2009-12-15 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA *CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING
PUBLIC UTILIq
TUESDAY DECEMBER
Time: Tuesda December 15,
Place: C CouncJ.1 Chambers
rrxxx
of Santa Clara Avenue
Z rf a� n r]
OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
'IES BOARD (PUB)
15, 2009 6:30 p,m.
2009, 6:30 p.m.
Conference Room,, Cit Hall, corner
and Oak Street.
1. Roll Call Cit Council, PUB
Note: Board Member Hamm will be present via teleconference
from Chattanoo Marriott at the Convention Center, Two Carter
Plaza, Chattanoo Tennessee
2. Public Co on A Items Onl
An wishin to address the Council /Board on a items
onl ma speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session -111-o consider:
Cit Council/PUB
3-A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION (54956.9
Si Exposure to Liti Pursuant to Subdivision
(b) of Section 54956.9
Name of Cases:
Vectren Communication Services, Inc. v.
Cit of Alameda
Nuveen Municipal Hi Income Opportunit
Fund, et al. v. Cit of Alameda, et al.
Bernard Os her Trust v. Ci',.,-y of Alameda,,
et al.
Cit Council
3-D. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
A ne Karen Willis and Crai Jor
Emplo or All Bar Units
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if an
Adjournmel-nt Cit Colanc-11, PUB
evenl oh n. ayor
r oW,
q
OR i r
CITY OF ALAMEDA •CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH To ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach
the podium and state your name; speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing
and only a summary of pertinent points presented
verbally,
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY DECEMBER 15, 2009 7:3 P M
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pin, City Hall,
Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and oak St]
The order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special orders of the Day and Announcements
4, Consent Calendar
5. City Manager Communications
6. Agenda Items
7. oral Communications, Non- Agenda (Public Comment)
8. Council Referrals
9. Communications (Communications from Council)
10. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address
the City Council
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 6 :30 P.M.
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7: P M
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL City Counc i 1
2. AGEIID,A. CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Presentation on East Bay Regional P ark District Oil Spill
Response at Crown Beach.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public
4--A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on November 17, 2009, and the Regular Meeting held on December
i 2009. (City Clerk)
4--8. Bills for Ratification. (Finance)
4--C. Recommendation to Accept the Special Tax and Local Bond
Measure Annual Report. (Finance)
4-D. Recommendation to Accept the Police and Fire Services Fee
.Report. (Finance)
4-E. Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report for the Pubs is ;Art
Fund as..Required by the Public ..Art ordinance. (Community
Development)
4 -F. Recommendation to Conduct the Affordable Housing Ordinance
Annual Review Consistent with Section 27--1 of the Alameda
Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 56001
and Accept the Annual Report.
p (Economic Deve 1 opment
4 -G. Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize
a Call for Bids for the Webster Street /Wi leer "Willie"
Stargell Avenue Intersection Project Landscape and
Irrigation Improvements, No. P.W. 05- 09 -18. (Public Works)
4-H. Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize
a Call for Bids for the Buena Vista Avenue Street
Rehabilitation Project, No. .P.w. 02-0 -05. (Public Works)
4-I. Recommendation to Accept the Mork of Ranger Pipelines, for the
Alameda Municipal Power /Webster Street Joint Trench and
Utility Relocation Project, No. P.W. 08 -08 -23 Public Works)
4 -J. Recommendation to Accept the Work of Harty Pipelines, Inc.,
for Fernside Boulevard Sewer Rehabilitation, Thompson Avenue
to High Street, No. P.W. 0 3 -0 9-0 9 Public Works)
4--K. Final Passage of Ordinances: 1) .Amending ordinance No. 1277
N S to Rezone .Approximately 48 Acres Located at 1501 and
1523 Buena Vista Avenue (Encinal Terminals and Del Monte
Building) APNs 072-038200200, 072 038200400, 072-038200300,
072 038201000, 072 038200500, 072 038200900, 072 038300100,
072. 038300200 and 072- 038300300, from M -2 General Tndustrial
(Manufacturing) District to M -x Mixed Use Zoning Designation;
and 2) Amending Municipal Code Section 30 -4.20 of Article I
(Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter xxx (Development
Regulations) by Adding Subsection 30-4.20(j) to the M -x Mixed
Use Planned Development District Zoning Regulations to Allow
for Application for Interim Use Permits Under Certain
Conditions. (Community Development)
5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from City Manager)
5-A. Pre sentat ion on Library Branch Upgrades Measure O
5 -B. Measure B Ballot Initiative: City Council Referral. Update
6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Ian M. Couwenberg as a
Member of the Housing Commission.
6 -B. Introduction of ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending subsection 8 -7.8 (Leaving Vehicle on Street in
Excess of Seventy -Two Hours); Amending Subsection 8-7.9 Heavy
Cormmercial Vehicles) Amending Subsection 8 -7.10 (overnight
Parking of Large Vehicles) and Adding Subsection 8 -7.11
(Recreational Vehicles, Trailers and Boat Trailers Prohibited)
Prohibiting the Parking of Recreational Vehicles and Trailer
Coaches on City Streets. (Police)
7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Council in regard to any platter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda
8. COUNCIL REFERRALS
Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted
upon or scheduled as a future agenda item
8 -A. Consider Closing City Administrative offices at Noon on
December 24, 2009 and December 31, 2009. (Mayor Johnson)
8 -B. Consider Development of an ordinance that Would Require 24-
Hour, On -Site Management of Multi- Family Residential Buildings
that Contain at Least a Certain Number of Units. (Mayor
Johnson)
9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications f rom Council)
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended
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, Rooms.
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 -1538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting
Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including
those using wheelchairs, is available
0 Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged. print
0 Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request
Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda
materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy
the benefits of the meeting
.x �r 7,
F Cl
C ITY O F A LAMEDA CALIFORNIA
G�.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)
TUESDAY DECEMBER 15, 2009 7:31 P.M.
Location,-- Cit Y Council Chambers Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street
Pub]-ic Participation
An wishin to address the Council/Commission on a items or
business introduced b the Council/Cor.-Lmission ma speak for a
maximun. of 3 minutes per a item when the subject is before the
Council/Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deput
Cit Clerk if y ou wish to speak.
1. ROLL CALL Cit Council, CIC
2. CCNSENT CALENDAR
2 Minutes of the Specia-. Joint Cit Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authorit and Communit Improvement Commission
Meetin held on December 2, 2009. [Cit Council'/CIc cit y
Clerk)
2-B. Recommendation to Authorize the Transmittal of the Co
Improvement Commission Basic Component Unit Financ-'al
Statement for the Year Ended June 30, 2009. CIC (Economic
Development
2-C. Recommendation to Authorize Transmittal of the Cam ILunit
Improvement Commission's Annual Report to the State
Controller',<-:z, Office and the Cit Council; Authorize
Transmittal of the Redevelopment A Annual Housin
Activit Report to the State Department of Housin and
Communit Development and the State Controller's Office; and
Accept the Annual Report; and [Cit Council/CIC
Adoption of Resolution Approvin and Adoptin the operatin
Bud and Appropriatin Certain Mone for the
Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2009-2010. [CIC
(Economic Development)
3. AGENDA ITEMS
None
4. ADJOURNMENT Cit Council C
7:
Chair, C I
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- NOVEMBER 17, 2 0 0 9 -6:50 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7 :00 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tarn, and Mayor Johnson 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
09- Conference with Legal Counsel Anticipated Litigat i on
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases: one; Under negotiation: Price and
terms.
09- Conference with Legal Counsel Liability Claim
(54956.95); Claimant: Mohamed Mahama; Agency Claimed Against: City
of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation
Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel on a matter. of
potential litigation; no action was taken; regarding Liability
Claim Council discussed the claim with Legal Counsel and provided
direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
.Alameda City Council
November 17, 2009
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETI
TUESDAY- NOVEMBER 1.7, 2009 -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson Convened the Regular Meeting at 7:39 p.m. Vice
Mayor deHaan Zed the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
09- Mayor Johnson announced that the Regular Agenda Items
would be addressed before City Manager communications.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
09- Proclamation Encouraging Participation in the 2010
Census.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Monica XU,
Partnership Specialist, U.S. Census Bureau.
Ms. Xu provided a handout to Council; thanked the Council for
the proclamation; introduced Wakili Bonner, Manager of San
Leandro Census Local Census Office, and Partnership Assistants
Paula Miller and Antoinette Porter.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
[paragraph no. 09- was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
*09- Minutes of the Special. and Regular Meetings held on
November 3, 2009. Approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 17, 2009
*09- Ratified bills in the amount of $2,435,478.11.
*09- Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Treasurer's
Report for the Period Ending September 30, 2009. Accepted.
09- Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the Period Ending June 30, 2009.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why taxable sales transactions
decreased 21% from the same quarter in the prior fiscal year.
The Interim city Manager responded not every quarter has the
same number of weeks; stated the decline is a trickle down of
the recession; the last sales tax report was much better because
the report reflected the Christmas holiday sales quarter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether other jurisdiction comparisons
could be provided in the future, to which the Interim City
Manager responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Interim city
Manager stated the City needs more aggressive business
development; sales tax may not be performing well but property
taxes are doing very well compared to other cities.
Councilmember Tam_ moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote 5.
*09- Recommendation to Appropriate $750,000 in State hater
Resources Control Board Grant Funding and $50,000 in Urban
Runoff Funds, and Award a Contract in the Amount of $549,450,
Including contingencies I to Power Engineering Contractors for
the Installation of Mechanical Trash Racks at Stormwater Pump
Stations, No. P.W. 08 -09 -23 Accepted.
*09- Recommendation to Authorize the Replacement of Alameda
Fire Department Command Vehicle through the State of
California's Contract Bid Process and the Purchase of Ancillary
Equipment, Total cost Not to Exceed $100,000. Accepted.
*09- Resolution No. 14400 "Amending Resolution No. 9460 to
Reflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
November 17, 2009
City of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding
Resolution No. 14219." Adopted.
*09- ordinance No. 3011 "Amending ordinance No. 2130, New
Series, Updating the Civil Service System of the City of
Alameda." Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
09- Resolution No. 14401 "Appointing Kristy L. Perkins as
a Member of the Library Board." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote 5.
The City Clerk administered the oath and presented Ms. Perkins
with a certificate of appointment.
09- Public Hearing to Consider a Call for Review of the
Planning Board's Approval of a Use Permit for a Convenience
Store Located at 1623 Park. Street; and
09- B Resolution No. 14402 "Upholding the Planning Board's
Decision and approve Use Permit Application No. PLN -09 -0253 For
a Convenience Store Located at 1623 Park Street." Adopted.
The Planning Services Manager gave a Poorer Point presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore requested that convenient store parking
requirements be addressed; inquired whether there is a
requirement for the particular size store.
The Planning Services Manager responded retail space requires
one parking space per 200 square feet of floor area; however,
because the building is an existing building, the provision is
that an existing retail use is being replaced by another retail
use an the on- -site parking requirement is riot triggered; the
Zoning Code takes into consideration existing businesses within
older buildings.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether something could be done regarding
the awnings.
The Planner I responded staff would work with the Development
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
November 17, 2009
Coordinator on the matter.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired. who requested the appeal, to which
the Planning services Manager responded the Planning Board's
approval of the Use Permit was called for review by
Councilmember Matarrese.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter was called for review
for several. reasons; that he reviewed the two findings made by
the Planning Board; his first concern is that the business
district has a substantial City investment in the theatre and
parking structure a couple blocks down; questioned whether a
convenience store is the best option; stated that he believes a
convenience store would have a negative affect; the original
application was for a convenience store specializing in the sale
of cigarettes and tobacco products; the City would be burdened
with policing the use; Oakland has a policing fee for such
establishments; there is a liquor store down the street and
another convenience store a block over; questioned whether the
[retail] mix would be added to or something less than beneficial
to the ambiance of the street would be proliferated.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the application has been
modified because staff has been working with the Applicant to
reduce the sale of tobacco products in response to neighborhood
concerns, to which the supervising Planner responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Tam stated neighboring convenient shop owners have
concerns regarding potential competition; inquired whether the
Panning Board's role is not to control business competition
which is a market driven activity.
The Planning services Manager responded the City does not have
any guidelines with respect to amounts of particular businesses
that can be located in an area; if the convenience store were
over one building, the Use Permit would not be needed.
Councilmember Tam inquired how many gears the building has been
vacant, to which the Planner I responded four years.
Councilmember Tarn inquired
convenience stores have been
responded a fairly long time.
how long the other liquor and
in business, to which the Planner I
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 17, 2009
I
Mayor Johnson -inquired which condition is the restriction on the
amount of tobacco, to which the Supervising Planner responded
Condition 11.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how many parking spaces would be
required if the amount were not grandfathered in, to which the
Supervising Planner responded five onsite parking spaces would
be required.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Applicant is proposing to
sell 99� items.
The Supervising Planner responded the Applicant is using the
description to help define products to be sold; not all items
will be 99� or less.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the name of the store, Better Trade
Discounts, implies the same thing sale of 99� items].
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant operates other
stores, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Applicant
operates a produce store in Oakland.
Mayor Johnson stated the City needs to know whether the store
will be a convenience or discount store; opened the public
portion of the hearing.
Proponents In Favor of Call for Review) Paul Singh, Alameda;
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board; and Ann. Selchon..
Opponents (Not in Favor of Call for Review) George King; Robb
Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA).
Following Mr. King's comments, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired
whether the three previous businesses were operated by the
owner, to which Mr. King responded in the negative.
Following Mr. Ratto's comments vice Mayor deHaan requested a
comparison of another store that is approximately 1,100 square
feet, to which Mr. Ratto stated the best example is Three
Wishes.
Following Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft' s comments, Mayor Johnson inquired
what the Planning Board application said.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
November 17, 2009
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft responded the first application said smoke
shop, tobacco, and cigarettes; the application was pulled from
the Planning Board agenda]; when the application returned the
second time, it said tobacco, cigarettes, candy, snacks, sodas,
99� items, and newspapers; the current application lists candy,
soft drinks, tobacco, gift items,, including cologne and
perfumes, toilet accessories, grocery products, telephone cards,
and 99� items; lighter fluid i s listed as a hazardous materials
involved in the operation; that she noticed bong pipes in the
store.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board was still
approving the application for a convenience store even though
the amount of tobacco allowed in convenient stores was exceeded.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative;
stated the findings indicated that the business would not have a
negative impact on circulation and other uses within the
neighborhood.; stated the amount of tobacco does not exceed the
amount allowed, but triggered the need for the Use Permit.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Economic Development and Community
Development made the determination that are different levels of
stores; increased activity would Coyne back for review.
The Planning Services Manager stated zoning regulations except
existing buildings and businesses within the buildings from
providing new parking spaces if there is a Change in use;
Economic Development, Public Works and Community Development are
working at reevaluating parking requirements for the Park Street
and Webster Street business districts; that he has received
feedback and recommendations are to roll back parking
requirements in the Zoning Code.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Community Development looked
at retail balance; further inquired whether Economic Development
would be the responsible department.
The Planning Services Manager responded Economic Development
could help with the analysis; Community Development felt that
the findings could be recommended to the Planning Board to
support approval of the Use Permit.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the type of stores in the
area are restricted, to which the Planning Services Manager
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
November 17, 2009
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a Use Permit is required
because of the store's proximity to residences, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she read the Planning Board
minutes; the four members voting in favor of the application
were very specific and vehement about the fact that they did not
wart to control the market; time and competition eventually win
out.
The Planning Services Manager stated that he received the same
sense.
