopt such plan at a noticed public meeting; and Resolution #4 -G CC 1 -03 -09 WHEREAS, the city of Oakland Transportation Services Division prepared a Deficiency Plan Traffic Study which evaluated traffic control, traffic flow, site characteristics, and recommended improvements; and WHEREAS, all measures proposed for implementation in the SR 185 Deficiency Plan shall be agreed upon by the cities of Oakland and Alameda prior to implementation to ensure that additional impacts are not created. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the council of the city of Alameda adopts the city of Oakland's Deficiency Plan for SR 185 on International Boulevard between 40 Avenue and 42 Avenue. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city council acknowledges that the implementation of the Deficiency Plan will be monitored at least biennially by ACCMA, as required by state law, and that the schedule and progress for implementation of the plan will be considered as part of the annual conformity requirements for the CMP. 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 3rd day of November, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said city this 4th day of November 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: November 3, 2009 Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Modify the Measure B Paratransit Program for Fiscal Year 2009/2010, and Make the Appropriate Revenue and Expenditure Budget Adjustments Based on the Pr000sed Chances BACKGROUND The City of Alameda's Paratransit Program, which serves seniors and people with disabilities, has accumulated a fund balance of Measure B Paratransit revenues. The City attempted to address this concern in 2006 by expanding the services offered, primarily through the introduction of the Premium Taxi Service. This approach was approved by the Paratransit Advisory Planning Committee (PAPCO) and the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA). While the Premium Taxi Service has grown, it has not achieved the expected usage level, and the City is again faced with a growing fund balance. ACTIA staff recommended that the City reduce the amount of funds spent to purchase East Bay Paratransit (EBP) tickets for residents. In response, staff has evaluated the current Paratransit Program to recommend program modifications that would address these immediate concerns while making the program sustainable on a long terra basis. DISCUSSION On April 7, 2009, the City Council approved a budget for Measure B Paratransit funding for 1= Y09 -10, which was also approved by PAPCO and the ACTIA Board. Since that time, ACTIA has expressed concerns about the City's fund balance and some of the program elements. In response, staff has evaluated the City's current Paratransit Program and developed recommended changes to the program. The recommendations include modifications of some of the existing services and the introduction of a fixed route shuttle service, as described below. In developing the recommended program changes, staff's objective was to develop a fiscally responsible strategy to provide needed transportation services for senior and disabled residents. Staff reviewed paratransi.t .programs and met with staff from several other jurisdictions in Alameda county. To. help ensure that the program would be sustainable once the fund balance is reduced, staff developed an estimated program City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4-H Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2009 Members of the city Council Page 2 of 7 budget through FY12 -13. This budget estimate is included as Exhibit 1. The proposed revisions to the City program have been recommended by PAPCO for approval by the ACTIA board. Elements of the Revised Paratransit Program Fixed -Route shuttle Service Program Previously approved budget: not applicable Recommended budget: $54,150 This proposed new element of the City's Paratransit Program consists of a fixed -route shuttle service which will serve the city's senior and disabled residents by providing free rides to key shopping, medical, and recreational destinations within the city. Medical destinations outside Alameda and BART stations will also be considered as potential stops for the shuttle. Initially, the shuttle will operate three days per week, for six hours per d ay. Staff's review indicates that jurisdictions where shuttles have been successful include Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Hayward, which have all seen growing ridership and a high level of user satisfaction. A fixed -route shuttle service could be successful in Alameda as well, and would offer several advantages over the existing taxi services. Key features of a shuttle service are: Provide same -day service, similar to taxi. Would be free for users (the Premium Taxi service only offers a 50% subsidy). Could serve as a bridge for some users to conventional fixed route transit, which is far cheaper than paratransit. Offers a cost effective alternative to taxi service. Accommodate future growth in the populations of seniors and people with disabilities. Provide the city with easily predictable operating costs, based on the shuttle hours of operation; by contrast, the cost of taxi services can vary based on usage. Outreach to the city's senior and disabled community will be required in developing the route and destinations for the shuttle service.': A qualified transportation provider will be selected through a bidding process. Staff recommends funding this new element to the City's Paratransit Program. The funding noted above consists of staff time required for outreach to the community, the development of a route, acquisition of a service provider, marketing, and shuttle operations beginning in March 2010. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council November 3, 2009 Page 3 of 7 To enable the implementation of the shuttle program, staff recommends modifying the previously approved Paratransit Program for FY09 -10 as follows: Premium Taxi service Previously approved budget: $3,000 Recommended budget: $3,000 The Premium Taxi Service enables people with disabilities and seniors to purchase vouchers for taxi rides at 50/0 of the cost. The Premium Taxi Service was established in FY06 -07 by pre purchasing trip vouchers from Friendly Transportation, a contractor to the City for taxi services. Due to the pre- purchase of trip vouchers, the Premium Taxi Service did not require additional funding in FY07 -08 or in FY08 -09. Staff anticipates that the pre purchased trip vouchers will be expended this year and recommends retaining the previously budgeted amount for this program. Staff recommends reducing the scope of this program in FY 1 0 -1 1 and relying on the shuttle service to meet most of the need for paratransit service not requiring advanced reservations. The Premium Taxi Service program will be reviewed during the FY11 -12 Paratransit Program evaluation to determine its effectiveness. Based upon this evaluation, the program will be adjusted to address the paratransit community needs. Medical Return Trip Im rovement Program WRTIP Previously approved budget: $45,000 Recommended budget: $2'x,770 MRTI P provides certified EBP residents with a free taxi trip to return home from medical appointments. Since EBP requires reservations a day in advance, and the ending times of medical appointments are unpredictable, these trips are not well served by EBP. Despite the recommended reduction in the IVIRTIP budget, the amount of service available would remain the same. The City currently has $23,230 worth of pre purchased Premium Taxi Service trip vouchers and, rather than use these to continue this service, the vouchers can be used to pay a portion of the MRTIP invoices. Since the recommended M RTI P budget, combined with the value of the taxi vouchers, would remain equal to the previously approved budget, IVIRTIP service would remain at its current level. The $23,230 reduced from the IVIRTIP budget could then be applied toward the shuttle service. The costs for MRTI P could increase if the program continues to grow, so staff will continue to monitor program usage and costs. In the face of budgetary constraints, potential program modifications include a mileage restriction or fare cap. Honorable Ma and November 3, 2009 Members of the Cit Council Pa 4 of 7 Su Taxi Service Previousl approved bud $1,000 Recommended bud $1,000 The Supplementar Taxi Service provides service for EBP-certified Alameda residents who need service at times when EBP does not operate. EBP operations are tied to the hours of AC Transit routes. This pro also provides taxi service for participants with critical medical appointments durin EBP's 21 -da certification period. Staff recommends maintainin the Supplementar Taxi Service as it currentl exists. Flu Shot Service Previousl approved bud $1,000 Recommended bud $0 The Cit offers a Flu Shot Taxi Service, which is coordinated with the various flu shot clinics provided to residents throu the cit The Flu Shot Taxi Service pro serves certified EBP users; residents 75 y ears and older, re of disabilit and residents 70 y ears and older that do not possess a driver's license. Staff recommends the Flu Shot Service be discontinued in the current fiscal y ear, as this pro was not popular amon Paratransit Pro users. If a demand for this service develops, it could be funded as part of Group Trips. Group Trips Previousl approved bud $25,000 Recommended bud $15,000 This pro provides a ran of trip t includin monthl trips for seniors throu the Mastick Senior Center, a shopper's shuttle, subscription g roup trips from convalescent homes, Alameda Recreation Park Department cultural event class trips, and the Annual Nursin Home Picnic Group Trip. There are no proposed service chan to this pro However, the Group Trips pro has been over bud in the past, so staff recommends this fundin be reduced in accordance with historical spendin patterns. If needed, fundin to this pro could be further curtailed to pa for other hi demand pro such as fixed route shuttle. East Ba Paratransit Tickets Previousl approved bud $38,000 Recommended bud $0 East Ba Paratransit (EBP) is the mandated paratransit service provided within 3/4 mile of fixed transit routes (AC Transit in Alameda). Alameda residents who are certified EBP users are eli to receive up to two free books of coupons (ten coupons per Honorable Mayor and November 8, 2009 Members of the City council Page 5 of 7 book), subject to availability, through this program. ACTA staff and PAPCO expressed concern about the amount of funding used to purchase East Bay Paratransit tickets annually, since EBP has indicated it does not have the ability to track the use of the tickets. The city currently has a balance of $44,250 worth of tickets available from FY08 --09, which is sufficient to sustain the current East Bay Paratransit Tickets element of the Paratransit Program until FY1 1-12. Due to the tickets previously purchased, staff recommends that the funds approved for this purpose for FY09 -1 0 be redirected to other program activities. Staff also recommends reducing its purchases of East Bay Paratransit tickets to $5,000 starting in FY1 1-12 to be more in line with other jurisdictions. Alameda deals on 'wheels Previously approved budget: $49,000 Recommended budget: $49,000 This element of the City's Paratransit Program provides funding to Alameda Ideals on Wheels, a non profit organization that delivers healthy and diet specific meals to homebound individuals in Alameda seven days per week. Staff recommends that this recently initiated component of Alameda's program continue unchanged for the current fiscal year, given the current economic climate and increased need for these services. However, staff does not anticipate this being an ongoing component of the City's Paratransit Program. Scholarshl Pro rare Previously approved budget: $'1,000 Recommended budget: $1,000 For "very low income" disabled households, as defined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, certified EBP users are eligible to receive up to two free EBP ticket books each year through the Scholarship Program with the purchase of two ticket books at the regular prices Staff recommends that the Scholarship Program be maintained as it currently exists. Staff is currently considering modifications to the requirements for this program. An enhanced Scholarship Program would benefit low- income Alameda residents who would be adversely affected by the recommended reduction in the city's expenditure on East Bay Paratransit tickets in FY1 1-12. Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2009 Members of the city Council Page 0 of 7 Program Management Previously approved budget: $30,000 Recommended budget: $30,000 This amount funds Public works staff time to complete ACTIA applications and reporting requirements, review program data and invoices, participate in ACTIA's paratransit committees, renew or establish new contracts, conduct public outreach meetings, and coordinate with the transportation providers and Mastick staff. Staff recommends no changes to this component of the Paratransit Program. Customer Service and Outreach Previously approved budget: $'19,000 Recommended budget: $1 0,000 These funds are for implementation of the marketing program, including program brochures, running print ads, and producing promotional mailings. This amount funds printing, postage, and staff time associated with conducting basic program outreach. Staff recommends reducing the previously approved amount of funding to this component of the Paratransit Program to be more in line with the annual amount spent in previous fiscal years. FINANCIAL IMPACT The proposed Paratransit Program budget (Transportation Services Fund 287) for FY09 -10 as outlined above, totals $184,920, a decrease of $27,080 from the approved FY09 -10 budget of $212,000. The program will be funded through a transfer from the Measure S Paratransit Fund 215.4 allocation of $140,140, interest allocation of $5,000 and fund balance of $31,030 from FY08 -09, totaling $170,170 to the Transportation Services Fund 287 and revenue from the Transportation Services Fund 287 for fares from taxi coupon and group trip ticket revenues of $8,750. Total transfers and revenues are $184,920. An estimated available Paratransit fund balance of $114,010 will remain at the end of FY09 -10 in the Measure B Paratransit Fund 215.4. This program does not impact the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The city's Paratransit Program is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element Objective: objective 4.1.5 Consider the transportation needs of the community, including those with limited mobility options. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION November 3, 2009 Page 7 of 7 Adopt a resolution authorizing the Interim City Manager to modify the Measure B Paratransit Program for FY09 -10, and make the appropriate revenue and expenditure budget adjustments based on the proposed changes. Approved as to funds and account, f d-7 Interim Finance Director YKL .gc Exhibit(s): 1. Paratransit Proposal 2009 Budget 2007 -2013 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO MODIFY THE MEASURE B PARATRANSIT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 200912010, AND MAKE THE APPROPRIATE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that equivalent paratransit service be provided within 314 mile and during the regular operating hours of fixed route transit services for those who are determined to be eligible for such services; and WHEREAS, Alameda residents who are seniors or who have disabilities have transportation needs that are not always met by the existing fixed route transit services; and WHEREAS, the city of Alameda receives an allocation from Measure B sales tax revenue, administered by the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA), to provide paratransit services for seniors and people with disabilities to supplement ADA- mandated services; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2009, the City Council. authorized spending of Measure B Paratransit funds in accordance with the annual program submittal presented to ACTIA for FY09 -10 with an approved budget of $212,000; and WHEREAS, city staff, after consultation with ACTIA staff and the public, has recommended a revision to the city's approved FY09 -10 Paratransit program; and WHEREAS, the city's revised paratransit program budget includes funding for the development and operation of a new fixed -route shuttle service for seniors and people with disabilities; and WHEREAS, the revised paratransit program will include the following previously authorized program components. 1. The Medical Return Trip Improvement Program, which provides free taxi service to East Bay Paratrasit (EBP)- certified residents to return home from medical appointments. 2. The Premium Taxi service, which provides taxi services, not limited to medical trips, at 50% discount for eligible residents. 3. Provision of up to two free EBP coupon books. 4. scholarship program to assist very low income households. 5. Group trips to provide transportation for outings for seniors. 6. Meal delivery through Alameda Meals on Wheels. Resolution #4 -H CC 11 -03 -Q9 7. Supplemental paratransit service offering taxi rides during hours when EBP is not in operation. WHEREAS, the revised program is designed to implement needed services for seniors and people with disabilities and to be cost- effective and fiscally sustainable; and WHEREAS, on October 26, 2009, the Paratransit Advisory Planning Committee (PAPCO), an advisory body to ACTIA, recommend approval of the City's revised spending proposal for FY09 -10; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda revised program budget for Measure B Paratransit funds for FY09 -10 is estimated to be $184,920. NOVA, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda, that the Interim City Manager is authorized to subunit a revised spending program for Measure B Paratransit funds for FY09110 in the amount of $184,920; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Interim City Manager is authorized to make the appropriate revenue and expenditure budget adjustments based on the proposed changes. 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 3rd day of November, 2009, by the following vote to grit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 4th day of November, 2009. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: November 3, 2999 Re: Introduce an ordinance Amending ordinance No. 2130, N.S. Updating the Civil Service System of the City of Alameda BACKG The City Council first adopted a Civil Service System ordinance on May 24, 1938. The existing Civil Service System ordinance was approved by the City Council on May 17, 1983, and has not been amended since that date. DISCUSSION The Civil Service Board reviewed the existing Civil Service System ordinance and determined that outdated and obsolete language needed to be revised. over the past months, the Civil Service Board identified language that needed to be replaced or modified to reflect modern terms and current standards and practices, and to bring the Ordinance into compliance with California State law. Specifically, the ordinance amends language under Section 2 to add the phrase "Sexual orientation" and replaces the phrase "physical handicap" with "disability other proposed language changes are in keeping with more updated terminology. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact associated with introducing this ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance to amend ordinance No. 2130, New Series, updating the Civil Service System of the City of Alameda. Respectfull, submitted, z� Karen Willis Human Resources Director City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4=1 11 n3 -0g CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2130, NEW SERIES, UPDATING THE CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that Ordinance No. 2130 N.S. regarding the administration of the Civil Service System of the City g g y of Alameda is amended to read as follows: Section 1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this ordinance to facilitate competent and efficient administration of the government of the City of Alameda through provision for making appointments based upon merit and fitness, g p g pp p and provision for such security of tenure as is compatible with efficiency and discipline. Section 2. Civil Service Merit Principles. In accordance with Article xlll of the City harter, this Ordinance establishes a Civil Service ice Meat System for the City of Alameda. In order to assure effective personnel management applicable to all categories of Civil Service Employees, governing officials of the City of Alameda will subscribe to the following Civil Service Merit Principles. Merit Principle No. 1 Recruiting, selecting and advancing of employees on the basis of their relative ability, knowledge, and skills, including open competitive consideration of qualified applicants far initial appointment. Merit Principle No. 2: Retaining employees on the adequacy of their performance, correcting inadequate performance, separating employees whose inadequate performance cannot be corrected. Merit Principle No. 3: Assuring fair treatment of applicants and employees in all aspects of personnel administration without regard to race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, medical condition, marital status or sexual orientation and with proper regard for their privacy and other rights as afforded by law. introduction of Ordinance #4 .1 CC 11 -03SE09 Merit Principle Cho. 4: Assuring that employees are protected against coercion for partisan political purposes and are prohibited from using their official authority for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election or nomination of office. S ection 3 Board n s. The Civil Service Board shall hold regular .i,.,,.,,,,,., meetings at such time and place as shah be designated by the Board. In addition, the Board may hold special meetings upon call of the Chairman or any three members of the Board. A notice of all regular meetings will be published at least five days prior to the meeting. A vote of three members is required to take any action. All motions receiving a tie vote will be continued on the agenda for the first regular following meeting. The Human Resources Director, City of Alameda, shall serve as the Executive Secretary of the Board. Section 4. Scope of the Civil Service Program. The Civil Service of the City of Alameda shall consist of all positions of employment and offices (hereinafter designated as positions) of or under jurisdictions of the City of Alameda, except: (a) All offices or positions exempted by the Charter of the City of Alameda. (b) The officers and /or members of all boards created by the Charter or by the ordinance. (c) Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager and all City Department Heads that report to the City Manager. (d) All uncompensated positions. (e) All part -time or temporary positions. (f) All personnel hired in conjunction with a State of Federally funded program or other specially funded projects. (g) All persons or agencies employed to render professional, scientific or expert service of an occasional or exceptional character usually on a contract basis for a designated period of time. Section 5. Exemption. At the request of the Council as to any position under its authority or under the authority of the City Manager, the Civil Service Board shall have power to exempt from the Civil Service of the City of Alameda any position therein, such exemption to continue until revoked by the Civil Service Board. Such exemption shall be made only when the position is of a confidential nature, or when it is impossible to determine fitness by competitive examination. Section 8. Implementation. The civil Service System established by this ordinance shall be implemented under such Civil Service Rules governing administration as adopted by the civil Service Board. The Human Resources Director shall have the responsibility and authority to implement the provisions of the ordinance, the civil Service Rules, and the decisions of the Board. Section 7. civil Service mules. The civil Service Rules shall establish regulations governing the civil Service System, including: (a) Preparation, implementation, revision, and maintenance of a position classification plan, including reclassification, class specifications, employment standards and qualifications for each class. (b) Public announcement of examinations and acceptance of applications for employment. (c) Preparation and conduct of competitive examinations and the use of the resulting eligibility lists. (d) Certification and appointment of persons from eligibility list, and the making of temporary and emergency appointments. (e) Evaluation of employee's performance. (f) Transfer, promotion, demotion, reinstatement, separation, and lay -off of employees in the civil Service. (g) The granting of leaves of absence from positions in the Civil Service. (h) Methods for appeal regarding disciplinary action of employee's rights defined by the Civil Service Ordinance. Section 8. Discipline and Appeal. A regular civil Service employee may be dismissed, removed, demoted for disciplinary reasons, or suspended without pay only when given advance notice in writing, of the proposed action. The requirement of notification shall be waived whenever such a delay in action could be harmful to the public or to other employees. A regular civil Service employee who has been fined in excess of one month's salary or suspended without pay for more than thirty days may appeal to the Civil Service Board. The Board will consider the request for a hearing, and will hear the appeal under the provisions set forth in the Civil Service Rules. Section g. Board Powers and Actions. In addition to the powers granted herein, the Civil Service Board shall have the power to require assistance from officers and employees of the City of Alameda, as may be necessary or proper to carry out the duties unposed on the Board. In the conduct of hearings, the Board may: (a) Issue subpoenas requiring attendance of witnesses and production of records, documents or other materials before it. (b) Administer oaths and affirmations. Section 10. Written Notice. Any written notice required to be given to any employee by the provisions of this ordinance, unless herein otherwise specifically provided, may be given either by personal service or by mail. In .the case of service by mail, the notice must be deposited with the United .States Post Office, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, addressed to the person on whore it is to be served, at the address in any notice given by him or at his. last known address, and if there is no last known address, then addressed to hire at the City of Alameda. Service by mail shall be deemed complete at the time of the deposit with the Post office. Section 11. Right to contract for Special Services. Nothing in this Ordinance shall be deemed to prevent the City of Alameda from contracting for any type or category of service, including, but not limited to, special or technical services related to personnel employment and administration. Section 12. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, shall, for any reason, be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of this and the application thereof to other persons or circumstances, but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence, paragraph, or part thereof, directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered and to the person or circumstances involved. Section 13. This ordinance may be cited as "THE CIVIL SERVICE ORDINANCE OF THE CITE' OF ALAIII'IEDA." Section 14. 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 15. Upon the effective date of this ordinance, City of Alameda Ordinance No. 2130 N.S., and all amendments and revisions thereto, relating to establishing and regulating the Civil Service system of the City of Alameda, shall be fully and completely repealed. Presiding officer of the City Council Attest: L.ara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda 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 my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of 2009. L.ara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALA EDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: November 3, 2009 Re: Final Passage of ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 30-5.14 (Barriers and Fences) of Article I (Zoning Districts and 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 BACKGROUND The proposed zoning ordinance amendment was introduced at the October 20, 2009 City Council meeting. At the meeting, the City Council requested that the ordinance be further amended to: 1. Limit Administrative Use Permits for temporary fences to six months, and 2. Require that requests for extensions to the six -month limit require Use Permit review and approval by the Planning Board. DISCUSSION The requested changes have been made to the draft ordinance amendments. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact from the proposed zoning text amendment. 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. City Council Report Re: Agend2 Item #4 =J Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 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 REVIEW 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 Approve the second reading of the ordinance to amend the 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. CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE No. New Series 0 Q. a. 2 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SUBSECTION 30 --5.14 (BARRIERS AND FENCES) OF ARTICLE I (ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS) OF CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY ADDING SUBSECTION 305.14 e TO REQUIRE ADMINISTRATIVE USE 4 PERMITS IN NON- RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR TEMPORARY OR N PERMANENT BARRIERS OR FENCES WITHIN A REQUIRED SETBACK. IN OR ALONG A PROPERTY LINE THAT FACES A PUBLIC STREET OR A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) does not adequately regulate the construction of fences and barriers in commercial and industrial zones; and 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 non residential 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. Final Passage of ordinance #4 CC 11.03 -99 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY of ALAMEDA DOES ORDAIN As FOLLOWS: Section 1 Ordinance Adoption 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 gray 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. Administrative Use Permits for temporary fences shall be conditioned to require removal of the fence in six months. Requests for extensions to the six -month term shall require a Use Permit approved by the Planning Board. Section 2. SeverabiIit 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 Weisiger, City clerk City of Alameda 1, the undersigned, hereby regularly adopted and passed by assembled on the day of AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting 2009, by the following vote to wit: 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 ORDINANCE NO. New Series ARTICLE 1. UNIFORM CODES RELATING To BUILDING, HOUSING AND TECHNICAL CODES 13-13 ALAMEDA GREEN BUILDING CODE 13 -13.1 Adoption of California Green Building Standards Code. The California Green Building Standards Code, 2008 Edition, published by the California Building Standards Commission, is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein at length, and shall be known as the Alameda Green Building Code. 13-13.2 Copy of California Green Building Standards Code with the Building official. A copy of the California Green Building Standards Code, 2008 Edition, has been deposited in the Office of the Building Official of the City and shall be maintained for use and examination by the public. Section 2 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Alameda herby declares. that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section 3. All former ordinances or parts thereof conflictin g or inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance hereby adopted, to the extent of such conflict only, are hereby repealed. Dina) Passage of g Ordinance #4 -K CC 1 -43 -0g AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER XIII (BUILDING AND HOUSING) BY ADDING ARTICLE I SECTION 1 S. 3 (ALAMEDA GREEN BUILDING CODE) TO ADOPT THE 2008 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended b adding g a new Article I Section 13.13 to Chapter X I I I of the Alameda Municipal Code which shall read as follows: ARTICLE 1. UNIFORM CODES RELATING To BUILDING, HOUSING AND TECHNICAL CODES 13-13 ALAMEDA GREEN BUILDING CODE 13 -13.1 Adoption of California Green Building Standards Code. The California Green Building Standards Code, 2008 Edition, published by the California Building Standards Commission, is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein at length, and shall be known as the Alameda Green Building Code. 13-13.2 Copy of California Green Building Standards Code with the Building official. A copy of the California Green Building Standards Code, 2008 Edition, has been deposited in the Office of the Building Official of the City and shall be maintained for use and examination by the public. Section 2 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Alameda herby declares. that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section 3. All former ordinances or parts thereof conflictin g or inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance hereby adopted, to the extent of such conflict only, are hereby repealed. Dina) Passage of g Ordinance #4 -K CC 1 -43 -0g Section 4. The City Clerk of the City of Alameda is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in the official Newspaper of the city of Alameda Section 5. 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 30 days after the date of its final passage and adoption. Presiding officer of the council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City clerk 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 t!'lleisig er, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: November 3, 2009 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to consider Adopting Amendment #1 to the FY09 -10 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan, Authorize the Interim city Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications and Authorize Staff to Make the Appropriate Bud yet Ad'ustments The City is an entitlement recipient of Community. Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban _Development_ (HUD)..CDBG funds finance programs and activities that benefit low- and moderate- income persons and help prevent or eliminate slums and blight. In May 2009, the City Council adopted the FY09 -10 CDBG Action Plan (Plan). Amendment #1 will reallocate funds to public facilities and direct services projects. All citizen participation requirements have been met. DISCUSSION Details of the proposed Amendment #1 are included as Exhibit 1 and summarized below. The one time funding available for re- programming is ..generated. from unanticipated program income, and the reallocation of FY08 -09. funds from cloaed or canceled projects. Following approval of the Amended Action Flan, grant modifications or agreements will be negotiated to fulfill Federal.and city requirements. The form of agreements and modifications are the same as those previously approved by the city Council and the city Attorney. Public Facilities Improvements: The following public facility activities benefiting low- and moderate- income Alamedans are proposed: 0 $50,000 in additional funding for acquisition and installation of dental equipment for the dental clinic at the college of Alameda; $175,000 for the acquisition and installation of a library book dispenser adjacent to the Alameda Point Collaborative community Center; and $75,000 in funding to upgrade the kitchen at the Littlejohn Park Community Center. City Council Pubic Hearing Agenda Item ##6 -A -3 -09 Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 Public services. An additional $9,825 in funding for public services is available for re- programming. It is proposed that $7,825 be. budgeted for the Multi Hazard Prevention Program, as a match for a $05,000 Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) grant the Fire Department received, to assist seniors living in Alameda.. In addition, $2,000 is proposed for the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) program, which assists lour- income residents with federal income tax preparation. Over.. 200 people are assisted through VITA annually. Both .projects were presented to the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) on October.22, 2009.. Included as Exhibit 2 is SSHRB's letter concurring with staff's funding recommendations. Residential Rehabilitation Programs: It is proposed. that ..$114,1 .03 in.. CDBG program income supplement the City's existing Residential Rehabilitation Programs, including Housing Rehabilitation, Rental Rehabilitation, Accessibility Modification, and as a Pilot Program, a partnership with the Alameda Fire Department to provide fire prevention- related devices like smoke detectors. This pilot .program will provide the balance of the match required for the Multi- Hazard Prevention Program. FINANCIAL I M PACT The funds for Amendment ##1 to the FY09 7 10 CDB ActionPlan will come from C.D.BG Fund 230, administered by the Economic Development Department. Budget adjustments are required for the reprogrammed funds. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The execution of related agreements and. final funding commitments are. subject to satisfactory environmental clearance under 24 CFR Part 58. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Amendment #1 to the FY09 -10 CDBO Action Plan, authorize the Interim. City Manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements, and modifications, and authorize staff to make the appropriate budget adjustments. Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council Approved as to funds and account, Glenda Ja Interim na Director t' Exhibits: 1. Action Plan Summary, Amendment 1 2. SSHRB Letter November 3, 2009 Page 3of3 ui 0 0 Z u 0 n L_ 4- U) M Lr) 4-J E 4-J Li I— u E -a E Q) 0 cn c: 4- C: M 0 (n U 'V c c P-4 4- E L_ fu ro LL _0 C: ru _0 C: M 4-J E c: 4-J u C G) 0_0 C C: U_ co ru LO 4-J 4-J fu Ln C: U U_ Q) u C N C D 0) 4-J 70 a) ul .0 Q. C: U C) U 0 CL u Z3 nn (A 0 U-) Q) 4-J U-) E 0 U C o 4-J L- (A L_ u 0 4-1 4-J E u U 4T r13 U) Q) 0 ur) C c IM Now 0 am A E L 0 am >1 ic X c CL 41 C 0 0 0 41 �-g IZ 05 C). N' I N C� I'lljol 0� �N, a;v g C) CD (Z) 0 AA_ iA- 0 0 A M I N O -R, 0 .1. rMR. g e, M 1777% MI", ".7 -v�- inr (5 Ln Ln Ln Lr) g 21 U. �Ielel�lll o Ble -g 0 xg,l "0 'OR W 'N' 00 M t 00 uj iA- rJr k�. gg V�, N IN 'M g-­ '1 0 E g 0 IN al 5M O q. g R g K R M M W MINN, g gg 0 WIN a wo g 1 MI ON 10 10 al III IN w 1� IN MEMO NMI' w Well s. w s 0 AV II �g N w CID L. uj 01 0 W g U 0 Ch C� CL U. OEM g MW peg v; IN"Iffill, w W, g LU �Mv 'N vo W 0 gv g, i go o I W _0 p F g o PER' u 4-J IU Q l.., .7 WnEw ME SO 'o W, o O IN i r 0 1 el WIN NO WE IN M"W' "ARM* WIN 0 CL LL rl !N1 Lr) cs C ME LL, Lu 0) rr ,7, gommo o" uj c vJ 4-J UJ 0 U 1 VJ 0 0 1111H M, IT (3) 0 CL 0 flo 4-1 LU g g LLI 4-J UJ V) U) ­-M 0 W z 4-J u 0-6 0) M co (U CD lu j. r (13 CO 70 r 4 0 0 (1) rsl 0.. 0 Ln C) 0 C) r E Ln Ln Ln 0 U. LU Ln T _0 4-J 0 Q) C: u (3) 0) Q) U) ro 0 0• CL 4-J U 0 4-J M Ln Ul 4-J Ln 0 0 U SIN o a) 4-J CD U w ZZ M co CD Q) U fu 0 nr 0 0 4-J U LC M u 4- j vN ro Ln cn E V E -Lon cn 4W u M 4-J 0 C c IM Now 0 am A E L 0 am >1 ic X c CL 41 d V 1 1[ 0 1 l 1" l W y r a;fi F �y 0 L' I f A. �T I Y 0 J& V 1;1' V v ti T k 1J V T i Y �r f<"° y A T �I 4 1 I 00 LJ i 0) ■c t 1 Ln 1 1 1 Ln W Ln `i Ln f S n, 5 �.J V o oo �t to Ln m -rte n n� Ear Ln Ln N r+� r rn M rn co n x N y C.7 ry nt ui -bP)- r-i T-A ,--4 ,-•i ce z NIB 0 W Q (D W Q (D W Yy on Q 3 W �C o� Q W z W 2 Lu l— z L u z W z W ui Z ©mo o o o u c) -'0 o 0 mo G3 0 =offi G3 C3 U Ch o 0 =o LL 0 a. x 0- uj a CL f l l 0 o 0 fl S o C)L tL m Lr) 0 [ll Ln d to d Ln 0. D. C:7 C7 x uj u j E J EE E _C C C E J M J E S] COM C i O C6 [a QJ _0 v oz [n (U o •tn U a) 43 Ln 06 V) u} (u C c S tn N /3 (U C6 Ln Ln o 0 fl U W 7 s� 4-J L 0 L Q) U Wfl L w U U S.