Councilmember 'lam inquired whether the sale of paraphernalia
typically associated with the use of illegal products is
prohibited, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board discussed
drawing additional clientele to add to the mix of the business
area.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative;
stated Planning Board Member Ezzy Ashcraft had a concern with
making said finding, other Planning Board Members felt that they
could make the finding and approved the Use Permit
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is sympathetic to adding
mix of businesses: that she is troubled by the fact that the
retail space is very small and has been vacant for four years;
if a better, viable business could have been successful it would
exist; in the past, small Park Street businesses could not
afford to pay for rent increases and eventually left town; the
public now enjoys the types of businesses; eventually better
businesses will come, but it will take time.
Mayor Johnson inquired when paraphernalia items were observed in
the store, to which the Supervising Planner responded before
October 12.
Mayor Johnson suggested the matter be reviewed within three to
six months; stated that she is concerned that there have been
three different applications; perhaps the Applicant is tailoring
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
November 17 2009
the application to meet expectations; the business plan needs to
follow the application.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he concurs with Mayor Johnson;
inquired what activities are above the store, to which the
Supervising Planner responded residential units.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the upstairs could be used
for other stores, to which the Planning Services Manager
responded in the affirmat
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether changing the use from.
residential to some type of business would trigger City review.
The Planning Services Manager responded the city would grant to
ensure that egress and Building code requirements are met, in
addition to Fire code requirements; stated parking would need to
be reviewed.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the change of use would
trigger the parking requirements because the use would not be
grandfathered in, to which the Planning Services tanager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City has jurisdiction over
this type of business and the zone in which it resides; there is
arrays going to be somebody one Foot over the line; inquired
whether there will be protections for the rest of the district
in which the business resides, to which the Planning Services
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot support upholding
the Planning Board's decision; the convenient store started out
as something that he could never support and has migrated to
something that night be palatable; that he would like to see if
there is a use that does not require protection; convenient
stores within 300 feet of residential bu1dings have protection
because there are negative impacts; the reason the rest of the
district is considered is because the finding has to work within
the context of the district; that he would support of sending
the matter back to staff to see if something could be worked out
so that it is not a convenience store.
Mayor Johnson inquired ghat is the difference between a
convenience store and a 99� store.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 17, 2009
The Supervising Planner responded there is no distinction;
stated staff considered this a convenience store to ensure
protections would be in place and that the store would not
evolve into something objectionable to the community.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether convenience store rules are
strong enough to keep the store from evolving into a 99� store,
to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the
negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what conditions could be put in place to
ensure that the store does not become a 99� store.
Vice Mayor deHaan responded the square footage would never be
there to run a 99� store; stated a good 99� store would require
no less than 9, QOa square feet.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation
with the change that the Planning Board review be in six months
as opposed to a year.
Nice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has
concerns regarding staff having the burden of policing the
establishment to ensure that conditions are met; future
consideration should be given to hoer [staff monitoring] costs
can be recovered.
On the Call for the question, the motion carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Tam,
and Mayor Johnson 4 Noes C ouncilmember Matarrese 1.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated convenience store window coverage is an
issue; that he would like the project to become a model of
executing the current ordinance.
COUNCIL REFERRAL
09- Consideration of Modifying the September 15 Council
Direction regarding Measure WW Funding.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Council Referral is a
procedural matter; the issue is not up for a full debate
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
November 17, 2009
tonight; at a previous meeting, Council directed staff to get
East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Bond Counsel's opinion
regarding Measure WW; since direction was given, staff was
informed that EBRPD' s Bond Counsel's opinion probably would not
be forthcoming for quite a while; that she is requesting that
the matter be placed on the next City Council agenda in order to
have a full discussion and a decision made one way or another.
Speakers Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park
Action Committee; Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda;
Reed Wetherill, Alameda; Debra Arbuckle, Northside Neighbors;
Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Michael John
Torrey, Alameda; Rich Sherratt, Alameda Boys Girls Club.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of placing the matter on
the December 1 City Council agenda.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Tam stated the procedural issues
seems like a catch 22 that was created by Council relying on
Comments made by EBRPD management; EBRPD will not know whether
the project is eligible until an application is submitted; an
application cannot be submitted unless the project is on a list;
irrespective of the merits of the project, it has to be
discussed.; having a full, substantive discussion on December 1
and getting the issue resolved one way or another before the end
of the year -s appropriate.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with
bringing the matter back for discuss -i_on; that she would like
staff to request that EBRPD to get an opini
e on from Bond Counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired ghat is taking so long.
The Interim City Manager responded the EBRPD Assistant General.
Manager has indicated that Bond Counsel's opinion would not be
forthcoming and that no opinion on the eligibility of prof ect
can be rendered by the District in whole or in part until a
completed application is submitted; a determination would be
made as the application goes through the process; a January
answer should not be anticipated.
Mayor Johnson stated the request needs to be made; EBRPD
representatives indicated to Council and the Boys Girls Club
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
November 17, 2009
that the project seems to meet Measure WW requirements.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated there is concern whether the project is
legal.
The Interim City Manager stated that she would urge the
Assistant General Manager and indicate Council's eagerness to
receive Bond Counsel's opinion; that she does not want to leave
anyone with the expectation that the opinion will be forthcoming
until the application is completed.
Mayor Johnson stated EBRPD representatives deed to let Council
know if their position has changed and not in vague terms.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has no problem with
calling the question; Council needs to make a decision; the
question is not if Council can, but if Council should; that he
wants EBRPD representatives to come back in person to answer
questions.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a wish list needs to be finalized,
inquired whether the list is in order; stated Council needs to
know ghat would be given up.
The Interim City Manager responded needs need to be revisited
and revalidated; stated careful attention needs to be given to
deferred maintenance; deferred maintenance projects are limited
under Measure WW because projects are required to have a life of
twent y-- f i ve years.
Nice Mayor deHaan stated Council needs to he awned with all
information; inquired whether the list would be put together by
December 1.
The Interim City Manager responded not if the process goes
through the Recreation and Park Commies s ion
Councilmember Matarrese s rated the list has been vetted trice in
the last year by the Recreation and Park Commission; the list
can be brought back at anytime for analysis; the question is
whether to wait for a legal decision that he does not have any
faith will come.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous
voice vote 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
November 17, 2009
CITY MANAG' F R COMMUNICATIONS
09- Fire Department Response Standards
The Fire Chief gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated since the beginning of the year the
City started rotating brownouts to save funds; a decision was
made to close station 5; inquired whether training has been
compromised because of the brownouts as well as staffing issues.
The Fire Chief responded staff was challenged even before
brownouts; any fir. department is challenged to provide enough
training; since the brownouts there is an affect, plus there was
a reduction of one training director; crews are busier; the
matter is more of a logistics issue, but has been managed. quite
Drell; a training calendar has been put together for the next two
years.
Councilmember Tam stated team coordination comes with the number
of drills; inquired what difference has been noticed since
brownouts, specifically in the number of drills the Department
is able to perform before and after.
The Fire Chief responded that he heard complaints that not
enough drills were performed even before the brownouts,
especially multi- company drills; staff still has the obligation
to cover the City and provide services when in training;
response times can be impacted during training.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether response times are .impacted
because there is not enough staff to cover the people who are in
training.
The Fire Chief responded in order to have an effective joint:
exercise, at least two or three companies are needed and
response time could be delayed.
Councilmember Gilmore requested an explanation of why two trucks
are needed since Alameda does not have any high-rise buildings.
The Fire Chief responded one reason is that trucks are dispersed
throughout the community to improve response times and also tc
get enough resources to perform all tasks; the close proximity
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
November 17, 2009
of buildings prohibits putting ladders between buildings;
ventilating roofs is important; two ladders are needed in order
for firefighters to have another to egress when on a. roof.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the answer she received was that
the City has a lot of properties that are odd shapes and have
deep lots; sometimes that [using a truck] is the only way to get
to the back.
The Fire Chief stated sometimes access to the back is difficult.
Mayor Johnson stated more prevention should be done.
Councilmember Tam stated the ladder truck was critical at the
Grand Street fire because of the set back from the street.
Vice Mayer deHaan stated a consultant questioned the value of
the ladder truck; inquired why the consultant was sc critical.
The Fire Chief responded some people may think that if grater is
being put on a fire, trucks are not as important; stated truck
companies are usually the first to be cut because trucks are not
as multi.- versatile as engines.
The Fire Chief continued with the Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) portion of the presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated response times would be quicker if each
medical call were treated as a heart attack.; however, the
downside would be putting people at risk.
The Fire Chief stated the Fire Department puts a lot of stock in
the process dispatch uses to evaluate calls.
Councilmember Matarrese stated decisions made on the scene are
made by the dispatcher; inquired whether the City will have some
say in dispatch center actions.
The Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the system is
certified and has been tested and evaluated millions of times.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there should be assurance that
people answering the phones have been properly trained and
qualified to make decisions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
November 17, 2009
Vice Mayor deHaan stated irreversible damage occurs within six
minutes in a cardiovascular event in most situations, the Fire
Department will not be at the scene within said time.
The Fire Chief stated the Fire Department, at best, would just
be arriving five and a half to six minutes into the call;
patient outcome depends on the degree of arrest; if there is
full arrest at mark zero and the Fire Department arrives at six
minutes chances of survival are 50- -50; survival would have
deprivation.
Nice Mayor deHaan stated hopefully, said event does not happen
often.
The Fire Chief stated statistic would be provided; the Fire
Department needs to partner with the public; more public
buildings are equipped with defibrillators; the public needs to
be educated in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
Councilmember Tam stated usually communities want to have
neighborhood fire stations; .inquired whether location is
reflected in the response time for cardiovascular events or is
just an average from any station.
The Fire Chief responded averaging is from stations; stated the
earlier intervention, the better chance of survival; engines are
often preserved and trucks are cut because 850 of calls are
medical.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the average is meaningless by
itself; the range is important.
The Fire Chief stated
minutes could not be
limited disability if
four minutes; the long
of disability if
presentation,
someone in full cardiac arrest for eight
revived; the person could be saved with
the department arrives on the scene in
er past four minutes, there is more chance
the person recovers; continued the
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether three engines would respond
to a boat fire no matter ghat, to which the Fire Chief responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese
flooding.
inquired what is the
response to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
November Z?, 2009
The Fire Marshall responded a gas leak in a flooded basement
would be treated as a natural gas leak which requires three
engines, one truck, an ambulance and a Battalion Chief.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a protocol for tube
accidents.
The EMS Director responded stated the Posey Tube is a dangerous
environment to have an accident; injuries are hard to detect;
resources are used to secure access and get staff in to make a
determination; both Alameda and Oakland respond to tube
incidents.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the new dispatch system would be
able to determine whether injuries are involved.
The EMS Director responded it depends on the quality of the
reporting party.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people typically drive out of the
tube [after accidents] and [are clear when] reporting stalled
vehicles.
The EMS Director responded there is not a typical Posey Tube
call.
Mayor Johnson stated the tube belongs to CalTrans; maybe
CalTrans can give people instructions on what to do if there is
an accident in the tube; that she noticed instructions on the
freeway a couple of creeks ago.
The Fire Chief stated that he would make the suggestion to
CalTrans; continued with the Measuring Performance portion of
the presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there have been seven months of
brownouts in 2009; that he does not see a breakdown of the first
four months and the last seven months; the best comparisons
would be before and after; it is important to have previous
years to show trends.
The Fire
Chief stated data can be shorn for
any
requested
timeframe;
staff looked at April 1 to October
31;
brownouts
started on
January 26; the first fear months were
very
eradicate;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
November 17, 2009
Station 5 closed on April 1; data for April 1 through October
31, 2009 is being compared to the same seven months in the prior
three years.
Councilme mber Matarrese stated the tables should be labeled
accordingly.
The Fire Chief continued the presentation.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether it is fair to say that the
Fire Department's ability to comply with the National Fire
Protection. Association (NFPA) standards for the months of April
through October was a little over 70% of the time [previously]
and in 2009, the yellow and red bar shows that the Department
was out of compliance with the NFPA standard] 90% time, to
which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated District 5 is less than 10% [in
compliance with NFPA standards]; inquired why the City selected
the area.
The Fire Chief responded station 5 was selected because of the
log= call volume.
Councilmember Matarrese stated statistics are pointers, not the
total picture of assessing outcomes; performance was worse in
2006 than 2009 with the brownout situation; the matter begs all
sorts of questions; that he wants to know impacts.
The Fire Chief stated monthly reports shag the number of
affected calls throughout the City; impacts are noted;
f ortunatel.y, s ignificant impact s have not occurred due to
delayed response times.
Councilmember Tam stated the dice are being rolled by being out
of compliance.
The Fire Chief stated studies were conducted by Citygate in 2004
and by the International City /Council Management Association
ICMA) this year; the data matched the City's data; the City was
hitting the same response time back then and now; coni inued. the
presentation.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Fire Chief
stated response times [in prior years] improved because of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
November 17, 2009
improved technology; response times this year dropped because of
Station 5 closure.
Councilmember Tam stated the brownout was the result of going
froze. 27 down to 24 [mandatory] staffing [level]; inquired
whether staff totaled 27 in 2008, 2007, 2006, to which the Fire
Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam inquired why a four -year comparison was made
for all districts and only two years for Station 5.
Deborah Keenan, Fire Department Statistician, responded the
[Station 5] district data was only available for two years; data
has been requested from the county, but has not been forthcoming
at this point.
The Fire chief stated significant impacts have not occurred
because of the .low volume of calls at Station 5; as the volume
of calls increases, the chances of hitting a significant impact
increases.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how districts are formed.
The Fire Marshall responded districts are divided by
geographical locations; stated new technology will be
implemented within the next twelve months that will dispatch the
closest fire unit by travel distance.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether implementation could be done
before twelve months.
The Fire Marshall responded technology is in place; stated the
obstacle is programming.
The Fire Chief stated the Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) would
allow dispatch to identify where the call is and dispatch the
unit closest to the call.
Mayor Johnson inquired who would implement the program, to which
the Fire chief responded Alameda County Communication center.
The Fire Chief continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there has been partial
implementation of sprinkler requirements in the past.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
November 17, 2009
The Eire Chief responded there have been significant changes in
commercial sprinkler requirements; new residential and
commercial construction both require sprinklers.
Mayor Johnson stated Alameda already requires sprinklers for new
construction; perhaps requirements should be implemented for
high -risk buildings even if the buildings are not new
construction.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see
refining of data tracking, such as a month to month report card,
to see what is significant and what is not; the costs of
delivering medical service will increase due to the fact that
many more people are at home now than in the past.
Vice Mayor deHaan thanked staff for the data; stated the data
will continue to improve; mutual aid calls are a concern; data
should be provided; community training is important; the Citizen
Emergency Response Team (CERT) program is very worthwhile.
The Fire Chief stated Alameda was responding to Oakland a lot; a
new policy was implemented last fall; Alameda does not respond
to Oakland if the City [Alameda] has two or fewer ambulances;
calls to Oakland have been cut by approximately 90%; Alameda
uses mutual aid more than Oakland.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether American Medical Response
(AMR) responding to an Alameda call is not included in the EMS.
response times, to which the Fire Chief responded in the
affirmative.
counc'ilmember Tam stated the presentation tonight grew out of
exhaustive budget discussions; inquired what is the role of
staffing in terms of providing adequate coverage and meeting
response times.
The Fire chief responded an analysis would need to be done
regarding how many additional companies would be needed tc
achieve the standard.
Councilmember Tam stated staff needs to try very hard to meet
the standard.
The Fire Chief stated staff is reviewing things that can be done
Regular Meeting
Al&meda City Council 18
November 17, 2009
within the budget.
Councilmember Tam stated the Fire department would not be able
to get accreditation with the current response times.
The Fire Chief stated a process would be needed to determine how
accreditation could be accomplished.
Mayor Johnson inquired ghat percentage of transports go outside
of Alameda, to which the Fire Chief responded approximately
half.
Mayor Johnson stated outside transports put people at risk.
The Fire Chief stated staff is evaluating other gays to deliver
patients off the Island.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the problem is geographical; the
City has walked up to the edge and needs to see hoer solid is the
edge; the City has been fortunate that there have not been any
significant impacts.
Mayor Johnson requested a breakdown of emergency and non
emergency calls.
4- -k
09-- Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the
meeting past midnight.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote 5.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked staff for the detailed report;
stated Council is vitally interested in the issue; data is
important: Council's decisions are only as good as the data
provided; the data is presented in a very understandable manner.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether other fire departments are
performing data collection, to which the Fire Chief responded
data collection is performed to a certain extent.
09- Update on Councilmember Tam's Referral: Sunshine
Community Task Force
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 19
November 1=7, 2009
The Interim. city Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that sunshine ordinance move
forward and he go would like to see a through the community Task
Force route.
Councilmember Tam stated that she concurs that the matter should
go through a community Task Force effort rather than spending
time second guessing whether a lobby registry would be needed as
part of a ordinance; the matter may not be a priority for the
communi ty; the community may see a bigger focus on trying to
improve the rating on accessibility of the Public Records Act;
hopefully, the issue will be more community driven, rather than
staff driven.
Mayor Johnson stated Council should decide on components
regardless of whether the issue is community or staff driven;
the lobbying registry is something that would be very valuable
to the entire community.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board has tackled the
noticing guidelines on more than one occasion; the radius
changes depending upon the type of project; staff should start
where the Planning Board left off; the Planning Board has an
email interest list for large community interest projects; that
she does not know whether there is some mechanism to notice
people by email; email notification would cut down on costs.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated some issues noted in the staff report
could be extracted; better understanding what the public needs
would be a good idea.
Mayor Johnson stated council could provide input to staff; staff
could develop a draft and then workshops could be held; having a
Task Force start at the very beginning is very time consuming;
that she would like to include campaign contribution limits,
ethic and confidential information components, including
compliance with the Brown Act, and requirements for
Councilmembers, Board Members, and Commissioners to comply with
the Charter.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a Task Force would not bog down
the process; the framework has already been completed; not
having an end date bogs the process down.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2 0
November 17, 2009
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember
Matarrese; there are lots of reasons to have the matter be
community driven; the biggest reason is that the public
interacts with City Hall; the public complains whether or not
the city is transparent; the public is in a unique position to
advise the City about what is important to them.
Mayor Johnson stated staff should provide a starting place.
The Interim City Manager stated the wheel should not be
reinvented; the question is whether the Task Force would provide
feedback on what to include or whether the Task Force would be
working Task Force.
Mayor Johnson stated the public should provide input on ghat
should be included.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the process should be very quick;
the list would be framed.
Nice Mayor deHaan stated staff would be tasked with putting
parameters together.
Mayor Johnson stated guidelines should be provided regarding how
to deal with labor negotiations.
The :Interim city Manager stated staff would come back with some
type of construct.
Councilmember Tam stated the
representative from the League
facilitator, in addition to one
Councilmember; that she has a
saying that the city has some sf
she does Yiot know the secret.
referral suggested having a
of women Voters serge as the
member being appointed by each
problem with community members
:cret plan for Alameda Point and
Councilmember Gilmore stated having a League of women Voters
facilitator is a good idea.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the most important thing is
establishing an end date.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Task Force would not be
preparing documents, just i s sue spotting; the list would be
brought back. to Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 21.
November 17, 2009
The Interim City Manager stated staff would come back at the
December 1S Council meeting; each Councilmember should submit
someone to nominate for appointment.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
09- Dave Duffin, Alameda, submitted a video; discussed
recent filming activities in the City.
09- Nancy Rogers, Protect the Point Committee,. requested
the letter assigned to the SuCal Initiative be changed.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is working on changing the letter.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
09- Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to
the Commission on Disability Issues, Housing Commission, and
Youth Advisory Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Ethel WG Lrren for the Commission on
Disability Issues; Clifton J. Smith for Lhe Housing Commission;
and Samantha J. Chin for the Youth Advisory Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
09- There being no further business, Mayer Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting in memory of Dr. Alan Mitchell at 12:26 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Wei s iger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Aldia. -da Ci Ly Council 22
November 17, 2009
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- DECEMBER 1, 2009- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7 :37 p.m.
Counczlmember Tam .led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson 5.
.Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
09- Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no.
09- and the ordinance Approving and Authorizing a 66-Year Lease
[paragraph no. 09- were pulled from the agenda; after the
Consent Calendar, the agenda items were addressed in the following
order: Resolutions of Appointment [paragraph no. 09-
Recommendation to Amend the Measure WW Proposed Project List
[paragraph no. 09- 1; Public Hearing [paragraph no. 09- 1; and
Police Department Deployment Plan [paragraph no. 09- 1.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Setting the 2010
Regular City Council Meeting Dates [paragraph no. 09- and Final
Passage [paragraph no. 09- were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Counci.lmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
09- Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on November 17, 2009. Not heard.
*09- Ratified bills in the amount of $2,756,425.08.
*09- Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to
Apply for a Permit from the Dredged Material Management Office for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
December 1, 2009
Dredging of the Southshore Lagoons, Approve a Contract with CLE
Engineering, Inc., and Authorize CLE to Represent the City of
Alameda on All Matters Pertaining to Dredging Permit Applications.
Accepted.
09- Resolution No. 14403 "Setting the 2010 Regular City
Council Meeting Dates." Adopted.
Vice Mayor deHaan noted that 7:00 p.m. would be the start time for
the 2010 Regular City Council Meetings.
Vice Mayor deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote 5.
*09- Resolution Igo. 14404 "Authorizing the Destruction of
Specified Unnecessary Records of the Human Resources Department."
Adopted.
09- Introduction of ordinance Approving and Authorizing a 66-
Year Lease with the Water Emergency 'transportation. Authority, as
Lessee, and the City of Alameda, as Lessor, for a Ferry Maintenance
and operations Facility at Alameda Point. Not heard.
09- ordinance No. 3012 "Amending the Municipal Code by Adding
Section 30 -17 (Density Bonus Regulations) to Article I (Zoning
Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX Development Regulations)
to Allow Density Bonus Units and Potential waivers to Developers
that Voluntarily Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element
of Their Residential Development Project and Providing Incentives
and Concessions for Residential Development Projects in Commercial
or Mixed Use Zones." Finally passed.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Speakers Former Councilmember Barbara Ke.rr,... Alameda. Christopher
Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, Robb Ratto,
Park Street Business Association; Kathy Moehring, West .Alameda
Business Association.
Vice Mayor deHaan requested clarification of direction given
regarding caps.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board would
establish caps for incentives and Concessions, stated the caps
would be brought back to Council for consideration; Council has
requested staff to provide drawings in order to show how the caps
Regular Meeting
Alameda city council 2
December 1, 2009
would be applied.
Nice Mayor deHaan inquired whether amendments would come back to
Council, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the res dential portion would come
back to Council after review by the Planning Board, to which the
Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Tam moved final passage of ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote 5.
REGULAR AGENDA. ITEMS
09- Resolution Nos. 14405 "Appointing Ethel Warren as a
Member of the Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted;
09- A Resolution No. 14406 "Appointing Clifton J. Smith as a
Member of the Housing Commission." Adopted; and
09- B Resolution No. 14407 "Appointing Samantha J. Chin as a
member of the Youth Advisory Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote 5.
The City Clerk administered the oath of office and presented
certificates of appointment to Ms. 'barren and Mr. Smith.
09- Recommendation to Amend the Measure WW Proposed Project
List to Include a $2 Million Grant to the Boys Girls Club for the
Completion of Construction of Its Youth Development Center in
Accordance with the Terms and Conditions outlined Herein.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Dave Collins, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Assistant
General Manager, stated Bond Counsel's opinion would not be
provided until early next year; the District has concerns regarding
private business use or a non-- profit holding title; guidelines
should be complete in time to review applications received by March
3 201-0; the project's eligibility is doubtful; urged all parties
not to make binding financial commitments on presumptions or
assumptions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
December 1, 2009
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Bond Counsel's opinion would
be received prior to cities submitting proj
ects
Mr. Collins responded applications would be reviewed early next
year; stated the Executive Committee may recommend Changes to grant
guidelines; that he cannot provide a definite date [for Bond
Counsel's opinion] projects should be brought forward; funding
would not be at risk if the proposed project is not eligible.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Mr. Collins has serious
doubts that the proposed project would be eligible.
Mr. Collins responded in the affirmative; stated the Boys Girls
Club would be constructing the facility and holding some level of
title and ownership; the issue has caused some concern regarding
private business utilization; tax exempt bonds limit the use of
funds for a private business use; Measure ww envisions a number of
different uses; one is a named use that involves the Oakland Zoo
non- profit; Counsel has concerns that the tax exempt status of the
bonds could be jeopardized by allowing a non- profit to construct
and hold title to a facility.
Councilmember Tam stated Measure WW has specific stipulations for
the East Bay Zoological Society which has a non- profit 501(c) (3
status and runs the Oakland Zoo; non profit entities have specific
funding allocations; the Zoological Society plans on using funds to
expand the existing animal clinic; inquired whether a certain
amount of funding allocated for private, non profit use would be
part of the criteria to determine whether or not the bonds could
still preserve tax exempt status; further inquired whether the
allotment to the East Bay Zoological Society has consumed a
significant port ion of the [non-profit] allotment and whether
cities should submit applications on behalf of non- profits, such as
San Leandro has done for a swimming center, because of competition
for the allotment.
Mr. Collins responded the Oakland Zoo is named in the Measure; the
East Bay Zoological Society is the operator of the facility; the
title to the facility is in governmental hands; the private
business use limitation is a percentage of overall bonds sold and
endures for the life of the bonds; counsel wants to avoid a
situation where an allotment would be used up and would no longer
be available.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the East Bay Zoological Society
occupies the building on land granted by the Knowland Trust to the
City of Oakland.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
December 1, 2009
Mr. Collins responded that he would need to contact the Oakland Zoo
regarding ownership, which he understands is held by a governmental
entity; information would be available regarding underlying title,
ownership of the asset, reversionary criteria, and other factors
once an application is received; speculation would be premature;
the Board may preclude funds being used by non- profits for
construction of facilities, but not operation.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether any information would be
available before the application is submitted, to which Mr. Collins
responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the loan mechanism has been
reviewed.
Mr. Collins responded in the affirmative; stated that he has
serious concerns that the proposed project would be eligible.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Boys Girls Club has beer,
informed that the project might not be eligible, to which Mr.
Collins responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Oakland Zoo and Zoological Society
are in the same position as the Boys Girls Club; applications
should be submitted sooner rather than later if there is a pool of
money that could go to a non-profit 501 (c) (3) corporation.
Mr. Collins stated the Oakland Zoo received funding from Measure
AA; the Oakland Zoo was named as a recipient in Measure W; the
Oakland Zoo has a different ferent standing than other entities; the bond
S
ndenture precludes the distribution of funds directly from the
District to non profits; non- profits should not apply to the
District because applications would not be accepted.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a fear meetings ago, EBRPD
representatives advised Council that the project could be eligible;
the City is not at risk one gray or another; the City' s allotment
gill still be available.
Mr. Collins stated that he concurs with Councilmember Gilmore;
EBRPD needs to provide very clear guidelines regarding the
eligibility of projects.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether EBRPD cannot provide any
guarantee that the guidelines would be available before the
submission point, to which Mr. Collins responded in the
affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
December 1, 2009
Mayor Johnson stated EBRPD representatives advised Council that the
project appeared to be eligible at a previous Council meeting]
stated the Boys Girls Club relied on said information, inquired
when the Boys Girls Club would be advised of eligibility.
Mr. Collins responded EBRPD cannot pre commit to the eligibility of
the project until an application is submitted and reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be a .lesson for the future;
guidelines should come out earlier so that everyone is informed of
the rules ahead of time.
Mr. Collins stated EBRPD would ensure that the issue is addressed
as soon as possible.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether EBRPD has a yes /no
decision tree.
Mr. Collins responded guidelines are adopted by the Board of
Directors and include hard and fast issues as well as areas of land
tenure; a specific checklist is not available; guidelines clarify a
lot of situations.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the key point is whether
the project would be considered a private use that is defined as a
non-governmental entity holding title, to which Mr. Collins
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the situation is very unfortunate;
more pubic private partnerships will evolve as dollars become
scarcer; entities are trying to leverage every dollar to provide
more Services.
Mr. Collins sta "-ed in 1988, most park and recreation facilities
were owned and operated by local entities; now cities are unable to
fund facilities and are using more partnerships.
Councilmember Zam stated other cities are considering partnerships
for capital facilities, Council is being asked to examine the
merits of placing the Boys Girls Club recreation facility on the
City' s priority .list; staff would submit the application on behalf
of the Boys Girls Club once the project is on the priority l i s t
inquired hoer soon EBRPD would let the City know whether the
application is eligible and accepted, to which Mr. Collins
responded within sixty days after March 31, 2010.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how the Oakland Zoo was written into
Regular Meeting
.Alameda City Council 6
December 1, 2009
Measure WW, to which Mr. Collins responded the Oakland Zoo is named
as a Specific entity.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Oakland Zoo has standing based
on the fact that it was named in the ballot measure.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is curious about the Oakland
Zoo having standing to expand a veterinary clinic simply because it
is named in he bond.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would not have voted for a
veterinary clinic expansion.
Mr. Collins stated that he is not sure whether an application was
submitted; the Oakland Zoo was named in the Measure.
Mayor Johnson stated BBRPD may end up with more requests for
specific allocations such as the Oakland Zoo.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the funding stream is in place
now.
Mr. Collins responded the funding stream is modeled as a $15
million issue every two years; stated the amount of funding] a
city requests is not limited; eligible projects submitted by March
should be funded.
Nice Mayor deHaan inquired whether another bonding is anticipated
within another year, to which Mr. Collins responded. most likely two
years.
vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether concerns would be addressed in
the next bond issue, to which Mr. Collins responded the standard
was set by the Measure voted on; allocations cannot be modified.
Proponents Rich Sherrat, Alameda Boys Girls Club; Burnham.
Matthews, Alameda Boys Girls Club; Nancy O' Mally, Alameda Boys
Girls Club; Former Mayor Bill Withrow, Peralta Colleges; Nick
Cabral, Alameda; Sally Rudloff, Alameda Boys Girls Club; Dr.
Jeptha Boone, Alameda; Gig Codiga, Boys Girls Club; Barry Parker,
Alameda; Don Sherrat, Alameda; Scott Kerns, Alameda; John Hamilton;
Ron Matthews, Alameda Little League and Babe Ruth; Tom Sullivan,
.Alameda Boys Girls Club; Bob Brown; Steve Pressy, Alameda; Alysse
Castro, Island High School; Dave McCarver, Alameda; Patricia
Marillo, Alternatives in Action; Karen Bay, Alameda submitted
document); Art Lenhardt, Alameda; and Robert McGinnis.