� U „C r r a L 43 U Co o Q C.... W Q B C U J U Q C W U d U Q Lr) C W U Q C UJ U d u au a) (1) v Q) 0 CO C 00 C:) LO C Ln C 0 co C C7 Ln A 0 00 d CO U-) u (D 0 :3 r� C7 l 11 l V d 1 L x C7� F r Ln E E L n c�Ln E v y N r��Q LEI C) Ln v Ln v Ln Ln Ln Ln 0 Ln U u U V V ui Q) ui ^a L v Q. L C Ln -C v v m .S] -W m Ln v La w L Co L 2 7- fo t� E (A E� i U c C Q) L- 1:3 M 0 U 4- U C C v QJ 0 th •r a� v YJ m i Q Ln a v v 4-J c 0 ..0 V cn p 4 a7 _0 4 4 v Q3 (v C_ V) `r' a C C i SION Ln fu C: j 3: C `L L1 �C c C U v .0 C GD v r- U fl Qi i L 2 Q 0) L V L V C a IU L Ef) U 4 E OWN S ul v -W fl ra 4 .i m J N Q J N Lll amm 3 -a fl 45C E co c: E :2 U w fl y" L 0 C[ U .J co Ri LA. C Lu p U CQ ll.. l� C Cn rl R3 N L U LL1 .0 U Cl) N CL L u LLJ (A uj u 0 (D z m z D LL. uj CL u LU uj U 0 LU U r"l M. 0 Z 0 j M.M 0 im: ,J _j all no Im g k Lij (D LU Uj LU WIER C) m IRS 0 0 L) 0 u 0 u C) 1. WE Rn M p g Q) Ell I El pe- 0 x CD 0) 0 0 CL g 0 C) 0 r cn C: r_ 4-J (1) U 4-j 4-J 4-J u LO C?5 (o (1) 0 0 E L Q 0 6 Ln Ln Q) u LO u ry) 121 Q. Ln fu -C -0 4-J 06 C Ln m (Ta 0 V) 4-J CO C) We V. fl 4-J -E In C) N :3 E LU 0 4-1 Ln E Z3. Ch C) 20 0 C) -U+ if�- N (71 1& iA- r%% C) Ln id9r 1& 0 Ln 0 CD 0 IS 2, M" 0 r am,, ml CD (N C) N C vi 00 1 C t 0 e... N Nil '44 N C4 i& iA— VO u C A 0) m U) I A. E Aw 4-J U U) C Z Q) 0 4-J (1) U 4-J 4-J u LO C?5 (o (1) 0 0 cn 0 4-j 0 ry) 121 Ln fu -0 4-J M m (Ta 0 V) 4-J CO C) We V. fl 4-J -E ff m u Lf T:3 :3 E N 4-1 E Z3. 4-J U U) C Z Q) 0 4-J (1) U 4-J 4-J u LO C?5 (o (1) 0 0 ry) CY) >1 4-J 0 4-J CO C) 0 6 4-J -E :3 E N E E E Ln E In At T--i .0 U) 0 Lr) 0 .U. u u 4-J -E _0 0 (D N 0 Ln :3 u L- m C) U) 1 1 -0 Ln 0 T--i u Ln C: v 01 Vi -0 LE a C) 0 4-J Q) -C m E E C C: C: 0) o u m .1-i M L. m 4-j Z L 0 -E 0) (a) cr 0 cn Q) Ez 0- 0 4-J 0 u M 4 -J 4-1 V) 0 >1 fu tn 0 4-1 A n 0- 0 4-j 41 m tn fu 41 m 0 V) 0 4..j E 4-1 U u -E id c m C 4-J Q Q) 0 (U 0 Q) Ur) 0 u u T I Q (a U LN 4-J 0 u 4j a m fa V) (1) i- U 7 Q) U C- U E u fu c 0 L- cz a z to 3: E L U U fU 4-1 ul u W V) Li L L ij Q) E fu E M Ln Q Ln v E E Q Ln CL z Cn 0 (D ch in Ln p c) 0 0 o v o F, r• co co Ln o Ln Ln N v o is9 r o v J- 4d:> n n -rte- -Q- ii)- I v C o o v n r• n v as U) 0 N n o0 G4 N v N v �t rn 00 a Li 4 0 [A (D L7 W _j Q LD W w _j 6j _j w c' W -i Q (D LD LD W co 2: W co M co 0 a ©cc. u =o u❑ U "V❑ =aF U LEA U U. v U.1 fl. N Q -0 '7 r� p Ln p �z 4 m 0 r u c I u 0 a 0 LU �2�Cl �0. W Q Q a ac u CL (Y) n U e--� N Juj Ln 0 U U W U E D U C R3 J Q o U i •E L7 M m E C: o 0 ❑U N Q M a) E 2 c E cn 70 V) d7 N L u ZS C `=3 mlea c C: v Q) p E ru 0 ROME C C a J v v o N ro Q ro (U CU E tC� N 4) Ul C: 0 D v v] U .N D W u_ Amp r. (U L C) tll N 4-J Ln -a [t3 0) ISMIN (n Lf) ,rte •v 0 E E w Z 0 E s... 01 loom -0 N 4-1 4m; 0- d ra NOWN o u 0 a v v u w l a a ru Ln ra Q) E fu E M Ln Q Ln v E E Q Ln CL z Cn 0 (D ch in Ln To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council From: Cyndy Wasko, President Social Service Human Relations Board Subject: Social Service Human Relations Board Recommendations Regarding Community Development Block Grant Public Service Funding The Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) advises the City Council regarding social service and human relations needs in Alameda. In 1997, the Council asked the SSHRB to participate in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) process by reviewing and commenting on the public service needs and funding recommendations. Unanticipated Program Income received between April and June of 2000 has increased the CDBG Public Services cap, making available additional funding for Public Service activities that can be completed by June 30, 2010. The SSHRB previously identified funding for the volunteer Income Tax Assistance program should additional Program Income become available. At our October 22 meeting, the SSHRB considered Staff's additional recommendation to fund the Fire Department's Multi Hazard Prevention Program. CDBG funding will be used as a match for a $66,127 grant received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to implement a safety prevention assessment and training program to prevent fire and fall related injuries to seniors. Both programs address community priority needs and are consistent with the special focus areas identified by the SSHRB at its feeds Hearing last December. Based on the presentation and discussion, the SSHRB unanimously recommends the city Council approve the CDBG public services funding recommendations as published. cc: Social Service Human Relations Board Economic Development Director City Council Exhibit 2 to D evelopment Services Department Public Hearing 950 West Mall Square Item #��A .Alameda, Cali -rnia 94501 755- Agenda 5 1U49%58 Fax 5 0.749.5808 TDD 510.522,7538 11 Pr fitted on Retyc•led Paper CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council From: Lara Weisiger City Clerk Date: November 3, 2009 Re: Adopt a Resolution calling an Election in the city of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors an Initiative Regarding Development at Alameda Point and Setting the Election to be consolidated with the County's February 2 2010 Election BACKGROUND On March 25, 2009, SunCal Companies submitted to the city Clerk's office a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition amending the City charter, General Plan, and zoning ordinance and adopting a specific plan and development agreement. The Petition containing the signatures was filed on September 23, 2009, at which time it was transmitted to the Registrar of Voters for examination of the signatures. On October 14, 2009, the city clerk received the Registrar of Voters' report that .the Petition contains a total of 9,185 signatures, of which 423 signatures were. found. to be sufficient. This represents 123% of the total number of signatures needed to .qu.alify the initiative based on the random sample examination. Because 15% of the qualified voters of Alameda signed the Petition, a certificate of Sufficiency has been transmitted to the City council, and the council is required to submit the proposal to the voters. DISCUSSION State elections lave does not specifically address an initiative that has both a Charter amendment and an ordinance. An initiative that is only a charter amendment may .be set for election 88 days or more from the calling of the election, under Sec. 9255. An ordinance initiative with 15% of qualified voters` signatures can be. adopted by the City Council or set for election 88 to 103 days out, with some exceptions, under secs. 9214 and 1405. An ordinance initiative with 10% of qualified voters` signatures generally is required to be submitted to voters at the next regular municipal election at least 88.days out, under Sec. 9215. Given that the initiative is not solely a charter amendment, and it has been signed by 15% of voters, the election should be called for a date. no sooner than 88 days or more than 103 days from the date of the city council Resol.ution to set the election (Elections code, Sections 1405, 9214). The next available special election within Alameda county will be held on February 2, 2010. As this date is within the 88-- 1 03 day window, the City council should set the Initiative for February 2, 2010. City Council Report Fie: Agenda Item ##6mB 11 w3 =0g Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FINANCIAL IMPACT November 3, 2009 Page 2 of 2 The estimated cost of placing this measure on the County's February 2, 2010 ballot is between $235,000 $325,000; this estimate does not include the cost of printing the entire 200 plus page initiative ballot measure in the event that a citizen requests it in accordance with Sec. 9280. As of the date of this report, SunCal has not committed to reimbursing the City for the cost of the election. RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolution calling an election in the City of Alameda for the purpose of submitting to the electors an Initiative regarding development at Alameda Point, and setting the election to be consolidated with the County's February 2, 2010 election. Approved as to funds and account, Glen a a Interim Finance Director XTERNAL The City Clerk's office received the attached external correspondence regarding Agenda Item #6 -B on the 11 -03 -2009 Regular City Council Agenda Case Details Print Close Case Number: 18416 Ta Customer: howard, david external customer 928 ta ave Alameda CA 94501 519673-0998 mowster@sbc Preferred Contact Method: Email Submitted B howard, david customer Topic: Cit Clerk's Office>Council Records Cit y Clerk Status: Reso Ived Re T Complaint Location of Re Facilit N/A Primar Owner: Aco rd, Liz Date/Time Created: 10/21/2009 14:13 Date/Time Closed: 10/26/2009 09:11 l1111111111 Ori Re I j ust want to g o on record that I still oppose S u nC a I's initiative for Alameda Po int, and I don't bu all this malarke about makin chan to the development a or to the DDA. The development a forms part of the initiative and can't be chan And I don't trust SunCal to hold to an promises about a DDA PAST the vote on the initiative. In 2007, SunCal stood before y ou (Council) and said the had $600 million in a "full discretionar fund with mone from Lehman, Now, earlier this y ear, SunCal's execs Elieff and Cook swore under penalt of perju in court that Lehman never came up with that mone I will send the court documents to y ou if y ou like. SunCal can't be trusted. Sa "NO" to SunCal! Customer Communications No records of communication activities found Tasks Complete Due Sub Assi B Assi To Status I 1--.1-11 Case Contacts Attachments No attachments found Re: A Item #6-B 11-03-09 (10/2612009) Lara Weisiger For enterin into the Nov.. 3rd City Council p ack et. Page 1 From: "David Howard" <mowster c3sbcglobal.net> To: <Iweisige a@ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 1912312909 5:06 PM Subject: For entering into the Nov. 3rd City Council packet. Hi don't know of AMG fwd'd this on to you or not... Original Message---- From: Ann Marie Gallant mailto:AGallant a@ci.alameda.ca.usj Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 3 :57 PM To: mowster @sbcglobal.net Cc: Beverly Johnson; Doug DeHaan; Frank Matarrese; Lena Tam; Marie Gilmore Subject: RE: $500K for oak Knoll... City Clerk's office will handle per policy. TX "David Howard" <mowster a@sbcglobal.net> 10/23/2009 3:34 PM Please enter this into the formal record as input for the November 3rd Alameda City Council Meeting In SunCal's RFP responses to the City of Alameda, in early 2007, they bragged of a "$600 million fully discretionary fund" funded with Lehman's money. In court filings over the past two months, SunCal's CEO himself swore under penalty of perjury that Lehman "never came close to satifsying" that funding. Court documents also show that SunCal was to have put in $66 million into the same fund, making it a $666 million fund. But less than a month after Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, SunCal closed up shop at Oak Knoll pulled their staff, closed their construction trailer, etc. Evidently they didn't even have the $66 million they promised. (Happy to share the court documents if you want to see them.) Same guy Pat Keliher in charge of both Oak Knoll and Alameda Point. Court documents also show that SunCal's CEO and wife are personally on the hook for $230 million in loan guarantees on Lehman /SunCal projects and Lehman's attorney's are NOT letting them wriggle off. What happens to SunCal and their projects when Bruce Elieff and wife file for personal bankruptcy? So I ask you who is performing due diligence on the DE Shaw- SunCal deal now, to make sure we don't get a repeat of this at Alameda Point? I remember Council /CIC /ARRA giving this direction to development services staff some months ago, but never saw the fruits of that effort. h ttp /Hacti on a l ameda org /a cti on a l a m eda newsb log /2009/ 10/06 /revitalize -a lameda point- suncal- didnt- have -as- much -leh man- money -as- they presented/ David Howard 928 Taylor Ave Alameda, CA 94501 From: Don and Jeannette Sent: Friday, October 23, 2409 3:18 PM To: Joe Aguirre Subject: RE: $500K for Oak Knoll... Dear Mr. Aguirre: SunCal's recent press releases appear to have been deliberately designed to mislead the public. 