Opponents Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Joseph
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
December 1, 2009
Woodard, Alameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Rebecca Redfield,
Estuary Park Action Committee submitted petition) and Rosemary
McNally, Alameda.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated no one is questioning the value of the
Boys Girls Club; everyone understands the financial problems
within the City; the Concern is with what the District has done in
giving hope that the project could happen; that he has concerns
with the City being a loan broker; questioned how the Boys Girls
Club could transition knowing that $2 million might not be
available; stated the City might be in a better position to be
supportive with different funding at a .later point; the issue is
not about the worthiness of the Boys Girls Club, but is about
available funding.
Mayor Johnson stated the project should be given a chance and
should be sent on to EBRPD for Consideration; Council has not
received an opinion from Bond Counsel; the Boys Girls Club serves
all residents.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the way the process has unfolded is
extremely unfortunate; a lot of turmoil has been created within. the
community; Boys Girls Club programs are not just about the
children but about benefits parents receive; the project is
worthwhile; staff believes that the Boys Girls Club has the
ability to replay the loan; placing the project on the list is no
risk to the City; money will still be available to the City if the
Boys Girls Club does not qualify; $1 million of the $2 million
would come back to the City; $500,000 of the second million is
money that the City would have spent for Woodstock Park; the City
would be spending $500,000 f or an 8 million project that would
benefit all of Alameda.
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of submitting the project to
EBRPD for ultimate determination..
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Tarn stated that she appreciates the
level of public participation; she is persuaded that the project
should be placed on the list of priority projects to allow EBRPD to
make a decision; the project would create union jobs, leverage
$500,000 planned for the West End to get an $8 million facility,
address past inequities in how the City proportionately distributed
park bond funds, allow for adaptive reuse of schools on public
lands, and enhance programs and services that the community needs
to serve the City's youth; budget cuts have resulted from state
takings; school Resource officers have been reduced at the high
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
December 1, 2009
schools; the Boys Girls Club
ability to reduce juvenile crime
the good precedent of partnering
Councilmember Matarrese stated
has programmed over $363,000
needs to move in the direction
public private partnerships;
discretionary than Measure 0 m
mandates; that he will vote no
discretionary.
has a direct correlation in the
rates; the project would continue
with non profit organizations.
the project is very worthy; the City
to the Boys Girls Club; Council
of utilizing discretionary funds for
Measure AIM money is no more
oney; both measures are voter driven
because voter mandated funds are not
Nice Mayor deHaan stated that he has concerns with the loan [being
approved by EBRPD] the City should identify the projects that be
completed using returned loan money up front.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City should have successful
applications regardless of what happens with the Boys Girls Club
application; the City does not have the luxury of waiting six years
to spend the money; favorable construction costs have a small
window.
The Interim City Manager stated the initial list needs to be
revisited in terms of maintenance versus capital projects.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the process needs to be quick
because of the current, favorable construction costs.
Councilmember Tam stated the entity has to front the money and then
get reimbursed through the funding; the appeal of the Boys Girls
Club is that funding would be available to start payments now; the
City does not have capital funds to pay up front.
The Interim City Manager stated the matter is a cash flow issue.
Councilmember Matarrese noted substantial, money was saved on the
Milver "Millie" Stargell project.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Tam, and Mayor Johnson
3. Noes: Councilmembers deHaan and Matarrese 2.
0- Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of ordinances:
Amending ordinance No. 1277 N.S. to Rezone Approx. m2-- te.ly 48 Acres
Located at 1501 and 1523 Buena Vista Avenue (Encinal Terminals and
Deb. Monte Building) APNs 072-038200200, 072-038200400, 072
038200300, 072 038201000, 072 038200500, 072 038200900, 072-
038300100, 072 038300200 and 072-038300300, from M-2 General
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
December 1, 2009
Industrial
(Manufacturing) District
to M -X Mixed
Use Zoning
Designation,
and Amending Municipal Code Section 30 -4.20 of .Article
Z (Zoning Districts and Regulations)
of Chapter XXX
(Development
Regulations)
by Adding Subsection 30-
4.20(j) to the M
-X Mixed Use
Planned Development District Zoning
Regulations to Allow for
Application
for Interim Use Permits
under Certain
Conditions.
Introduced.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore .inquired whether staff has started tO Work
€pith the property owner on the Master Plan, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether lagoons would be part of the
plan.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated
said plan was very costly; the property owner's representative is
in full support of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated many proposals have been submitted;
questioned what would be the long -terns use; stated the plan is to
reutilize the building.
The Planning Services Manager responded any use would need to cone
to the Planning Board and Council for approval and would need to be
a long -term, permanent use, not just for one year; stated the idea
is to facilitate the redevelopment of the site.
Councilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinances.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanii ous
voice vote 5.
Councilmember Tam inquired how she should answer Oakland Chinatown
merchant concerns regarding the possibility of an .Asian
marketplace.
The Planning Services Manager responded the property owner is not
pursuing the matter at this point.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City needs to encourage
competitive businesses.
Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Matarrese;
today she toured the Harbor Bay Business Park Semifreddi's
location, which was previously in Emeryville.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
December 1, 2009
Nice Mayor deHaan stated the property has run the gamete from
having a large, upscale market to a Ranch 99 style supermarket; the
City has limited opportunities for supermarkets.
The Interim City Manager stated the action tonight solves a very
immediate, short term problem; that she has met with the property
owner; the City's approach on redevelopment is to take large
critical mass sites and work with property owners to create the
right vision not dissimilar to the Civic Center Master Plan; the
City's job is to facilitate redevelopment and work toward creating
a Master Plan; the property owner is willing to help pay for the
study; the City is able to go out with a Request for Proposal (RFP)
for the vision under redevelopment lair; the property owner has
participation rights; the community Improvement Commission wil.1
have input into the site's vision.
Vice Mayor deHaan noted the visioning process intertwines with the
Northern Waterfront, Alameda Landing, and Alameda Point.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
09- Police Department Deployment Plan
The Police Chief gave a Poorer Point presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that ranges be provided in
addition to average response times.
The Police Chief stated ranges would be provided; continued the
presentation.
Mayor Johnson requested an explanation of hoer the Pol ice Department
responds to calls; stated the Fire Department responds the same way
to every cal which put people at risk.
The Police Chief stated officers respond Code 3 to .fife- threatening
emergencies; otherwise, traffic lags are obeyed.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired hoer many officers respond to
Priorit 1 calls versus Priority 2 and 3 calls.
The Police Chief responded the number of officers on scene depends
upon the nature of the call; stated calls are triaged by the call
Center as well as supervisors; two units are initially assigned to
a robbery in progress; other units may respond to look for escape
routes.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
December 1. 2009
Councilmember Tam questioned whether officers on patrol within the
vicinity are dispatched; inquired whether response time is
determined from the time that dispatch receives the call to the
time that the first officer or the full compliment of officers
arrives on the scene.
The Police Chief responded response times are determined from the
first dispatch call received until the first officer arrives at the
scene; stated calls are assigned to officers in specific sectors;
an officer closer to a call will answer the call.
Councilmember Tarn stated fire fighters need time to put on gear;
inquired whether patrol cars and officers are fully equipped.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated a specialized
officer would be assigned to a call where additional, specialized
equipment is needed, such as a special weapons and Tactics (SWAT)
call.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether an officer would be cleared of a
Priority 3 call to respond to a Priority 1 call.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated determining
J
whether or not to clear an officer is a supervisory decision.
Mayor Johnson stated police officers do not need the turnout time
that fire fighters need.
Nice Mayor deHaan stated police officers multi-task.
The Police Chief stated police officers multi-task very well;
police officers are trained to handle any type of call; continued
the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a beat officer is responsible for
abandoned vehicles.
The Police Chief responded beat officers and parking technicians
are responsible.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why Priority 4 response times are better
than Priority 3 response times.
The Police Chief responded many Priority 4 calls involve abandoned
vehicles that can be immediately handled by parking technicians.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Police Chief stated.
Priority 1 calls totaled 282 in 2008 and 179 up to August 2009.
Regular Meeting
Alameda city council 12
December 1, 2009
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what percentage Priority 1 calls are of
overall calls, to which the ?olice Chief responded that he would
provide said information; continued the presentation.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Police Chief stated
Sector 1 covers the area between the former Base and Eighth Street;
Sector 2 covers Eighth Street to Willow .Avenue; Sector 3 covers
Willow East; Sector 4 covers the Bay Farm Island area; Sector 5
covers the former Base.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether each sector has the same: amount
of force, to which the Police Chief responded in the negative;
continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated response times are amazing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the Special Duty
Unit tracking parolees and sex offenders; the effort sends the
message that parolees and Sex offenders need to behave in Alameda;
tracking should be City policy; Council needs to be informed if
tracking efforts are jeopardized.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether School Resource officers are
involved in resolving issues regarding strangers on campuses.
The Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated patrol
officers are also involved; efforts are coordinated with a captain.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether a captain decides whether to
Send a school resource officer.
The Police chief responded calls are initially handled through the
communication center and then coordinated through a school resource
officer and patrol officers.
Councilmember Tam stated Councilmembers from other cities are
envious of the Alameda Police Department; commended police officers
and deployment methods for the wonderful reputation.
Mayor Johnson stated the Police Department has fewer officers this
year.
The Police Chief stated difficult deployment decisions have been
made; changes have not been made within the patrol force.
Mayor Johnson stated excellent response times show good management;
.resources are deployed in a very effective and efficient manner.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
December 1, 2009
The Police Chief stated staff is stepping up and doing the job.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Housing Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Ian M. Couwenberg for appointment to the
Housing Commission.
09- Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the League
of California Cities Leadership workshop; the League has forged a
coalition with the California Alliance for Jobs and the California
Transit Association to secure authorization from the Attorney
General to place two measures on the November 2010 ballot to start
to collect one million signatures; the tentative title of the
measure is Local Taxpayer Public Safety and Transportation
Protection Act of 2010; the proposed initiative would close the
loopholes to prevent the State from borrowing public transit money,
Prcposit ion 1A money, and redevelopment funds; the California
Forward Group is a government reform organization that is putting
two measures on the ballot 1'..n November; one measure would lower the
voting threshold to a simple majority; the other pleasure would
institute a new countywide sales tax; Repair California is also
putting initiatives on the November ballot that would implement a
voter called Constitutional Convention, the League leadership has
encouraged cities to hold off on taking a position on the other
initiatives until the issue can be vetted through policy committees
and legislative analysts.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, Councilmember Tam stated
the League is involved with the Local Taxpayer Public. Safety and
Transportation Protection Act of 2020; the League's first and top
priority is to focus on protecting local revenues and getting a
million signatures.
Mayor Johnson stated the California Forward group is not talking
about restructuring the tax system.
Regular Meeting
Aldinedd City Council 1 4
December 1, 2009
Councilmember Tarn stated the State legislature and Governor signed
a grater bond in the amount of $11.4 billion that would be placed on
the November 2010 ballot; the League's fiscal analysts have
fundamental problems with the bond because a $21 billion budget
deficit is projected for next year; adding more debt that would
require a $700,000 payment per year would not be responsible
because funding would be taken away from State mandated programs,
especially at the local level; securitization was discussed;
Alameda is one of 408 cities that participated in efforts to try
and borrow back money that the State borrowed; the League and
California State Association of Counties sponsored the Joint Pagers
Authority to help facilitate securitization; the plan is to get
half of the money on January 15, 2010 and the remaining half on May
3, 2010
Mayor Johnson stated the State is borrowing money from people's
paychecks by .increasing tax W=ithholding to 10%.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the budget was passed using a number
of accounting tricks.
The Interim City Manager stated next year's deficit will be $20
billion.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the State would Zook to local
government to close the budget gap.
Mayor Johnson stated the City has reduced the work force
significantly; the State has only implemented furloughs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a balanced budget would take five to
fifteen years; a furlough is a promise that things will get better
and does not fix anything.
The Interim City Manager stated no one has factored in the State
cost for PERS, which is in the billions of dollars.
Councilmember Tam stated the ballot measure is a top priority for
the League; the issue has polled positively at over 70%; lowering
the voting threshold to a simple majority has not done as well.
(09- Councilmember Tarn stated that she and staff met some
Lakewood, Washington City employees at the Emergency Management
training in Emmitsburg Last July; requested that the Police
Department express Council's condolences and outrage with the
recent assassination of four Lakewood Police Officers.
The Police Chief stated a letter is prepared to go out tomorrow.
Regular Meeting
A.l&meda City Council 15
December 1, 2009
Mayor Johnson stated the suspect was commuted from a life sentence;
people need to respond to the State's plan for early release of
parolees.
The Police Chief stated the California Chiefs association is
working closely with the Governors office to come up with
alternative plans that can meet the State' s needs as well as
protect public safety.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the League of California Cities has
taken a position on the matter, to which the Police Chief responded
in the negative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council can individually send condolences
to the City of Lakewood.
AD6 0UR NMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular meeting at 11:14 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 16
December 1, 2009
CITY OF AL M EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Lisa Goldman
Deputy City manager
Date: December 10, 2009
Re: List of warrants for Ratification
This is to certify that the claims listed on the attached check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair andust charges against the City in
accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers Amount
224450 224741
$2,590,908.38
V1 v19826
$70;830.51
EFT 768
$308,859-60
EFT 767
$111953-50
EFT 768
$29,889.59
EFT 769
$18)295.12
Void Checks:
209882
($672.23)
21 8309
($107.50)
218557
($6,928.07)
GRAND TOTAL $3,023,008.98
Respectf=ully submitted,
Deputy City Manager
BILLS #4 -B
Council Warrants 72/15/09 12/15/2009
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honora Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
From: Ann Mari Gallant
Interim Cit Mana
Date: December 15, 2009
Re: Accept the S Tax and Local Bond Measure Annual Report
BACKGROUND
The Californi.a.Gove.r.nment Code re the reportin of special.tax a nd l o cal bond
measure accountabilit for those special taxes or..Ioc.al bonds approved .after Januar 1
2001. The sp e cific purpose, the amount of funds collected and expend and the status
of theproje b funded b the proceeds of the special tax o r loc bond measure are to
be reported to the. bod Th Cit of. Alamed has. 'two issues that re
compliance: the Ba Special Asses District and .the M O.Libra.r Bonds.
DISCUSSION
The Ba Communit Facilities District (CFD03 -1) was formed.b s olutio.n.No. 136.44
dated November 003, for the purpose of f nd u in the on operation and
maintenance o f publ.ic fa and. public. s services. within the. di s trict, FY08
1 0 $29,487. The
annual levies. produced reven of $50.9,778 and interest income. f
expenditures durin the.fiscal y ear totaled $164,043. As construction nears completion,
expenditures in support of operation and maintenance of the public. facilities will.
incrementall
The Measure 0 Librar Bonds.are. obli approved b thevoters. and
issued in March 2003 to finance the ac construc o f a.ne.w. m and
improvements to two branch lib.rarie.s. FY08-09. annusl.levies pro -r of
$550,808 and interest income of $1,487. The.expenditures du rin th fiscal y ear totaled
$677,043. The ma.in.librar is complete and servi theco The Libr Board is
en in a master plannin process, which will include the improvements to the branch
libraries.
Cit Council
A Item #4-C
12-ol 5=09
Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no bud or financial impact as a result of this report.
rt.
RECOMMENDATION
December 15, 2009
Pa 2 of 2
Accept the Special Tax and Local Bond Measure Annual Report as presented.
Respectfull submitted,
Glend J
Interim finance Director
1001=1
L
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: December 15, 2009
Re: Accept the Police and Fire Services Fee Re ort
BACKGROUND
On March 21, 1 990, the City Council adopted the Police and Fire. Fee Ordinance, which
established the City's Police and Fire .Services Fee requirements as :.Section 27 -2 of the
Alameda Municipal Code and states that this fee is required on all. new construction. This
ordinance serves to mitigate the impacts caused by new construction .on .Police and Fire
facility demands. The original fee was 12. cents per .square foot. In 1991, the fee was
increased to 14 cents per square foot; in February 1995 it was increased to 15.5 cents.per
square foot.
The Municipal Code requires that the City Council review the fee. requirements on .an
annual basis to determine whether that fee reasonably relates to. the ..impacts. of new
construction and whether the fee. is still needed. This. report is intended. o. satisfy the
annual review and compliance requirement for the fiscal year ending June.30, 2009.
DISCUSSION
At the time of final inspection or date of the Certificate of Occupancy, whichever occurs
first, the developer /builder must pay the Police and Fire Services Fee as required by
ordinance. The ordinance permits an appeal process whereby the developer /builder may
apply for an adjustment or waiver of the Police and Fire Services Fee. Award of ppeals.is
based on the absence of any reasonable relationship or .nexus between the police and fire
service impacts of the new construction and the payment of the. fee .itself. The. appeal
process includes an administrative public hearing and an ultimate decision by the City
Council.
FINANCIAL I M PACT
The Police and Fire Services Fee ordinance has no impact on the General .Fund. By
ordinance, funds from this fee are segregated in a special account that can only be used
for eligible purposes specified in the ordinance (Exhibit 1).
City Council
Agenda Item ##4,
Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
December 15, 2009
Pa 2 of 2
Between Jul 1, 2008, and June 30, 2009, a total .of $6,302.41 in fees was credited to this
fund. Transfers from the General Fund totaled $39,84.5.63. Expenditu res. fro rn the. account
supported the deb.t service pa for the Pol.ice Buildin Remodel /Construction.
Exhibit 2 describes the be and ending fund balances and fund activit for FY08-09.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This Annual Review is consistent with the re of Section 27-2 (Police and Fire
Fee Re of the Alameda Municipal Code and California Government Code
Section 66006.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Police and Fire Services fee report.
Respectfull submitted,
GI n
Interim Finance Director
GDJ:dl
Exhibits:
1. Police and Fire Fee Ordinance
2. Police Fire Construction Impact Fee Fund Balance Analysis
27-2 A MUNICIPAL CODS
27-2.5 Procoedures.
a. NT W Construction.. Upon adoption of
the pol ice and fi fee. r esolut io n and pr ior. to
a ppli cat ion fo r a b p ermit, devel�vper flf
new co nstructio n that are not sub,ect to a
separate and bin ding devele agreeme
with contrar y. provisions, shs:ll file a pl for
the p ayment of the flies.. The buil ding permit
sha ll not be issued un til. the .plan h as been
a pp rove d by th Qity Mana As de .in
the .resolution, `the payment o f the fee s h a ll b
Completed prior to the :date of final inspection
or issuance of the certific of occupancy for
f
the. new construction, mhichever is first.
(turd. No. 247.9 N.S. §1)
t
27 -2.6 Fee A4 ustments,
a. .Application for Adjustment, A.
devel of project subj to the fee
requirements described in subsection 27 2.4
27 -2.4 Police and Fire F ee equmn
may apply to the Ci tY °l ark alter for a redu.cti an
a. Fee Requirement. A police and fire fee
adj ustment. or waiver of Ahe requirements,
requirement is hereby established for new
based up on the absence of, an r
able
construction in the
e C ty. The City Council
relationship or nexus between the police and
shall, in a Council resolution, set forth the
fire seryace impacts of the new construction
formula for determining the amount of the fee
and t ie payment of t ie police and fire fee. The
to be provided, the cost and be neficiaries
decision of. the City I anager shall be se rved
thereof, the relationship between this
on the devel oper, either person b
y y
requirement and .tb various. types of new and
certified mai addressed to the business
expanded developments, and the t ime for
addres o f th d e,vela per, with a notic cf
paying such fee. As descried in the police and
intended decision. 'his notice shall state fhe
fire fee resolution, the police and :fire fee shall
inte deci sion an the dev eloper 'a a pp li-
be paid by each developer on or be th date
catio the r eason s for the prop ed d ecisi on,
of final inspection or date the certificate of
the effective date of. the decision if no appeal`s
occupancy is issued, whichever is first.
filed by the develope and the ri ght .ef the
b. .Annual. Review. On an annual basis,
developer to appeal to the City Cauncil, one
the City Council shall review the police and
notice of intended decision shall be personall
fire fee requirements to dete whether
se rved c r depos in the United States Ma
they are reasonably related% to the impacts of
b. :A��eals
new construction and whether the described
10 Any per .diss atisfied with the
police and fire fee requirements a r e still
decision. of the City Manager r
na file an
needed.
appeal. the. City Council within the time
(O r d. No. 2479 N.S. §1)
specx'f e d ab ove. The appeal shall b e made i
writing and filed with the City C lerk not later
than (1) .fifteen (15) days prior. to the public
hearing .o f th deve p application
City Council
2706
Exh 1 to
Agenda Item ##4-D
12 -15 ®g
n
u
DEVELOPMENT PEES
or the project, or (2) if no. development p erm i t is
required, at the time of the fihng o f an a
for a buii lil:� g permit. The appeal shad state in
detail the factual basis fo r the cl aim of waiver,
reduction or ad j t ,stment. a ppeal f ee o f fifty
($50.9.0). dollars shall accompany the request for
appeal to cover the cost of processin the appeal.
2. The City Council shah consider the appeal
at the public h earing on the pexu�it appiicatien or
at a separate hearing h within silty )days
after the ding of the. police and fire fee adjust
ment .application, whichever is later. The Ci
Council .may preside over the he,raag oz: appeal,
or, in the alternativ appoint a he of cer to
conduct the hea do g, to receive relevant evidence,
and to submit t the City: Council fin dings and
recommendations to be considered by the City
Count. The. C.ity Council. shall .render its decision
within forty-five (45) days 'ram the date of the
hearing, or iu e event a hearing offi has
been appointed, within, forty five (4 days from
the date the City Coun cil receives the findings an
recommendations of the hearing ofcer. ':i'h:e deci- si on of the City Co uncil shall be final.
3. H. the City Count finds that an appeal or
any po rtion of an a ppear does not prevail, the fees
assessed for. the matters at th basis of the appeal
shall automaafic; l resume. A 'giver, if granted,
shall be *in: effect for one M c alendar. year. if a
redaction, adjustment .:or-.: waiver is granted, any
change in use the proj shall inval
the waiver, ad uAzaent or.reduction of the
re
ments. (Ord. No.. 2479 N& S 1)
27-2.7 2.7 L imited U seof Fees. y
a. Separation of Fees. The revenues r ais by
payment of police anal fire fees shah- be placed in
a separate and special account, and such reve- i
rues, along nth any interest carnings on that
account, shall.. be used soiely to h p .em the
police and fire Projects identified m the police and
fire fee resolution (Ord. loo. 2479 N.S. §1)
27 -2.8 Exemptions.
Publicly .owned developments shah be exem
from the provisions of this section. (Ord. No. 2473
2701
27 -3
Rev. Ord. Supp..7 /0 Y
City Council
Exhibit 2 to
Agenda Item #4
1215 =09
CITY OF ALAN E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim city Manager
Date: December 15, 2009
Re: Accept the Annual Report for the Public Art Fund
BACKGROUND
On March 12, .2003, the city Council adopted Ordinance 2892, which created. the
Alameda Public Art Program. The intent of. the program is to promote a diverse.. and
stimulating cultural environment to enrich the lives of the City's residents and sitdrs
and contribute to the vitality of the City's economic development. The ordinance
provides that private and municipal building projects with an a.ss.esse.d. value. of
$250,000 and over contribute one percent of the building deve.lopme.nt costs, up to a
maximum of $150,000, toward on -site public artwork, cultural programs, or cultural
activities.
The Alameda Municipal code requires the establishment of a. separate. fund for. fees,
such as public art. fees, paid. in connection with. the.approval of a. develop rent project.
The Code also requires the preparation of .an annual report that provides information
regarding the. amount .of fees collected and expended in the fund balance at :both.: the
beginning and end of the fiscal year. This report is intended to satisfy the annual review
requirement for the. fiscal year.ending June 30, 2009.
DISCUSSION
As of July 1, 2008 the Public Art Fund had a balance of $73,574. In FY08 -09, the City
of Alameda Public Art Program administered fees for one development project,
Kentucky Fried Chicken. The fee generated by :this project was .$3,882. Interest in the
amount of $3, .082 was credited. to the fund, and expenditures of $7,732 were debited,
bringing the ending fund balance as of June 30, 2009 to $x'2,800.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
By ordinance, funds from public art fees are held in a special find that can only be used
for eligible public art purposes specified in the ordinance. There is no impact on the
General Fund.
City council
Agenda item ##4 -E
12=1 5w09
Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
December .1 5, .2009
Pa 2 of 2
From Jul 1, 2008, to June 30, 2009, $6,964.09 was. credited to the Public Art. F and
$7,x'32 was debited, for a total endin balan of $72,8.06.. E from th.e..fund
cover staffin of the Public Art Pro a nd mi.scel.laneo.us.expenses such as. mate
and posta for maili Exhibit .1 provides the be and endin fund balances
and reflects fund activit for FY08-09-
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This Annual Review is consistent with the re of Section 30-65 of the
Alameda Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept this report in order to satisf the Annual Review re of the Public Art
Ordinance.
Respectfull submitted,
Aon Bi
Plannin Services Mana
Approved as to funds and account,
Glenda D. Ja
Interim Finance Director
Exhibit:
1. Fund Activit for FY08-09
Public A Fund Analysis (Fund 285)
F Y08
As of 61301
a
f
3
Fund Balan
FY08 -09
FY08 -09 Fund Balance
t
as of
Revenue
Expense as of
613012008
613012309
I nterest
7,2 22 mm 01
3, 082.09
10,304-10
f
Admin Ca
6,996. 19)"
7,732.2 (14,728.31)
251 Adman only
2 850101
South Sh Center
m 28 1 3 63.56 1
28
28501 Baysh Yacht
4
4
J ,481 43
2850 Work Liv Project
4,720.73
4,720.73
285013; Bridgeside Shopping C TR
2 850141 Perfor
5,750.00
21 1
5
21 1 156.00
28 5015 2411 Webb
3,250.00
3
2 Safeway
2850 KFC
S ,62G.74
3,882.00
5 ,626.74
3,882.00
Total
73 1
6
7 72,806.25
City Council
Exhibit to
Agenda Item #4 -E
CITY OF ALAM E ❑A
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: December 15, 2009
Re: Conduct the Affordable Housing ordinance Annual Review Consistent
with Section 27 -1 of the. Alameda Municipal Code and California
Government code Section 66001 and Accept the Annual Report
1 2 0 0 T
On December 19, 1989, the city council adopted the .Affordable Housing ordinance,
which was created to mitigate the housing .impacts caused. by new or expanded non-
residential construction. The fees apply to offioelresearch and development, retail,
warehouse/industrial, manufacturing, and. hotel /motel construction. The ordinance
established the city's Affordable Housing Dn t/Fee (AHUF) requirements as Section 2.7-
1 of the Alameda Municipal !bode and .sated that .these requirements can be satisfied
either by the provision of housing units affordable to. low- and moderate- income
households or by the payment of an in -lieu fee..
The Municipal Code mandates. that .the city Council review the AH U F requirements on
an annual basis to determine. whether they are reasonably related to the ..impacts. of
development and the ..affordable housing units, programs, and activities are still
needed. In addition to the requirements. of the Municipal Code, the AH U F is also
required to meet the provisions of Section 6600 of the. California Government Code.
The Government. code requires an Annual .deport be prepared. containin g specific
ecific
information regarding the amount of tees col Iected, the beginning and ending fund
balance, and how the fees were expended during the fiscal year.
This staff report, and. the attached Annual Report, is. intended to satisfy the annual
review requirements pursuant to Section 27 -1 of the..Iun.icipal Code and Section 66001
of the Government Code for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009.
DISCUSSION
The Affordable Housing Ordinance requires that, at the time of building permit
application, a developer of a nonresidential project (near construction or expansion)
p
must satisfy the affordable housing requirement either by providing affordable units or
by paying an in -lieu fee. To date, two developers have provided one unit each. The City
monitors both units to ensure that long -term affordability is maintained. All other
City Council
Agenda Item ##4 -F
Honorable Mayor and December 15, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
developers have paid a fee in -lieu of providing housing units. The ordinance provides
developers with a process to apply for an adjustment or waiver of the affordable housing
requirement if there is no reasonable relationship between a particular project and the
need for affordable housing. The appeal process includes a review by the Economic
Development Director and the city council, which makes the final decision.
The original study utilized to establish affordable housing requirements found that
construction or expansion of non residential development was a major factor in
attracting new employees to the city, which in turn created a need and demand for
additional housing in the city, and specifically for additional affordable housing. This
study was reviewed in November 2000, with the conclusion that the demand for
affordable housing and associated subsidies is comparable to or greater than those
calculated at the time of the original study in 1 989, and the city's fees are well within the
limits of the maximum fees that could be supported on a nexus basis.
In addition, the city's affordable housing units, programs, and activities are still needed.
The City has' not yet satisfied the goals established in the Housing Element for
affordable housing, and the average market price of housing is beyond the reach of
households at very love low and moderate- income levels. High land costs and
scarcity of land available for development hinder the provision of affordable housing
units solely through private action. Affordable housing rents and purchase .prices remain
below the level necessary to stimulate new construction, and federal and state housing
finance and subsidy programs remain insufficient by themselves to satisfy affordable
housing needs.
The Affordable Housing ordinance establishes a method for increasing the fee
annually. The fee increase is based on the increase in local cost of construction, as
reported by the Engineering Nevus Report Construction Price Index for San Francisco.
In the last several years the city and country have seen an economic decline. This
decline has resulted in fewer construction projects in the Bay Area, with construction
costs no longer escalating by double digits as has been seen in prior years. The
declining economy has led to a slowing in growth, with fewer companies making
decisions to relocate. The need to maintain the City's cost of doing business attractive
to new business is as critical an issue as the need to provide affordable housing, and
balance is needed. Based on the economic climate, the fees were not increased for the
2008 -09 fiscal year. In addition, the master fee schedule adopted in July 2009, for the
2009 -10 fiscal year, held the fees constant for a second year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact from conducting an annual review of the Affordable Housing
Ordinance. By ordinance and the California Government Code, funds collected from
affordable housing fees are sequestered in a special fund (Fund 266) that can only be
used for eligible housing purposes specified in the ordinance.
Honorable Ma and December 15, 2009
Members of the Cit Council Pa 3 of 3
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This Annual Review, and attached Annual Report, is consistent with the re of
Section 27-1 (Affordable Housin Unit/Fee Re of the Alameda Municipal
Code and California Government Code Section 66001.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct the Affordable Housin Ordinance Annual Review consistent with Section 27-1
of the Alameda Municipal Code and California Government Code Section 66001 and
accept the attached Annual Report.
Respectfp Il su w itted
Leslie A. Little
Economic Development Director
Approved as to fu nds and account,
Glend i
Interi Fitnace Director
AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT /FEE
ANNUAL REPORT
December 15, 2009
The city of Alameda has an Affordable Housing ordinance, which was created to
mitigate the housing impacts caused by new or expanded non residential
construction. The fees apply to office /research and development, retail,
warehouse /industrial, manufacturing, and hotel /motel construction. The
ordinance established the city's Affordable Housing Unit/Fee (AHUF)
requirements as section 27-1 of the Alameda Municipal code and stated that
these requirements can be satisfied either by the provision of housing units
affordable to low- and moderate- income households or by the payment of an in-
lieu fee.