1 can't say that I am not surprised. As of an hour ago there was nothing in the docket re the release of $500,004 for use at oak Knoll. Further, it doesn't appear to be coming anytime soon as your company's attorney objected just yesterday, in documents filed with the 10/26/2009) Lara Weisiger For entering into the Nov. 3rd City Council p acket. court, over how the money was to be spent (to include half of it being used to purchase insurance policies to protect against suits by the city of Oakland and concerned neighbors). We both know that $250,000 will pay for one grazing of the property by goats or a few, marginally trained, armed security personnel for 3 -4 months. This is nothing considering what is legally required at the site. Thus far we have SunCal contributing zero NOTHING- toward any of the required abatement at Oak Knoll and Lehman offering to loan SunCal $500K for token work at the site. This is laughable in light of what needs to be done at Oak Knoll and there being $6 billion legally available from non bankrupt subsidiaries to comply with Oakland's lawful order to abate. SunCal ought to exhibit some token amount of good faith and at least get roving security on the property immediately and until such time that the lawyers finish their bickering over such a pathetic amount of money. Failure to do so will bode quite unfavorably for SunCal at Alameda Point. Donald Mitchell Sequoyah Hills /Oak Knoll Neighborhood Association On Ailed, 10121109, Joe Aguirre wrote: From: Joe Aguirre Subject: RE: $500K for Oak Knoll... To: "Don and Jeannette" Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2009, 3 :34 PM Dear Mr. Mitchell, I did some research following your inquiry and here's the information I've obtained. On Thursday, October 15, Judge Erithe A. Smith of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Santa Ana verbally granted in open court SunCal's motion that $500,000 of cash collateral be released to address urgent matters at Oak Knoll. These matters specifically include weed abatement, wood pile cleanup, the staffing of five security guards onsite around the clock, ongoing fence repairs and a survey of fire hydrants throughout the property to determine their condition. The purpose of this survey is to identify the estimated costs for repairs to the hydrant system. The court staff is in the process of transferring the judge's verbal order to written form, which she will then sign. Once this order has been signed, we will have the documented authorization in hand that enables the actual release of the funds from Lehman Brothers and the bankruptcy court trustee. We expect this to take place very soon, but we cannot speak for the court and provide an estimate. As a point of clarification, matters such as verbal orders are typically not immediately posted by the court on the Pacer system. Processing time by court staff is required, the written order must be executed by the judge, and the court staff will then post the legal record in the Pacer system. SunCal is ready to resume the cleanup of the Oak Knoll property as soon as we obtain the signed authorization, and of course we want to begin this work right away. Our manager in Oakland has already contacted various vendors to handle the cleanup, maintenance and security, and we anticipate that it will only be a matter of days before this gets underway. _Pag 2 _.r....... (1 012612009) Lara Weisiger For enterin into the Nov. 3rd City Council p acket. Page 3 For your information, we first filed action against Lehman Brothers in November 2008 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York and then initiated the current case in January 2009 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Santa Ana Thank you, Joe Aguirre Public Affairs SunCal Companies From: Don and Jeannette Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 2:11 PM To: Joe Aguirre Subject: $500K for Oak Knoll... Hello, Mr. Aguirre: I read your 10/19 press release on your Alameda Point website but find nothing in the court documents to support SunCai's published release yesterday that funds have been released for use at Oak Knoll. I have checked U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California's docket in the combined Lehman /SunCal case called "Palmdale Hills As late as today, 6 days after the last bankruptcy court hearing on the Lehman/SunCal case, there still is nothing in the Bankruptcy Court's docket to support anything in SunCal's press release. There is also nothing in the court's old file, for SunCal Oak Knoll, LLC alone, supporting SunCai's press release. Can you clarify this, please? Thank you, Don Mitchell This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http:l /www.messagelabs,com /email CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. CALLING AN ELECTION IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ON FEBRUARY Z, 2010, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS AN INITIATIVE REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AT ALAMEDA POINT Y 0 0 0 MEN WHEREAS, pursuant to the Charter of the City of Alameda and the general law, an initiative petition has been filed on September 23, 2000 with the Clerk of the City of Alameda, signed by more than 15% of the voters of the city, to submit to the voters a proposed Charter amendment, General Plan Amendment, Community Plan, Specific Plan, zoning ordinance amendment, and development agreement, entitled and hereinafter referenced as the, "Alameda Point Development NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT: Section 1. Pursuant to Elections Code Sections 9255(a)(3) and 9214 the City Council of the City of Alameda does hereby call a special election in the City on February 2, 2010 at which on the Alameda Point Development initiative shall be submitted to the voters of the City. Section Z. The City Council hereby declares its intent to consolidate this special election with the Election to be held on February Z, 2010. Section 3. The ballot label for the measure shall read as follows: MEASURE: Alameda Point Development Initiative Shall the City Charter Amendment, and YES ordinance proposing General Plan Amendments, Zoning Map and Text Amendment and NO Development Agreement, regarding development of Alameda Point be adopted? The text of the proposed initiative is on file in the office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4. The City Council adopts the provisions of subdivision (a) of section 9285 of the Elections Code to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments have been filed in favor of or against the Alameda Point Development initiative. Section 5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280, the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to Resolution #6-B 11-03-09 exceed 500 words in length, shoving the effect of the measure on the existing lair and the operation of the measure, and transmit such impartial analysis to the city clerk in a time reasonably necessary to prepare and print the analysis. Section 0 Notice of the time and place of the election on this proposed charter amendment, General Plan amendment, Community Plan, Specific Plan, zoning ordinance amendment, and development agreement is hereby given, and the city Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, fora and manner as required by lave. Section 7. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. Section 8. The city clerk is hereby authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish (or cause to be procured and furnished) any and all official ballot notices, printed matter and all other supplies, equipment .and paraphernalia that may be necessary to prepare and lawfully conduct the special election. Section 9. The polls for the special election shall be open at 7:00 AM on the day of said election and shall remain open continuously from said time until 8:00 PIVI of the same day and shall then be closed, except as provided in Section 14401 of the Elections code. Section 10. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original .Resolutions. 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 3 rd day of November, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the official seal of the said City this 4th day of November, 2009. Lara Weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda CURRENT APPLICATIONS LIBRARY BOARD ONE VACANCIES (Full term expiring 6/30/13) C ahterine D. Atkin K.r 15 y L. Perk ins Ronald E. Walker Re: Agenda Item #9 -A 11 -43 -99 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALA MEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC MEETING TUESDAY -OCTOBER 20, 2009- -7 :31 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson coriverled the Special. Joint Meeting at 9:58 p m ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Authority Members Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor /Chair Johnson 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that the Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Sign a Letter of Agreement [paragraph n❑. 09- CIC and the Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $40,000 [paragraph no. 09- C I C were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. C❑uncilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Taal moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmernber /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese Seconded the motion., which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.I *09 CC/ *09- CIC Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Commune. ty Improvement Commission Meeting held orl October 6, 2009. Approved. 09- CIC Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Sign a Letter of Agreement in the Amount of $11,400 Frith the Greater Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009 2010. The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the lack of reliability in C I C funds comes from tax increment. The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated the Zack in reliability is not a relationship to hoer the Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 organization is run hut is a direct relationship to what is happening in the State. Speaker Harry Hartman, Greater Alameda Business Association. Commissioner Tarn moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. *09- C /C Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $96,089 with the West Alameda Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009- -2010. Accepted. *09- CIC Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to enter into a Contract in the Amount of $105,874 with the Park Street Business Association for Fiscal Year 2009 -2010. Accepted. 09- CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Enter into a Contract in the Amount of $40,000 with the .Alameda Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation. Commissioner Tam inquired what the Chamber is doing differently than the business associations other than magazine ads. The Economic Development Director responded the Chamber is often the first place people contact for information regarding places to stay, restaurants, etc; stated the City has not supported the Chamber, which is unusual; the City has benefited from the Chamber; businesses believe there is a big advantage to being linked to other business associations; staff would review progress. Commissioner Tara stated the Park Street Business Association ads highlight Alameda, not the Association; hopefully, capacity building would occur and duplication would not tape place. Speakers Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce. Following Mr. Ratto' s comments, Commissioner deHaan stated the League of California Cities has discussed California travel and tourism; individual cities are marketing themselves extremely well. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 2 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 Chair Johnson stated perhaps placing advertising money in a pool would be better; reviewing the best way to spend money for the community as a whole is important. Commissioner Matarrese stated that he is glad money is being invested in the website which can be used as a tool to measure success; the internet has become the first search avenue; that he would like to receive an interim report and not gait until the end of the year to see how things are going; the City needs to be agile because of the current, unsettled financial environment; milestones need to be established. Following Ms. Marr' s comments, Commissioner Tara stated the City is spending $250,000 in advertising between the four associations; having a coordinated effort in getting the most bang for the buck is important. Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Chair Johnson inquired. whether Economic Development would work with the associations to pool resources. The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated efforts are being made to collaborate a holiday event also. Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote 5. *09-- CIC Recommendation to Approve and Appropriate a $200,000 Brownf fields Subgrant Agreement to Assist in the Fleet Industrial. Supply Center Fire Cleanup. Accepted.. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 09- CC Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of ordinance Amending Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30 -17 (Density Bonus Regulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow Density Bonus Units and Incentives or Concessions to Developers that voluntarily Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element of Their Residential. Development Project. Not introduced; and 09- CIC i Adoption of Resolution Amending to Reduce the Inclusionary Unit Requirement Developments in the Business and waterfront Improvement Project Areas from at Least 25% adopted. Resolution No. 04 -127 Policy for Residential and west End Community to at Least 15%. Not Special Joint Meeting .Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 3 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether waiving development standards is done to make the project financially feasible. The Planning Services Manager responded financial feasibility is for concessions and incentives; stated waivers allow the project to be developed on the site; a waiver might be needed to get a reduction in a side yard setback. Mayo r Cha i r Johnson inquired whether an applicant would need to come forward publicly with a pro forma, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether more information could be requested if there are questions. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; Stated the City would need to prove the case if it seems that incentives or concessions are not necessary to make a project financially feasible. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a defined process. The Planning Services Manager responded the process is similar to other development applications; stated staff would review the pro forma and evaluate whether the requested concession would be necessary to make the project financially feasible. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a public appeal process. The City Attorney responded any discretionary decision on a development standard would be appealable to the Planning Board or Co un c -L-L s rated the provi s ion i s no t in the proposed ordinance but is the general law of the City. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a noticing process. The City Attorney responded a noticing process has not been built into the proposed. ordinance. Coun.cilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated concessions and waivers would not happen every day; inquired whether all applications for a density bonus or waiver would go to the Planning Board rather than Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 4 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 be decided administratively, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The Planning Services Manager stated the proposed ordinance would require that a project requesting a density bonus to go before the Planning Board. Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the density bonus ordinance waivers match the State requirement, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired how other cities handle density bonus ordinances. The Planning Services Manager responded some cities have adopted density bonus ordinances; stated other cities rely upon State regulations; some cities include more concessions and incentives in an ordinance, some have less. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the default is the State's ordinance; cities have the option to tailor a density bonus ordinance. The Planning Services Manager stated the City is better off adopting its own community regulations. Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired how the density bonus has been handled in the past; stated the Collin's case was not approved. The City Attorney stated the case is still under litigation. The Planning Services Manager stated a new Collin's application requests a density bonus; the previous application was denied based on other findings not related to density bonus. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the City would be safeguarded with the new density bonus. The Planning Services Manager responded the Collin's project has a variety of issues; stated that he does not think the proposed density bonus ordinance would be the determining factor; issuesd revolve around open space and lot layout. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether an application has been submitted and whether the new proposal fits within the density bonus ordinance. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 5 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 The Planning Services Manager responded staff has been worrying with the Collin' s representatives on a wide range of issues; stated some initial requests have been made for concessions which are not acceptable, such as waiving all fees; the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is underway. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated a formalized process is needed to determine whether or not a project is within the density bonus ordinance based upon the economics of the pro The Planning Services Manager stated staff would have to make a recommendation to the Planning Board regarding the project's concessions, and incentives. Mayor /Chair stated the first determination should be whether the project qualifies under the density bonus ordinance. Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan stated the issue seems to be open ended in the decision process; controls are needed so that staff ensure consistent decisions are made. Councilmebmer /Commission.er Gilmore inquired how a density bonus project would be handled. The Planning Services Manager responded an applicant would request a meeting with staff to negotiate and review exceptions that would be considered; staff would not approve an applicant's request for a density bonus plus being twenty -five or thirty feet above the height limit; a more reasonable request would be ten feet over the height limit. Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what would happen after the negotiation process. The Planning Services Manager responded plans would be developed and submJ1 tted; stated tie process i is S-L L-Lar to variance requests. Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore stated the noticing should state that the applicant is requesting a density bonus so that everyone is aware that the project is different; developers should be aware that there would be heightened scrutiny within the community. The Planning Services Manager stated the Council /Commission Seems to want some type of pre application process. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated a clear, defined application process is needed; a determination should be made as to whether the project Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 5 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 would qualify for a density bonus first; a higher burden would be placed on the developer because economic feasibility needsd to be provided. Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore stated a developer would have to know project details, which would be included in the application. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the developer could submit plans simultaneously. Councilmen.ber /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether an applicant would, need to provide economic feasibility data when a density bonus is presented to the Planning Board. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff would need to provide documentation proving that the project is not economically feasible. The Planning Services Manager continued with.the presentation. In response to Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding the Housing Element, the Planning Services Manager stated the Housing Element has been conditionally certified by the State; staff is working with the State to achieve some type of approval; one requirement of the conditionally approved. Housing Element is that the City adopt a density bonus ordinance. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated there is no assurance that the City would receive a certified Housing Element from the State if a density bonus is adopted. Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired how long the State's density bonus ordinance has been around, to which the .Planning Services Manager responded since 1979. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the reason the City does not have a fully certified Housing Element is because the State wants the City to plan where to put units that would have been built at the former Naval base. Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what role Economic Development would play in obtaining funding. The Interim City Manager/ Executive Director responded. the 20% housing funds set aside could be used. Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether set aside funding Special point Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 7 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 would, most likely be used. The city Attorney /Legal counsel stated there is no requirement to use the funds or otherwise help or subsidize an applicant's affordable housing development. Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the funding has been used in the past. The city Attorney/Legal counsel responded sometimes yes, sometimes no; stated the Grand Marina development inclusionary housing was provided with no subsidy from the city; one of the causes of action against the city in the Collin's lawsuit was the failure to have a density bonus ordinance; State law is not a model of clarity; staff has attempted to make the ordinance more user friendly. Mayor /chair Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with adopting a density bonus ordinance but ensuring that the ordinance works well is important; ,inquired whether the State ordinance is used if the city does not adopt its own density bonus ordinance. The city Attorney /Legal Counsel responded State law requires the City to adopt the State's ordinance by reference. Mayor /chair Johnson stated the City is better off adopting a density bonus ordinance tailored to the community. The city Attorney /Legal Counsel reviewed the one hundred unit scenario. Cou.ncilmember /Commissi.oner Matarrese inquired whether a twenty-unit condominium could be built if the requested waiver relates to Measure A. The city Attorney /Legal Counsel responded the developer would need to request a waiver, not a concession or incentive; stated a Measure A waiver could not be granted unless the developer could prove that the project would be physically precluded from using the density bonus without the waiver. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether concessions and incentives have limits, but waivers do not, to the city Attorney /Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated a developer could request additional units [above the limit] because less money would be made on smaller units. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 8 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 The City Attorney/Legal Councel stated a developer does not get extra units under State law, State law has certain absolutes; the ordinance provides an application process if a developer requests an incentive, concession, or waiver; the matter would be presented to the Planning Board; the Planning Board would have to make certain findings if the incentive, concession, or waiver is denied. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the ordinance should be amended to include comments. Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan stated the Collin's plan did not have setbacks; that he is interested in reviewing the new plan. The City Attorney /Legal. Counsel stated projects would still have to go through the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA) proces s even with a density bonus, concession, or waiver request; part of the CEQA process could be preferred alternatives. In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney /Legal Counsel. stated State density bonus law pre-empts local agency zoning and development regulations and is specifically applicable to Charter cities; the State density bonus law trumps the City's Measure A requirements; developing a City density bonus ordinance allows the City to articulate a multi family configuration prohibited under Measure A as a waiver, not a concession.; the findings are more stringent for a waiver. Mayor /Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents: (In favor of ordinance Jamie Keating, Trailh.ead. Ventures, LLC; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA Kathy Moehring, west Alameda Business Association (WABA) Opponents: (Not in favor or ordinance) Former Counc i l.member Barbara Kerr Patsy Paul, Alameda; Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; Corinne Lambden, Alameda; There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Following Former Councilmebmer Kerr's comments, Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether a provision could be made for City identified historical structures. The City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded a provision has been suggested; stated the problem is inconsistency with State law; Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 State law only recognizes buildings on the State register; adding a historical provision could be challenged. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether variations could be allowed since the State invites local governments to develop ordinances. The City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded cities only have discretion to determine whether or not to count its own inclusionary housing requirements toward a developer's count of units. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated the State's intent is to protect historic structures; inquired whether the City using its own historic interpretation would meet the intent of State law. The City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded that she would like to agree with said interpretation. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated staff has heard a number of comments; an updated draft should come back. to Council. The Planning Services Manager stated staff will develop some type of process that requires an applicant to come before the City for initial approval for concessions, incentives, and waivers; staff will incorporate the Al ameda Architectural Preservation Society suggestions in the revised ordinance. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated commercial areas do not have the same concerns; residential areas should be reviewed differently. The Planning Services Manager stated staff will develop a draft that compares caps in residential areas versus no caps in commercial areas; a developer could still request a waiver to no caps. Iiie C1. t Attorn Legal ��`.o nsel S fated thhat siit- does no see anything in State law that permits a cap, but will speak to Mr. Buckley regarding the matter. Councilmember /Commissioner Tara requested clarification of reducing the inclusionary unit requirement from 250- to 15a in all redevelopment areas; questioned whether all redevelopment areas would be treated the same; stated that she needs better context. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated apply to affordable units, allocations with Alameda Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 the housing allocation does not just but all allocations; the City met some Point because of job generation; the Association of Bay Area Governments did not agree with said argument. Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan stated the project in the 2600 block of Clement Avenue took a lot of liberty with the current ordinance; the building is four stories high. The Planning Services Manager stated the project is a commercial project with One housing unit within a manufacturing zone height limit; the entire area is being rezoned. 09-- CC /ARRA Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director to Negotiate and Execute a Contract with Environmental Science Associates for the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for Alameda Point Redevelopment Project in an Amount Not to Exceed $2 Million. 09-- CC/ARRA/09- CIC Councilmember /Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Vice Mayor /Authority Member /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated moving forward on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is important because Oakland Chinatown organizations are worried that the City is not moving forward. Councilmember /Board Member Matarrese inquired whether the City would own the EIR even though the cost of the EIR would be reimbursed by SunCal, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember /Board Member Tam stated Oakland. Chinatown is urging the City to rove forward with the EIR; knowing the type of project would be helpful; the Council received a letter from the same group [Oakland Chinatown] asking the City not place the initiative on the ballot; inquired what Oakland Chinatown wants. The Planning Services Manager responded the project that would be analyzed is the project described in the SunCal initiative; stated alternatives would also be reviewed; an EIR is needed; mitigations need to be identified; the primary .issue is transportation. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 1 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 Counc i lmember /Board Member Tam s rated that she has concerns with the $2 million cost; inquired how much of SunCal's money was spent on Transportation Report #2, to which the Planning Services Manager responded approximately $70,000. Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan stated the City paid for the report. Counc i lmember/ Commi s s ioner Tam stated that she is referring to the transportation element part of the initiative. The Planning Services Manager stated land use and transportation are both in the initiative; the EIR would determine whether traffic at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street would be unacceptable and would address mitigations; mitigations would be imposed on the project through later approvals. Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan inquired how long the EIR would take. The Planning services Manager responded a public draft could be provided late May or early June, 2010. The Interim City Manager /Executive Director stated six months seems fast. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired what would be a safe timeline for a preliminary EIR, to which the Planning Services Manager responded August. Vice Mayor /Board Member deHaan stated an EIR would not be available prior to voting on the initiative. The Planning Services Manager stated the commitment to Chinatown is that there would be an EIR before construction occurs; the Settlement Agreement does not prevent a citizen's initiative. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether a conflict between mitigation measures and voter approved initiative language could be possible. The Planning Services Manager responded possibly; stated the initiative is a community plan; community plans differ under the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and call for a single EIR upfront; all future phases can rely on the first EIS.. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated have mitigation be in conflict with the language of the initiative would be possible; a dispute could occur on how to resolve the issue. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 12 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 The Planning Services Manager stated the Disposition and Development Agreement could be used to resolve the conflict. Councilmember /Board Member Matarrese stated a draft would be presented. in August; the Exclusive Negotiating Agreement [ENAI ends in July; inquired what would happen if the City does not finish and the ENA terminates. The Interim City Manager /Executive Director responded the developer can stop at any point. Councilmember /Board. Member Tam inquired whether Environmental Science Associates understands the issue, to which the Planning Services Manager responded definitely. Speaker Helen Sause, Home ownership Makes Economic Sense (Homes) Vice Mayor /Board Member deHaan stated the EIR could have been kicked off eight months ago and would have been good business. The Interim City Manager /Executive Director stated, Oakland Chinatown and the City have an agreement that the City and developer would move forward with an EIR at the time the initiative qualified. Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan stated a specific plan has not been approved; the ballot initiative was surprising. Councilmember /Board Member Tam stated the plan took two years of public meetings to develop. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the EIR would be Consistent with the established timeline, to which the Interim City Manager /Executive Director responded in the affirmative. ADJOURNMENT 09- CC/ARRA /09- CIC There being no further business Mayor Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:13 a.m. in memory of former Councilmember Tony Daysog's father, Ricardo Daysog. Respectfully submitted, Zara weisiger, City Clerk Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 13 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 Secretary, Community ty Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 14 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 20, 2009 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager/interim Executive Director Date. November 3, 2009 Re: Approve an Amended and Restated HOME Promissory Note in the Amount of $190,000 and an Amendment to the HOME Regulatory Agreement for 461 Haight Avenue between the City and ALL Housing, Inc. Approve a Grant Agreement in the Amount of $30,000 and an Affordable Housing and Maintenance Covenant for 461 Haight Avenue between the CIC and ALL Housing, Inc. w■ 'ol■� In 1 994, the City assisted ALL Housing, Inc., a California. non profit public benefit corporation, with the purchase of 461 Haight Avenue, a duplex comprised of. four and two bedrooms, respectively, for the purpose of maintaining a r .group home for the developmentally disabled. Six .de.velopmentaily disabled adu currently reside. at Haight Avenue House. Initial acquisition of 461 Haight Avenue.Was financed. using a combination of a private mortgage from .US Bank and a $190,00O. from the City. The City's HOME loan is for a term of 60 years, with deferred principle payments and an interest rate of 0.0% for the first ten years. Beginning in year 11 of .the.loan, the interest rate increases to 2%, and a principle payment schedule becomes effective. In 2000, as a result of problems with project feasibility,. Resources far Community Development (RCD), a non profit housing development corporation, assured ownership of ALL Housing Inc., including 401 Haight Avenue. As a result of the .transfer of ownership, ALL Housing, Inc. is now a 501(c)(3) corporation whose board. consists entirely of the members of RCD's board of directors and is effectively controlled by RCD. Over the past 16 years, Haight Avenue House has provided affordable housing .to six developmentally disabled adults. This is the only affordable housing project serving the developmentally disabled population in Alameda. However, the project has struggled with financial viability from the beginning. RCD has been able to subsidize some of the operating costs due to its ability to spread expenses such as insurance and C C/C I C Ag Item #3 -A 1 w3 =09 Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2009 Members of the City council Page Z of 4 Honorable Chair and Members of the community Improvement Commission administration over multiple projects. At this time, RCD has requested that the city a Community Improvement commission. (CIC) assist ALL Housing, Inc. with its. debt obligations to ensure that the project can operate with a balanced budget for the remainder of the terra. DISCUSSION Based on an analysis of the 15 year cash flow for the project, staff is proposing several actions that will relieve ALL Housing, lnc., of its debt service obligations and have an immediate positive impact on the project's financial viability.. First, under Section .4:d. of the HOME Promissory Note, which aIlows deferment of :al 1..or .part of the payment. until such time that the project can support the payments, ALL Housing, Inc.. has requested retroactive deferral of payments that became. due. between December. 31 2004, and December 31, 2008 (totaling $7,656.), and deferral of future. payments until sale or transfer. of the property. An amended and restated 55-year Promissory Note, which would defer all principle payments u ntil .sa.le or transfer of .the. property, has been prepared and is on file in the City clerk's office.. The amended and restated Note would carry a 2% interest rate, with i nte rest .payments deferred until .sale or transfer. Second, staff proposes amending the HOME Regulatory Agreement. that wa recorded against the property in conjunction w..ith the HOME Promissory /'Vote to .allow .for. the possibility of additional HOME funding in the future. when the HOME. Promissory. Note. was initially executed in 1 994, a 50 -year HOME. Regulatory. Agreement vas required. to be recorded.against the property. This Agreement contains. pro�isi ons restrict te incomes and rents. and precludes the project from receiving additional HOME funds while the Agreement is. in effect. Pursuant to.federal regulations, H O.M regulatory agreements for this type of project are. required. to be Jn effect for..`I 5 years. Because. the Haight Avenue. House. HOME. Regulatory Agreement..has. been. in effect .since .994 (the required 15 years), it is. recommended that the. Agreement. be. attended.. to acknowledge. that this requirement has been .fulfilled. This Amendment, on file .irk the City Clerk's office, will allow the City and ALL Housing, Inc. to access additional. federal HOM funding in the future should such assistance. become. necessary. Third, to assist with project feasibility staff .proposes the. CIC grant monies to ALL Housing, Inc., to pay off its private mortgage. As .of September 30, .009, ALL .Housing I nc. s private mortgage balance was $83,800.58. Staff proposes. using. CC Housing Set -Aside Funds to pay off the mortgage, which will provi.de.. an additional $8 annually to will help offset the project's operating expenses. In consideration To.r.the receipt of the CIC's grant funds, A Inc. would enter into a Affordable. Housing and Maintenance Agreement with .th.e ClC and further, the CIC. would .record a 55 year Affordable Housing Restrictive covenant against the property. These m easures gill ensure that Haight Avenue House will continue to serve developmentally disabled adults and/or very low- income tenants on a long -term basis. The. Housing and Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission Maintenance Grant Agreement and Restrictive Covenant are on file in the City Clerk's office. Pursuant to CIC Resolution No. 03 -112 and City Council Resolution No. 13578, the CIC is authorized to spend its Housing Set -Aside Funds for such purpose. By assisting with ALL Housing, Inc. s debt obligations in a comprehensive. manner, long- term project viability is enhanced. The operating reserves can be increased, a .capital reserve can be established, and RCD. will no longer be required. to subsidize this project. By recording a restrictive covenant against the property, affordable housing will be preserved, and the existing tenants can remain in place. FINANCIAL IMPACT Deferring the HOME loan repayment will not impact the General Fund. Deferring the. HOME loan repayment is an opportunity cost, rather. than a direct cost, to the City's HOME fund. The City receives an annual allocation..of HO.ME.funds from the federal government. It can access these funds through the.. County of Alameda HOME consortium when it has a project to fund. Use of HOME funds is.restricted .to housing- related activities that benefit .very law- and low- income individuals and families. If the City foregoes annual payments on the HOME loan, its balance. of HOME is reduced by that amount. However, the City is protecting its investment .of .HOME. funds by requiring repayment, with 2% interest, if Haight Avenue blouse is sold or transferred. The CIC has $80,000 budgeted in BWIP Housing, Fund 204, to provide a grant to ALL Housing, Inc. to pay off Its private mortgage. RECOMMENDATION City Council: Approve an amended and restated HOME Pm issory Note in the amount of and an amendment to the HOME Regulatory Agreement for 401 Haight Avenue between the City and ALL Housing, Inc. CIC: Approve a grant agreement in the amount of $80,0.00 and an Affordable Housing and Maintenance Covenant for 461 Haight Avenue between the CIC .and .ALL Housing, Inc. Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council Honorable Chair and Members of the community Improvement Commission Approved as to funds and account, Glenda a Interim an Director November 3, 2009 Page 4 of 4 i CITE( of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council Honorable Chair and Members of the community Improvement commission From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager /interim Executive Director Date: November 3, 2009 Re: Accept Public Streets within Bayport Alameda, Approve a Lease for the Use of the Community Building and a Reciprocal Easement Agreement :.per the Joint Use Agreement. between the Alameda Unified ..Scho.ol ..District and the City, and Authorize the Interim City Manager to.. Execute and A Execution of Documents for completion of Bayport Alameda Project Obligations Approve Quitclaim Deeds Conveying the Public Streets and Bayport. Park and Storm Treatment.Pond Properties from the CIC to the City, Approve an Access and Maintenance Easement from the CIC to .the City for, Segments .of the Storm Drain System, Adopt the Bayport Project Budget for FY09 7 10, arid. Authorize Execution of Documents for Completion. of Bayport Alameda Project Obligations 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 Alameda Project, Catellus Construction Company (CCC) was engaged as the General .Contractor on behalf of the City and the CIC. The Bayport Alameda. Residential Project has been completed and is. ready for finial close -out. Portions of the project area that are currently owned by the CIC must be accepted and conveyed to the City to provide for the. City's Continued operation and maintenance of public facilities. The Master Developer has completed ail .puibl.ic. streets and infrastructure work within Bayport Alameda and provided the city with the required long -term maintenance bonds. CC1CIC Agenda Item #3 11 =3 =®9 Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2009 Members of the city Council Page 2 of 6 Honorable chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission DISCUSSION Acceptance of Public Streets Pursuant to the DDA, the CIC is responsible for demolition and construction of backbone infrastructure while the Master Developer is responsible for construction. of the public streets within Bayport Alameda. All .work related to the. public streets has been completed within Bayport Alameda. The work was performed in accordance frith the contract documents prepared by BKI= Engineers. Harris and Associates, city Engineer for the. Bayport Alameda Project, issued :a certificate.of.final completion for the public streets within Bayport.Alameda on June. 10, 2009. The.work .is. also acceptable to the Public Works Department. A copy of the certification documentati.on.is. on file in. the City clerk's office. On June 17, 2009, following completion of the public ..stree.ts within B Warmington Horses, the Bayport Alameda. homebuild.er, recorded a Notice. of Completion. The CIC currently owns the.five public streets in Bayport. Alameda.. Once the city has accepted the public streets, the CIC will convey ownership of the streets.to the city via a quitclaim deed .(on file in the .City clerk's office Joint Use Agreement On December. l 5, 2004, the city council .approved, and authorized the city.Mana .ger to execute, a Joint Use Agreement between the. Alameda.' Unified School. District (AUSD) and the City of Alameda. for use and development of.: a. community building at Ruby Bridges Elementary School. and a city -owned park adjacent to. the sc hool... The Joint. Use Agreement also provided for shared access to approximately 80 on -site parking spaces at the. Bayport. Park. for use by. the. school during school hours-and.: the. community during non- school hours. Bayport .Park was. completed in September. 200.0.. The community building is completed, and final. inspections. and acceptance. are underway. A 50 -year lease, with automatic extensions of. successive five -year terms, for. the community building leased area .and a. Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA).for. the shared parking have been prepared pursuant to. the terms.. contained. in. the Joint U.se Agreement. The lease and REA. are on file in the city Clerk's office. AUSQ. staff. has. reviewed the lease. and .REA and gill. be scheduling consideration of .t.he lease and .REA at an upcoming AUSD Board meeting. The Bayport Park (Lot 1 9.8) must also be conveyed from the CIC to the city via a quitclaim deed (on file in the city clerk's .office). Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 6 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission Conveyance of the Stormwaterr Treatment Pored and Storm Drain System The storm drain outfall project was the final segment of the backbone infrastructure project. The storm drain system is designed to handle the project's .stor water runoff and pre -treat 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, grater 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 system, which has been completed, assures that .100% of the stormwater is treated, by eliminating sediment, prior to its release into the hay. The underlying stormwater treatment pond property must be conveyed to the .City from the CIC via a quitclaim deed. In addition, portions of the storm drain system are installed under property owned by the CIC. Therefore, the CIC must grant an easement to the City for access and maintenance of the storm drain system. The quitclaim .deed and easement agreement are on file in the City Clerk's office.. Adoption of the Bayport Project Budget The DDA for the Bayport Alameda. Residential Project defines certain budget procedures and reporting requirements, including adoption of the project budget annually by the CIC. Pursuant to Section 0.2.3.2 of the DDA, the Bayport Project Budget sets forth, on a .reasonably item ized.b.asis, the. projected Project. Reve.nues:and the projected Project Related Expenses to be. incurred for. the Project for each fiscal year. Anticipated Project Revenues and Project- Related Expenses, as defined in Section 0.2 of the DDA, include the following general categories: Project Revenues: Land .Sales Proceeds, Reimbursements, Residential Profit Participation, and Tax Increment /Bonds. Project Expenses: Predevelopment, Hard and Soft costs including: demolition, backbone infrastructure. costs, debt service, administrative and legal casts, and project management costs, School District Payments, Park and Community Building Construction, and Shortfall Loan Interest. A summary of the FY08 /09 Project Budget and proposed FY09 /10 Project Budget, in the format previously presented to the CIC, is shown in the following tables: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council Honorable chair and Members of the Community Improvement commission November 3, 2009 Page 4of6 $73.4- $75.6 Total Revenue $73,9 $76.1 Approved. FY08109. Proposed Project Revenue sources (in $M) Budget FY09110 Budget ARRA $0.6 $0.6 2 BWIP Bonds $7.3 $7.3 3 BWIP Affordable Housing Bonds $0 $o.$ 4 Land Sales Proceeds $28.5 $28.5 Cash AIG Haz -Mat Insurance $8.0 5 Reimbursements $8.0 $2.1 6 CIC Residential Profit Participation $1 g.=3 10..3 7 Project Share of Tax Increment $4'6 Estimated Tax Allocation Bonding $6.5-$7.0 8 capacity (TAB) a@ 70% Budget Summary .(in $73.4- $75.6 Total Revenue $73,9 $76.1 Excluding repayment of the p redevelopment. loan, the C has budgeted obligations totaling $1,896,090 for FY09 /10. These obligations include debt service on the existing bonds ($854,090), completion of the Bayport community building ($828,761), and soft and hard costs ($213,239). Approved FY08109.. Proposed. Project obligation I Expenses (in $M) Budget F Bridget 1 Predevelopment (includes interest) $12. $13.8 2 Total Estimated Soft Hard costs $53.4. $52.2 3 Shortfall Loan Interest $3.8 $3.6 4 Assistance for New K -8 School $3.2 $3.4 Assistance for New Public Park 5 Community Building $2.0 $2.1 Total Project obligation !.Expenses Projections $74.5 $75.1 Approved FY08109 Proposed Budget Summary .(in Budget FY09110 1 Total Revenues (w/o TAB) $66.5 $69.2 2 Estimated TAB @70% $6.5 -7.0 $6.5 -7.0 $75.7 -76.2 Total Revenues $73.4 -73.9 Total Expenditures ($74.5) ($75.1) Potential. Revenues Pledge. To Alameda Landing $0 $.6.1.1 Excluding repayment of the p redevelopment. loan, the C has budgeted obligations totaling $1,896,090 for FY09 /10. These obligations include debt service on the existing bonds ($854,090), completion of the Bayport community building ($828,761), and soft and hard costs ($213,239). Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2009 Members of the city council Page 5 of 6 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement commission The CIC will most likely be required to issue Tax Allocation Bonds (TABS), secured by tax increment generated by the Bayport Alameda Project, to fully repay the predevelopment loan as contemplated by the Bayport DDA. FY09 /1 o bonding capacity is estimated to be $9.4 $10.1 million if 100% of available tax increment. was leveraged. Given the uncertainties of the state Educational Revenue .Augmentation Fund (ERAF) activities, staff is exploring a future .bond issue that would be sized at 70 of maximum bonding capacity, or $6.5 to $7 million. Based on the Project Budget, approximately $5.9 million in TAB s, in combination with land sale proceeds, profit participation, and other project revenues, will be required to retire all CIC. Bayport obligations.. In. the event that bonds are issued in an amount larger than $.9 million, any balance beyond Bayport Alameda project obligations is pledged to the Alameda Landing project. The CIC's obligation under the DDA .to complete demolition .and. to provide backbone infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the Bayport Alameda. project was completed in September 2009. The Bayport community building and Shinsei Gardens, 39 units of affordable housing, were also completed in September 2009. Thee adjoining Breakers at Bayport Townhomes and Apartments, 62 .units of affordable housing, was completed in spring 2006. The seven -acre school and four -acre community park opened in September 2006. FINANCIAL IMPACT Funds required to complete outstanding obligations, totaling $1,896,090, are budgeted in the Economic Development Department's FISCICattelus. Fund 25 Repayment of the outstanding balance, plus interest, on the predevelopment loan will most likly require the CIC to issue TABs. Any action to approve issuance of TABs would .come back to the CIC at a later date. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and. certified in 2000 for the Bayport Alameda project. Based on that E I R, and the 2006 supplemental E I R, no further CEQA review is required. RECOMMENDATION City Council: 0 Accept the public streets within Bayport Alameda; Approve the 50 -year lease for the Bayport community building leased area and authorize the Interim city Manager to execute the lease between the AUSD and the city and related memorandum of lease; Honorable Mayor and November 3, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 6 of 6 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission Approve the REA to provide for shared parking between the City and AUSD and authorize the Interim City Manager to execute the REA; and Authorize the Interim City Manager to execute documents which evidence completion of Bayport Alameda project obligations. CIC: Grant quitclaim deeds for the Bayport Alameda public streets, Bayport Park and stor mwater treatment pond properties to the City and authorize the Interim Executive Director to execute the quitclaim deeds; Approve a grant of easement from the CIC to the City for segments of the Storm Drain System and authorize the Interim Executive Director to execute the grant of easement; 0 Adopt the Bayport Project Budget for FY09 -10; and Authorize the Interim Executive Director to execute documents which evidence completion of Bayport Alameda project obligations. Approved as to funds and account, LAL: DP:sb