Pursuant to state law, these types of "impact fees" require the preparation of an
annual report containing specific information addressing the amount of fees
collected, the beginning and ending fund 'balance, and how the fees. were
expended during the fiscal year. This annual report covers the 2008 -09 fiscal
year.
Description and Amount of the Fee
The AHUF is assessed on new and expanded non residential construction. The
fee is assessed based on the type of non residential construction. construction
activity is categorized in one of five development types contained in the table
below. The fee is set, by development type, on an annual basis as part of the
City's Master Fee Resolution. The Affordable Housing ordinance establishes a
method for increasing the fee. The fee increase is based on the increase in local
cost of construction, as reported by the Engineering News Report construction
Price Index for San Francisco. Given the very small increase in the cost of
construction (less than 2 the AHUF amount for FY 2008 -09 was not increased
from the FY 2007-08 amount. The master fee schedule adopted in duly 2009, for
the 2009-10 fiscal year, continues to hold the AHUF amount at FY 2008 -09
levels.
City Council
Exhibit to
Agenda Item ##4 -F
12ml5 -0g
Type of Development
FY 2008 -09 Fee
(per sq ft)
Office /R &D
$4.21
Retail
$2.14
Warehouse /Industrial
$0.73
Manufacturing
$0.73
Hotel /Motel
$1,081 /room
Beginning and Ending Account Balance/Total Amount of Fees Collected and
Interest Earned
Attachment A to this Report shags the beginning and ending fund balances, The
beginning fund balance was $549,894.69 and the ending fund balance was
$280,622.94. A total of $42,899.90 was collected in fees and the fund earned
$17,024,25 in interest.
Public Improvements Funded
Attachment A provides a list of public improvements funded. Funding for public
improvements include: first time hornebuyer assistance ($14,875), Down
payment assistance (DPA) loans ($80,000), maintaining the City's housing
website ($315), partial funding of construction of eight homeownership units at
626 Buena Vista ($30,000) and 39 rental units at 401 stargell Avenue ($100,000)
for very lour- and low- income families.
One D PA loan was made for $80,000 (100% of the loan provided). The $315
paid to maintain the City's housing website is 50% of the cost of administering
the website. Funds used to assist the 39 -unit project represent less than 1 of
the total $13 million project cost. This is also the case with $30,000 in assistance
provided to 626 Buena Vista, a $3,2 million construction project.
Financing on [ncorn lete Public Improvements
All public improvements that received funding from the AHUF were substantially
completed during the 2008 -09 fiscal year. While construction was completed on
both the 626 Buena Vista and 401 stargell Avenue projects, one of the 626
Buena Vista units was sold in July 2009 and lease up of the units at 401 stargell
was completed in October 2009. Therefore, there are no incomplete public
improvements to report for fiscal year 2008 -09.
interl=und Transfers or Loans
The loan payments, including interest, noted in Attachment A, were for payments
on a DPA loan (5% interest) and an in -fill construction project loan
i me rest)
Amount of Refunds Made
No refunds were made from the AF OF pursuant to Section 66001 of the
California Government Code.
ATTACHMENT A
CITY OF ALAMEDA
FUND 266 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT /FEE FUND
BEGINNING AND ENDING FUND BALANCES
FUND ACTIVITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 -09
Beginning Fund Balance
New Revenues
Affordable Housing Fees
42,899.90
Interest Allocation
17,024.25
Interest Payments from loans
1
Principal Payments from loans
2,579.31
Other Misc Revenues Moan tees)
5.00
Transfer In from Gen Fund
(Mortgage Credit Certificate Program)
999.9E
Total New Revenues
Expenditures and Encumbrances
Operating
Administration 20,775.28
Encumbrances
Downpayment Assistance Loans and loan delivery $11 ,908.00
Buena Vista Commons 24,928.00
Projects
First Time Homebuyer workshops, counseling and outreach 14,875.00
Downpayrnent Assistance Loans 80,000.00
Buena Vista Commons 30,000.00
39 Unit Project $1 00,000.00
Housing Website 315.00
Mortgage Credit Certificate Program payment to County 1,000.00
Total Expenditures and Encumbrances
Ending Fund Balance
549,894.59
54,52$.53
383,801.28
-P eoU,044.U4+
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: December 1 5, 2009
Re: Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids for the
Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Avenue Intersection Project
Landsca e and Irrigation Irn rove rents No. P.W. 06 -09 -18
BACKGROUND
The City has been working for ten years to design, plan, and implement the Wilver
"Willie" Stargell Avenue Extension Project. This project is critical to the redevelopment
of the City's west side, which includes Alameda Landing and Alameda Point. The
design of the landscape and irrigation improvements along Webster Street and Stargell
Avenue, the final phase of work for the project, is complete. The Planning Board also
reviewed and approved the master landscaping plan for the project.
DISCUSSION
The proposed project includes the installation of landscaping and irrigation within the
medians, curbside planter strips, and back -of- sidewalk edge treatments along Stargell
Avenue and Webster Street. The project also includes landscape and irrigation
improvements within Neptune Park at the intersection of Stargell Avenue and Webster
Street. Caltrans District 4 staff has reviewed and approved the proposed project. A
copy of the plans and specifications is on file in the City Clerk's office.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The improvements along Webster Street and Stargell Avenue are funded with State
Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) monies, citywide Development
Fees/Transportation (Fund 340), Community Facilities District 2 funds (Fund 361), a
short -term loan from the Sewer Fund (Fund 602), and Alameda Reuse
Redevelopment Authority and Fleet and Industrial Supply Center (FISC) lease
revenues. The landscape improvements in Neptune Park will be funded by Alameda
Municipal Power (AMP) and Pacific Gas &Electric (PG &E), since the recent work
performed by the utility companies affected the existing park landscaping. AMP will
provide up to $42,548 of Electric Reserves for this work. This amount represents the
unspent project balance of the AMP/Webster Street joint trench and utility relocation
project (No. P.W. 08- 08 -23). PG &E has also agreed to provide up to $27,000 for this
work.
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -G
Honorable Mayor and December 15, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
With the exception of the Neptune Park landscaping, the Alameda Landing Disposition
and Development Agreement requires Catellus Development Corporation to reimburse
the City for 53% of all construction and soft costs. STI P funds will cover the remaining
47% of the construction costs. In accordance with the sewer loan note, the Community
Improvement Commission /FISC will begin to retire the five -year sewer fund loan in
FY09 -1 0. There is no financial impact to the City's General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. The installation of additional
trees and landscaping is consistent with the goals of the City's Local Action Plan for
Climate Protection.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On May 21, 2002, the City of Alameda, in its role as Lead Agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopted Resolution No. 13455 adopting a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. On February 13, 2000, the City prepared
an addendum letter to the [HIND regarding a minor realignment of Stargell Avenue.
Adopting the plans and specifications for this project and authorizing a call for bids will
not result in any new environmental impacts per Planning Board Resolution No. 09 -04.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids for the Webster
Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Avenue intersection project landscape and irrigation
improvements, No. P.W. 00- 09 -18.
Approved as to funds and account,
ES:gc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: December 15, 2009
Re: Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a call for Bids for the
Buena Vista Avenue Street Rehabilitation Pro'ect No. P.W. 02 -09 -05
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 2009, the city council adopted Resolution No. 14358, authorizing the filing of
an application for funding from the Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
(ARRA) of 2009 to repair and resurface Buena Vista Avenue, from Grand Street to
Willow Street. The City received State approval from Caltrans prior to the November
30, 2009 deadline. Before the project can go to out bid, approval is needed from the
City Council and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The documents are
currently under review by the FHWA.
DISCUSSION
The proposed project will reconstruct failed pavement areas and resurface
approximately 2,300 linear feet of street, using rubberized asphalt concrete. A copy of
the plans and specifications is on file in the City Clerk's office.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds for the city's annual resurfacing program are identified in the Capital
Improvement Program (Project No. 82- 01 -29). The estimated cost for this work is
$500,000, including design, construction, inspection, contract management, and
construction contingencies. It is estimated that the city will receive $350,000 in ARRA
funding, which only may be applied towards construction, inspection, contract
management, and construction contingencies. The remaining funds will come from
Measure B and a grant from the California Integrated Waste Management Board for the
use of rubberized asphalt. There is no impact to the General Fund.
City council
Agenda Item ##4-t
1
Honorable Ma and December 15, 2009
Members of the Cit Council Pa 2 of 2
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFRENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On June 25, 2009, Caltrans. determined this project is Cate Excluded under the
National Environmental Protection Act of 1969. A CEQA cate exemption has
also been filed with the Count of Alameda.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids for the Buena Vista Avenue
Street Rehabilitation Project, No. P.W. 02-09-05.
Approved as to funds and account,
r f
LK:gc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
From: Anne Marie Gallant
Interim Cit Mana
Date: December 15, 2009
Re: Accept the Work of Ran Pipelines for the Alameda Municipal
Power/Webster Street Joint Trench and Utilit Relocation Project, No.
P.W. 08-0823
BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2008, the Cit Council adopted plans a nd specifications, and
authorized a call for bids for the Ala Municipal. Power. (AMP )/Webst.er.street -joint
trench and utilit relocation. project, No. P.W. 08-08-23. On December 2 200
.8, the Cit
Council awarded a contract in the amount of $31 5,210, ..includin contin g encie.s, to
Ran Pipelines, for the relocation of.primar and secondar .electric.al. lines, conduits,
and vaults, street li and other utilities to accommodate the future Wilver "Willie"
Star Avenue pro
DISCUSSION
The project has been completed .in accordance with the plans and specifications and is
acceptable to the Public Works Department. The final project cost, inclu
din extr work
orders, is $272,662. Durin construction of the adjacent Star Avenue improvements
and the reali of a Pacific Gas Electric g as main, n
p.ortio..s of the existin
landscapin and irri within Neptune Park, particularl alon the mesterl ed
adjacent to Webster Street, was dama In consultation with the Recreation and
Parks Director, it has been determined that the final landscape v restoration work for-
Neptune Park gill be completed as part of the upcomin Star A enue landscapin
p ro e ct.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The pro is bud in the Electric Reserves for AMP and was approved b the
Public Utilities Board on September 15, 2008. Funds for the landscape restoration of
Neptune Park will come from the remainin unspent pro balance of $42,548. There
is no impact to the General Fund.
Cit Council
A Item #4-1
12=1 5w09
Honorable Ma and December 15, 2009
Members of the Cit Council Pa 2 of 2
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
On Ma 21, 2002, the. Cit in its role as Lead. A under the. California
Environmental.Qual.it Act (CEQA), adopted Re N 345.5. adoptin a Miti
Ne Declarati (M .ND) .for the. project.. On. Februar 135 2006, the Cit prepared
an addendum letter. to. the. MN.D re a m i n or. r .of Sta Avenue. In
addition, the utilit relocation, which J$ a .part of t larger project, me.ets.the criteria for
a CEQA Ca Exemption .(CE.).and a Nati.ora E.nvironmen.t P Act
Exclusion Determination ED). ..The Pro Section 4(f) evaluation addressed
the effects of Section.4(f) lands .(Feder :Pa.rk lands) and compl the do mentation
and su s
pports the CE/ED.for. the new Star intersection within the exi We bte r
Street ri of wa the minor encroachment of the sidewalk, and the utilit relocation
into N Park.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the work of Ran g er Pip for the AMP/Webster Street joint trench .and utilit
relocation pro No. P.W. 08-08-23.
Respectfull submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Approved as to funds and account,
J
Glend J
Interim ina e Director
PL:gc
CITY OF ALAM EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: December 15, 2009
Re: Accept the Work of Harty Pipelines, Inc., for Fernside Boulevard Seger
Rehabilitation Thompson Avenue to High Street No. P.W. 03-09 -09
BACKGROUND
On June 10, 2009, the City Council adopted plans and specifications, and authorized a
call for bids for the Fernside Boulevard serer rehabilitation project. between Thorn p son
Avenue and High Street, No. P.W. 03- 09 -.09. On June.. 10, 2009, the City Council
awarded a contract in the amount of $018,815, including contingencies, to Dart
Pipelines, Inc., for the replacement of approximately 2,000 linear feet. of.sanitary. sewer
pipelines, 700 linear feet of laterals, 15 manholes, and associated work.
DISCUSSION
The project has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications, and is
acceptable to the Public Works Department.. The final project cost, includin 9 extra work
orders, is $404,133.33. During the design.of the project, staff noted that trenching near
the mature street trees along Fernside Boulevard could affect the stabilit y of some of
the trees.. and require some tree removals. The project specifications. required the
p q
contractor to use hand tools when excavating within the drip line of any :street tree.
Staff is pleased to report that this requirement resulted in all trees bein g retained within
the project limits.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (Project.No. 95 -02), with
monies allocated from the Sewer Enterprise Fund. There is no impact to the General
Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
City Council
Agenda Item ##4
12 =15 -09
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the city council
ENVIRONMENTAL. REVIEW
December 15, 2009
Page 2 of 2
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the work of Harty Pipelines, Inc., for Fernside Boulevard sewer rehabilitation,
Thompson Avenue to High Street, No. P.W. 03- 09 -09.
Respe I submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Approved as to funds and accounts,
Glend J
Interim Finance Director
PS:gc
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To Honorable [Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann (Marie Gallant
Interim City (Manager
Date: December 15, 2009
Re: Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda municipal Code 1277
N.S., Section 11 -116, by Reclassifying and Rezoning Encinal Terminals
and the Del [Monte Building at 1501 and 1523 B Avenue from
Industrial to (Mixed Use Zoning Districts to Comply with the General Plan
Designations and Amending the M -X Mixed. Use. Planned Development
District Zoning Regulations to Allow for Application for .Interim Use Permits
Prior. to Approval of a Master Plan for the Property Under Certain
Conditions
BACKGROUND
The proposed zoning ordinance amendments were introduced .at .the December 1, 2009
City Council meeting. At the meeting, the city Council directed that the zoning text
amendment be further amended to: 13 allow for long terra use, and 2) clarify that new
uses should not result in unacceptable off -site impacts.
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
The rezoning of these properties will amend Alameda Municipal .Code (AMC) Sections
1277 N.S., Section 11 -1 16 .and ensure consistency between the Zoning [Map and the
General Plan and Housing Element.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVI
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 15162 Subsequent Environmental Impact
Reports, the proposed zoning neap amendments were considered in the Environmental
Impact Report for the General Plan Amendment for the. Northern Waterfront certified in
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -K
12-1 5 =09
Honorable Mayor and December 15, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
2007, the Environmental Report for the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment in
2003, or the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan Update in 1991.
Accordingly, staff finds and determines on the basis of substantial evidence in the
record that the previous EIRs fully analyzed the potential environmental effects of the
rezoning and incorporates mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid any
potentially significant impacts in accordance with CEQA. None of the circumstances
necessitating preparation of additional CEQA review as specified in CEQA and the
CEQA Guidelines, including without limitation Public Resources Code Section 21106
and CEQA Guidelines section 1 5102, are present in that (1) there are no substantial
changes proposed in the project or the circumstances under which the projects are
undertaken that would require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; and (2) there is no "near information of substantial importance" as
described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a )(3).
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the second reading of the ordinance to amend the Alameda Municipal Code by
reclassifying and rezoning Encinal Terminals and the Del Monte Building at 1501 and
1523 Buena vista Avenue from industrial to mixed use zoning districts to comply with
the General Plan designations and amending the M -X Mixed Use Planned Development
District zoning regulations to allow for application for interim use permits prior to
approval of a master plan for the property under certain conditions.
Respectfully s ab'mitted,
4
Andrew Thomas
Planning Services Manager
AT: n m
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
1
1919=
EM
AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12771 N.S- TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 48 ACRES LOCATED AT 1501 AND 1523
BUENA VISTA AVENUE (ENCINAL TERMINALS AND DEL
MON BUILDING AP GIs 072 038200200, 072 0382004001 072
038200300, 072 038201000 072 038200500, and 072
0382009001 072 038300100 072 038300200, and 072
038300300) FROM M-21 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
(MANUFACTURING) DISTRICT, TO ICI -X, MIXED USE ZONING
DESIGNATION.
BE IT ORDAINED b the Cit Council of the Cit of Alameda that:
Section 1: Section 11 -118 of Ordinance. No. 1277, N.S. is hereb amended b
reclassif all the real propert situated within the Cit of Alameda
Count of
Alameda, State of California, consistin of approximatel 48 .acres .and located
at 1501 and 1523 Buena Vista Aven ue, APNs 072 072
038200400, 072 038200300) 072 .038201000 072 038200500 and 072
038200900 072 038300100 072 038300200, and 072 038300300
as shown
on the attached Exhibit Afrom M-2, General Industrial (Marufacturin District
to Ill Mixed Use District.
Section 2: The above amendment shal be known as and referenced to
as Rezonin Amendment No. 210 to Ordinance No. 1277, N.S.
Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
the expiration of thirt (30) da from the date of its final passa
Presidin Officer of the Cit Council
Attest:
Lara Weisi Cit Clerk
Cit of Alameda
Final Passa of Ordinances #4-K CC
12-15-09
Exhibit A.
Current Zonin
Proposed Zonin
m
m
PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 28, 2009
TO: Honorable President and Members of the
Plannin Board
FROM: Andrew Thomas, Plannin Services Mana
510.747-6881
athomas@ci.a1ameda.ca.us
Tkol 04 ;-VVA
ADDRESS.- 1523 and 1501 Entrance Road/Buena Vista Avenue (Encinal
Terminals and Del Monte Warehouse
APPLICATIONS: Rezonin PL.NO9-.0222- Applicant Cit of. Alameda. A
rezonin of propert located at 1523 and 1501 Entrance
Road/Bue.na Vist.a. A (En.cinal .Ter .minal and Del D ante
Warehouse fro M-2, General Industrial.. nufacturin
Distri to.M-X.Mixed Use P.1anne.d. Development :District to
conform to the General Plan Mixed.Use Desi
ZONING DISTRICT:
Z T Amendment PLN090W0243im M-X Zonin
Di Re Applicant:. %pity of. Alameda. A
propos text amendment t o the M-X Mixed ..Use Planned
Development District. zonin re to allow for
application for i use permits prior to approval of a
master plan for the propert under certain conditions.
Use. Permit P.LN09-.0184 Applicant Chen Wan
for Encinal Termin —.A re approve an amendment
of the existin use permit UP- 94 -g6. to allow for limited use of
the site. loca .at 152.3 Entrance Road/Buena Vista Avenue
(Encinal Terminals) until Au 31, 2012.
M-2 General Industrial
GENERAL PLAN: Specified Mixed Use
OUCII a CIPPI uW�u Ll Ic. I v. I I P
'ke action ion fir.. Wang gis
on staff .s r+ecammenda is
f
b
pr�T
r I_ .,.E 1' r S Y a�
Wl
ii 1 T lil i'• r fi b$ YrA �rr
rr :yip .A •..ry
:i r Fr�,:.'•�. it V.
0, kiv fi
•:,{S�:`7•': t 6 L r �`p `T air:. +Ll P L�. s..�
rr/ i� Z3 d 'ik :ti s rP. 3 i• Y om
rr r. •d•l�±' -A �;=��y� t if
.wr :k t«' wt.aslW s� j y�• f i 4 r r I� s��I a t�1
,,F 1 i. Y s �x qr.. ll.�' d..:�.�.. "8 I
St-
i•yi' i`�� r ..:s":. p• i� f f- L i,. "F 'F d'
.ac.i�.!C •r"4a+4M::- a_ a- �'.d' S tip'
'g� W
%,A.4
4Q
i.� t��.'� r•y l r� r�� F A�
�Iva
�f ;i rr..
°•f,r f. .a �W >R� y
ti
-''-0 i s ii �T� �f s.x s: �q�.'�
NL
ILI
...4► '�..w. .w.: x 7; Y'. L Pe
f 4a.. 1 A.= g ...k'a m ar l Y r
y eq �fr6 a 1 ,f t ,.N II f f j J
Y.F V tr 1 •r° '�+i' i`.w.�• S.P �Q''7k� P I`' �jd PrY� c #l 41
1
ti e i
3 t f¢� y ��`�s r war`. r f '!i y ;p,� r
r r 4.� '1� 0 s�•. r `Y`Y 8 i :'r` 1. iV-T`aiq ,r
coq, 4 a r ti i ►f
11iAt1i' �iI :f. if •r.rt: �Z♦ ,i
Pj
sit
x
r ►4. r S L r r c•�
ji iii }t j ,�i. !G k B= 7
Honorable President and September 28, 2009
Members of the Planning Board Page 3 of 1
On August 24, 2009, the Planning Board continued the item until September 28 at Mr.
Wang's request. At this time staff is recommending that the Planning Board:
I. Approve the rezoning of the Encinal Terminal Property and the Del Monte
Warehouse Property to M-X Mixed lase.
2, Approve a zoning text amendment to the M -x zoning to address future interim
uses on the site.
3. Approve an extension to the use permit for interim use of the site between
.August 2010 and August 2012.
BACKGROUND
Can September 28, 1994, the Planning Board approved a 15 --year use permit to allow
container repair and storage on the site. At the time, the General Plan designated the
site and surrounding area for manufacturing and marine related uses. The Use
Permit's 15-year terra recognized that the use would be temporary and .that the site and
larger area were undergoing changes that might render the use inappropriate for the
site in the future.
As anticipated, the area began to change soon thereafter. In 1999, the city approved
the V ind River development plan, which al owed for the development of a. five building
office campus directly across the Alaska Basin from the Encinal Terrninl.s property. In
2000, the City approved the Marina cove residential. development that allowed up to
157 residential units and a park on former industrial sites including the Chipman
Warehouse site adjacent to the Encinal Terminals property.
In 2002 the City embarked on a comprehensive evaluation of the. land use patterns,
trends, and policies in the area. The council appointed Northern Waterfront Advisory
Committee completed their work and presented their proposed General Plan policies
for public review in 2005.
Consistent with the committee's recommendations, the city approved a rezoning to MW
X (Mixed Use) and a Faster Plan in 2007 for 40 residential units adjacent to the Grand
Marina boat slips and boat launch. The M -X zoning and Master Plan ensure that the
new residential component is designed and managed in a manner that is compatible
with the adjacent marina, public open spaces, and the non residential uses in the
historic Alaska Packers building.
In 2008, the city Council approved. the draft Northern Waterfront General. Plan
Amendment. The Amendments includes a series of policies specific to Encinal Terminal
and the Del Monte site. Regarding Encinal Terminals, the General Plan states:
The intent of the site specific development policies for the Encinal Terminal Site is to facilitate
redevelopment of the site with new land uses that will take advantage of the unique site
configuration and waterfront location, increase opportunities for public access and enjoyment of the
waterfront and eliminate the existing uses which contribute a large volume of truck traffic in the
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
September 28, 2009
Page 4 of 11
vicinity. The Mixed Use designation will allow for the development of a wide range of land uses to
capitalize on the site's unique location adjacent to the Alaska Basin, Oakland/Alameda. Estuary,
Fortman Marina, and Del [~Monte Warehouse site. Anticipated land uses in .this district include a
range of housing types, including senior housing, commercial, office, and public parks and open
space. Public waterfront access around the perimeter of the site is envisioned, as 'well as a new
marina on the Alaska Basin. Pursuant to the area wide policies, any plan to redevelop this site
should be consistent with the following Site Specific Policies:
E -T 1. Require that the master plan for the development of the Encinal Terminals. site illustrate
how the various parcels can be developed as a unified development. The master plan
must address all phases of the development of the site.
E -T 2. Require that the. master plan include adequate open space and a clear public access
around the perimeter of the site.
E -T 3. The Master Plan should consider relocating the tidelands trust lands to the perimeter of the
site to allow residential mixed-use development in the core of the site with publicly
accessible open space around the perimeter of the site.
E -T 4. Cluster development to maximize open space and view corridors o the estuary.
E -T a. Given that Encinal Terminals is surrounded by water on three sites, taller buildings should
be located at the southern end of the site.
E -T 6. if a parking structure is proposed, require ground floor. uses and/or. a pedestrian friendly
facade.
E -T 7. If a parking structure is proposed, locate the structure to serve public access to the
waterfront and future development at the. Del. Monte site.
E -T 8. The. Master Plan for the Encinal Terminal site .shall .replace. the existing container storage
and cleaning operation with .a rnix :of uses to create a lively .waterfront development..The
plan should include at least the. following four. land. uses: residential, retail, commercial, and
public .open space.
E -T 9. Residential. uses may include senior housing or assisted living facilities.
E -T 10. Commercial uses may include restaurants, marine related. uses, office uses, and/or
additional berths. in. the Alaska Basin. Additional. berths should not be allowed on the
northern edge of.the site facing the Estuary and Coast Guard island to preserve views of
the water and Oakland.
E -T 11. Require that the master plan include inviting, well- designed public entrances from Clement
Street. Primary vehicular access into the site should occur at a four -way intersection .at
Clement/Entrance, if feasible.
E -T 12. Consider opportunities for a public human powered /non motorized boat launch facility at
Alaska Basin.
E -T 13. Require public art installations adjacent to the Alaska Basin shoreline consistent with the
Public Art ordinance.
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
September 28, 2009
Page 8 of 11
E T 14. The Encinal Terminal developmert should fund a fair share of the costs of the clement
Street extension from Sherman to Grand.
E -T 15. The Encinal Terminal development should fund a fair share of the costs to upgrade storm
sewer and wastewater facilities necessary to serve all future development within the
Northern Waterfront area.
E -T 16. The site plan should allow for a shoreline public promenade around the perimeter of the site
and adjacent to the Alaska Basin and Forman Marinas,
ANALYSIS
Rezoning (PLN09-0222)
As described above, the 2008 General Plan amendment includes policies directing that
the site be rezoned to require a ii mix of new uses including residential, cornmercial,
senior housing, and public open space The General Plan polices call for a master
plan that would address how. the mix of uses, open space, parking, state lands, and
other issues would all be addressed. To conform with a n d i mplem ent the. General. Pl
polices for the Encinal Terminals site and the Del Monte Building,. staff. is
recommend that the properties be rezoned from their current .designation of M�2
General Industrial to M -X il,llixed Use Planned Development. As stat in the Alameda
Municipal code Section 30-4.20:
"The purpose of the Mixed -Use District is to .encourage the. development of a compatible
mixture of land uses which may include residential, retail, offices, recreational,
entertainment, research oriented light industrial, .water orient or o th er r uses.
The compatibility and interaction between mixe .u ses. is to be insure through a doption
of Master Plan .(defined in s ubsection .30 4.20f) .an d plan .site plan (d
in subsection 30 4.2oh), which indicate proper orientation, desirable des.lgn c har ac t er
and compatible land uses to. provide for:
1. A more pedestrian oriented nonautomotive environment and flexibility in the design of
land uses and structures than are provided by single purpose zonin d i st ricts, including
but not limited to shared parking}
2. The enhancement and p re servation of property and structures with. historical or
architectural merit, unique landscape or water areas, or offer features
requiring special treatment or protection;
3. Recreation areas that are most accessible to both the M -X district's inhabitants and
other city presidents;
4. Environments that are more conducive to mutual interdependence in terms of living,
working, shopping, entertainment and .recreatio.n; and
5. Flexibility in the design, lay -out and timing of build -out of large -scale mixed use
projects in order.to.respond to rnark et.demands while ensuring that d is in
conformance with adopted standards, procedures and guidelines.
Staff is recommending that the rezoning include the Del Monte Building property in
addition to the Encinal Terminals site because the General Plane n courage.s mixed use
development in the Del Monte Building and the properties are linked by common
ownership, access and parking needs, and General Plan policies. To be effective, the
Honorable President and September 28, 2009
Members of the Planning Board page 6 of 1
planning for the two sites should be coordinated. The change in zoning from M_2 to M-
X will not affect Mr. Wang's ability to continue leasing the Del Monte. Building for
warehouse purposes. Continuation of a non conforming use is permitted within the
existing structure. A similar condition exists on the Chipman site, which .is zoned for
residential use, but the site is currently being used. as a warehouse facility. by the
Chipman company. Under the City's zoning regulations, a .existing nor- conforming
use may continue, provided that it does .not expand or enlarge, and provided that the
use is in continuous operation and does not vacate the property for one. year or more.
Because neither the existing Chipman warehouse use nor the existing warehouse. use
in the Del Monte Building required use permits, they nay. Continue indefinitely as legal
non conforming uses. In contrast, the container storage and other "outdoor uses" do
require a use permit. Therefore, the container '.care use on Bncinal Terminals .does not
have the protection of the "legal non conforming" status and the use must be
terminated by August 2010 as required by the July .2009. use permit extension.
M -X zoning District Text Amendment (P
As described above, the M -X zoning district zoning regulations require .preparation and
adoption of a Master Plan for the site. Once the property has been zoned MX, but
before the blaster Plan has been. adapted for the property a property owner should be
able to use their property for certain uses provided that the use of the site will .not delay
redevelopment of the site consistent with General Plan .goals or delay completion of the
required Master Plan,.
To clarify that the MX zoning does not preclude. use. of. a site while a Master Plan is
being prepared or. before. construction of the pursuant to the b has. begun,
staff is recommending that the following tent be added to the M_x zoning district
regulations
The Planning Board may approve or amend a use Hermit for a property zoned MX prior
to apbroval or implementation of a master plan provided that: i) the use is either
permitted or conditionally permitted in one of the districts identified in subsection d 2
above, ii) a good faith effort is being m8de to' complete the master plan for the site
according to an acrreed -upon time schedule. iii) the term'ot'the use permit is defined and
short-term and conditions are included that describe and manage the termination of the
interim use upon expiration of the use permit, iv) the interim use does not have
significant or greater adverse impacts on neiah6orina properties and v) the aAproved
uses Will not inhibit or delay adoption of a master plan or redevelopment of a the
properfv consistent with the M -X zoning district purposes
Encinal Terminals Use Permit (PLNog. =01.8.4)
Mr. Wang is requesting .that the .City.extend the use permit on the Encinal Terminal site
to allow for certain interim uses to replace ConGlobal in .August 2919 durin g the time
that the Master Plan is being. prepared.for the site. The. proposed amendment to the
Use Permit would extend the terra from August 3, 2010 to Au.g u st 3, 2012 with the
following conditions:
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
September 28, 2009
Page 7 of 11
1. Consistent with the July 2000 extension, container storage and repair must be
terminated by August 3, 2010.
2. Between August 3, 2010 and August 3, 2012, the property may be used for:
a. special events. Farmers markets, flower markets, maritime sales, movie
and other entertainment production, art shags and other outdoor events,
exhibits and shows, subject to obtaining a Special went Permit. special
event uses must provide parking exclusively on site or a combination of on
site and nearby private or valet parking not impacting public streets.
b. Outdoor storage. Boats, watercraft, automobiles, RV's, chassis, trailers,
automotive equipment, _vehicles, buses, trucks, mobile homes,
construction equipment and materials (for businesses, homes,
commercial and/or household goods) and ancillary uses, including office
or retail functions.
c. Commercial Uses: Automotive sales and. storage but. not including
automobile wrecking yards or salvage yards; parcel delivery. services;
repair shops; sail lofts; tool or cutlery sharpening or grinding; warehousing
and storage facilities; trans loading, offloading and. on -site staging and
assemblage of supplies and. materials received at terminal, and .similar
uses; outdoor amusernents; boat sales and service; machinery sales,
rentals and services; work/live studios subject. to the. requirements of
Section 30 5 and Zoning Administrator action to add any :required
conditions of approval; and plant nurseries.
3. Between August 3, 2010 and August 3, 2012, all use of the site must comply
with the following performance standards:
a. Truck Traffic. All use of the site shall be limited to 50 truck trips per
day. (Existing use generates between 200 and 250 per day.)
b. Noise: All uses shall comply with the city's noise ordinance are
presumed to comply with these requirements.
c. Hours of Operation: All .use. of the site shall be limited to 0 :00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m. After -hours loading and unloading of trucks is not permitted.
4. Annual reviews gill .be conducted beginning on August 2010 toreview progress
on the Master Plan for .the properties and compliance with Use Permit conditions.
Staff anticipates that the master planning process will require the following major
milestones over the course of 24 to 30 months:
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
September 28, 2009
Page 8 of 11
Fail 2009 staff and Encinal Terminals meet and confer to identify a pre
Master Plan application range. of 4 preliminary Mixed Use development
scenarios consistent with the Northern Waterfront +SPA, for the purpose of
conducting are updated Economic Feasibility study and Market Analysis.
May 2010 Community Forum: Presentation of draft Economic Feasibility
study and Market Analysis and initial conceptual Mixed Use scenarios.
June 2010 Planning Board public workshop .Review Enci.nal Terminals'
proposed project description and first draft conceptual design plan.
Workshop includes staff evaluation of proposal and Planning Board
feedback.
August 2010 Planning Board public w..orkshop and first Annual Review:
Review Encinal Terminals' second :draft project description and more
detailed conceptual design plans. Workshop includes staff evaluation of
proposal and .Planning Board feedback.
September-201 0 Encinal Terminals submits application for Master Plan
and Environmental Review Begins.
June 2011 city releases draft CEQA document
August 2011- Planning Board public hearing and feedback on draft cEQA
document and draft blaster Plan. Conduct second Annual Review
January 2012 Planning Board .hearings; Board makes cEQA and Master
Plan recommendations to city Council
March June 2012 city Council hearings on .Master Plan cEQA and
Master Plan
As with all complex planning processes the anticipated planning schedule should
be expected to change as. new information, new opportunities, and changing market
conditions andlor nevi regulations become. apparent, However, the above described
schedule does provide a roadrnap for planning the site, which can be reviewed,
evaluated, aid .amended at each annual review.. It should also be understood, that
staying on schedule mill require not only commitment from the property owner, but
also commitment by the pity. staff, the community, and.. the City's boards and
commissions to provide clear, consistent, and timely feedback to the property
owners planning consultants .at each step in the process,
5. Extensions: If an extension of the use permit is requested in 2012 the
information from the annual reviews and progress on the master planning
schedule as described above or as .amended at the Annual Reviews will provide
a basis for determining if 19 a goon faith effort is being made to complete the
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
September 28, 2009
Page g of 11
raster ,clan for the site according to are agreed -upon tine schedule It should
also be recognized that even if a Chaster Plan is completed and approved by
2012, the local and region economic conditions will need to improve to be able to
finance redevelopment of the site. if these conditions do not improve, Encinal
Terminals may still request an extension of the use permit in 2012 even if the
Master Plan is adopted. As somewhat similar conditions currently exists on the
Alameda Landing site, where a Faster Plan has. been adopted, but given the
economic conditions, development of the site pursuant to the Master Plan has
not commenced. At Alameda Landing, some of the existing warehouses and
wharf areas are being leased through interim short term use permits until such
time that market conditions improve and the development of the site can
commence.
Staff is in support of the requested Use Permit because:
a. The permit provides opportunities for the property owner to use the
property during the chaster Planning period after ConGlobal relocates to
Oakland.
b. The pe.rrnit is limited in time and will not delay or obstruct the .Chaster
Planning and environmental review process required before the property
can be redeveloped.
c. The range of uses and the conditions under which they must be. operated
will result in a significant reduction in truck traffic, after hours operations,
and other off site impacts as compared to the existing container care
operations.
f
Rezoning PLN09 -0 22 .sand Text amendment PLN09 Findings for Approval.
1. The proposed arnend gents maintain the .integrity of the General Plan. The
proposed rezoning is necessary to ensure consistency between the. General
Plan designation and policies for the properties and the zoning designation for
the properties. The existing zoning is not consistent with the General Plan
designation and policies.
2. The proposed amendments will benefit the general welfare of the community."
The proposed rezoning will facilitate the future development of the site with the
community's recently adopted General Plan goals and policies for the Northern
Waterfront and the site.
3. The proposal is equitable. The proposal to rezone the properties is equitable in
that zoning will facilitate redevelopment and reuse of the site consistent with
.approved General Plan designations and policies. The proposed zoning text
amendment will provide a means for economic return to the property owner
during such time that the chaster Plan is being prepared, evaluated, and
adopted.
Honorable President and Septe mber 28, 2009
Members of the Planning Board Page 1 of I
Use Permit PLN09.0184 (2012 extension) Findings for Approval.
1. The location of the proposed uses and the conditions under which. they will be
operated will be compatible with other land uses in the general neighborhood
area, and the proposed uses and performance standards will ensure aesthetic
and operational harmony with the community and surrounding development.
2. The proposed uses will not result in significant or greater adverse affects other
property in the vicinity. The proposed uses will not result in less trucking, less
noise, less late night operations, and less aesthetic impacts on the nearby office,
residential, and open spaces uses in the general neighborhood area as
compared to the existing use of the site.
3. The proposed use permit does relate favorably to the General Plan. The use
permit is designed to ensure that .the .uses do .not delay or obstruct
redevelopment of the site consistent with General Plan policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL REV1E1�!
Rezoning: Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, Section 1 5162 Subsequent
Environmental Impact Reports, the proposed project was considered in the
Environmental. Impact .Report.for the General Plan Arn end ment for N Wate rfront
certified in 2008. Accordingly, the. Planning Board hereby. fi nds .and determines on the
basis of substantial evidence in the record that the previous. .EI R fully analyzes. the
potential environmental effects. of the project and incorporates mitigation measures to
substantially lessen. or avoid any. potentially significant impacts i acco rdance with
CEQA. Tone of the circumstances..n.ecessitating preparat .of addit CEQA review
as specified in CEQA and the c.EQA Guidelines, including without l imitat ion public
Resources code Section 21 1 66 and CEQA Guidelines Secti 1 51 62, ar present in
that (1) there are no substantial changes proposed in. the .project or the circumstances
under which the project is. undertaker th at. wodid. require major revisions of the..EIR due
to the involvement of new en�ironrnental effects or substant increa .in the severity
of previously identified significant. effects; and (2) there is no ''new. information of
substantial importance" as described.in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a)(3).
Use Permit: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15301 (M.inor Modifications to Existing
Use), the extension of the use perm..it.is categorically exempt. The use perrnit.extension
is a minor modification to an existing permit. Under the extension, the potential
environmental impacts of the use of the site will be reduced from the existing
conditions.
PUBLIC NOTICE
A revised notice for this hearing was mailed to property owners and residents within
300 feet of this site and interested parties who have previously requested notification,
published in the Alameda Journal and posted at the subject property, staff has received
several letters and phone calls from adjacent property owners and residents. In general,
residents and businesses in the area are opposed to any continuation of the container
Honorable President and September 28, 2009
Members of the Planning Board Page 11 of 11
care facility past 2010 and opposed to any other use that would result in truck traffic,
noise, or other off -site impacts on neighboring residential or commercial properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve resolutions.
Recommending City Council approval of PLN09 -0222, Rezoning of the
properties to 1'111 --x, Mixed Lase.
Recommending City Council approval of Text Amendment to the IVIX Zoning
District
0 Approving Use Permit PLN09 -0184
1 -011
Attachments:
1. Letter dated September 22, 2009 from Morrison and Forrester
2. Draft Rezoning and zoning Text Amendment Resolution
3. Draft Use Permit Resolution
4. Letters from Interested parties.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
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 seal of
said City this day of 2009.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE No.
LAC
0 Z New Series
CC
AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 30 -4.20 OF ARTICLE I
(ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS) OF CHAPTER XXX
DAM s
(DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY ADDING SUBSECTION 30-
e 4.20 TO THE M -X MIXED USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR
APPLICATION FOR INTERIM USE PERMITS UNDER CERTAIN
CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) does not explicitly allow
for interim use permits on property zoned MX Mixed Use, and
W HEREAS, owners of property may require interim uses to provide an
economic return on property that is zoned MX but for which an adopted Master
Plan has not yet been completed or adopted as required by Section 30 -4.20, and
WHEREAS, interim uses may be necessary for. property that is zoned MX
Fixed Use and has an approved master plan, but economic conditions are such
that the property cannot currently be economically redeveloped consistent with the
approved Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda Planning Board has held public hearings and
recommended adoption of the proposed amendment to the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Ordinance Adoption. Subsection 30 -4.20 MX Mixed Use Planned
Development Regulations Article I (Zoning Districts And Regulations) Of Chapter
XXX (Development Regulations) is hereby amended to add new subsection 30-
4.20 j. to read as follows:
j. interim Use Permits.
The Planning Board may approve or amend a use permit for a property
zoned MX prior to approval or implementation of a master plan provided that:
i) the use is either permitted or conditionally permitted in one of the districts
identified in subsection d.2 above, ii) a good faith effort is being made to
complete the master plan for the site according to an agreed -upon time
schedule, iii) the term of the use permit is defined and short -term and
conditions are included that describe and manage the termination of the
interim use upon expiration of the use permit, iv) the interim use does not
have significant or greater adverse impacts on neighboring properties, and v)
the approved uses will not inhibit or delay adoption of a master plan or
redevelopment of a the property consistent with the ilk -X zoning district
purposes.
Section 2. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council of
Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of
this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to
render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provision of this ordinance.
Section 3. 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 certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
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 seal of
said City this day of 2009.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING IAN M. COUWENBERG AS A MEMBER OF
THE CITY HOUSING COMMISSION
0
LL
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to
F
the provisions of Subsection 2 -12.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon
0
nomination of the Mayor, IAN M. COUWENBERG is hereby appointed to the office
Y of Tenant seat member of the Housing Commission of the City of Alameda to fill
the unexpired terra of Billie Trujillo commencing on December 15, 2009, and
expiring on June 30, 2010.
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 regular
meeting assembled on the 15th December, 2009, by the followin g vote to grit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this 10 day of December, 2009.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk.
City of Alameda
Resolution #G -A
12 -15 -09
CITY of ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim City Manager
Date: December 15, 2009
Re: Introduce an Ordinance Amending Sections 8 -7.8 through 8 -7.10 of the
Alameda Municipal Code to Restrict the Parking of Abandoned and
Unattended Vehicles, Commercial Vehicles, and Large Vehicles and
Adding section 8 -7.11 to Prohibit the Parking of Recreational Vehicles
Trailers and Boat Trailers on Cit streets
0
WT A i
Alameda is a densely- populated community with a significant number of vehicles parked
on residential city streets at any given time. The ongoing: problems associated with the
parking of abandoned vehicles and heavy commercial vehicles, the overni ht arkin of
g p g.
large vehicles, and the parking of recreational vehicles, trailers, boats, and boat trailers
on residential .streets pose quality -of -life challenges for Alameda's residents and the
business community. These vehicles. can impede traffic flog, affect public safet y and
cause blight and neighborhood disputes.. related to residential vehicle parking.
Staff conducted a comprehensive analysis of the City's .existing .parking regulations and
identified several areas where the Municipal Code could be amended to abate p roblems
created by the parking of certain types of vehicles. Each of these proposed
amendments to the Municipal Code is. consistent. with Ordinances established by
communities of similar demographics in the region and throughout California.
DISCUSSION
There are four areas where. amendment of the Municipal Code would have a positive
impact on residential parking:
1 AbandonedlUnattended Vehicles:
Municipal Code section 8 -7.8 mandates. that
any. unattended vehicle parked on city streets. must be moved at least 0.10 of a
mile every 72 hours. This. limited mileage /distance requirement all ays p ersons
to move .even inoperable vehicles, by .pushing or touring, fairly short distances
and still maintain compliance with the Municipal Code. The proposed
amendment will increase the distance an unattended parked vehicle must be
moved from 0.10 mile to one. mile. Elevating the mandatory distance an
Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
December 15, 2009
Pa 2 of 5
unattended vehicle must be moved is expected to decrease the number of
chronicall unattended parked vehicles.
(2) Heav Commercial Vehicles: Municipal Code Section 8-7.9 allows heav
commercial vehicles to park in residential districts for a period g reat e r than
three hours if the vehicle is substantiall enclosed b four opa walls, or
g ara g ed. The proposed amendment .to the Municipal Code eliminates the
exemption all other exemptions, such as. cond necessar
business and deliver still appl This chan will abate the practic of he.av
y
commercial vehicles bein routinel parked on residential streets and
properties.
(3) Overni Parkin of Lar Vehicles: Municipal Code Secti 8-7.10 prohibits
lar vehicles from parkin on an cit street or propert between.the h of
2:00 _and 6:00 a.m., with an exemption for recreational. vehicles.- RVs The
proposed amendment to the Municipal Code .eli.minate.sthe recreational vehicle
exemption. This is expected to eliminate RVs/Camper parked on residential
streets.
(4) Recreational and Boat Tr Prohibited: ..There is no pr a
parkin RVs, trailers., boats, and/or boat trailers on residential streets within
Alameda. Proposed Munic ipal -Code Section 8-711 wo. Id
u .�prohib.it.parkin and
leavin unattended RVs, trailers, boats, and/or boat trailers on reside
streets.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Once implemented, there is no anticipated financial impact from the
proposed
amendments. t o.the Municipal Code, since. parkin and.traffic enforcement mechanisms
are alread in place via the Police Department.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Existin Municipal Code Section:
8-7.8 Lea vin
g Vehicle on a Street in Excess of Sevent 72 Hours.
It shall be unlawful for an p to park or le.ave.u.naftended a on the streets
of the Cit of Alameda continuousl for a period exceedin sevent -two 72 hours.
Such vehicles ma be towed to, and stored at, an. impound facilit t -the y a vehicle.owne.r's
expense. For the purposes of this section, a v shall be consi parked or left
unattended if it is not moved at least 0.10 miles within an continuous sevent 72
hour period.
Ord. No. 2618 N.S. 1 Ord. No. 2761 N.S. 1)
Honorable Mayor and December 15, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 5
Proposed Municipal Code Section:
8 -7.8 Leaving vehicle on a Street in Excess of Seventy -two Flours.
It shall be unlawful for any person to park or leave unattended any vehicle on the streets
of the City of Alameda continuously for a period exceeding severity (72) hours.
y
Such vehicles may be towed to, and stored at, an impound facility at the vehicle owner's
expense. For the purposes of this section, a vehicle shall be con sidered p arked or left
unattended if it is not moved at least 1.0 miles within any continuous sevent -two 72
hour period.
Existing Municipal Code Section:
8 -7.9 Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
No person shall parka heavy commercial vehicle more than three (3) hours on a street
in a residential .district or in any .other area in a residential. district that_ is not substantially
concealed by four (4) opaque walls or other enclosures, except: (a) while. loading_ or
unloading property when additional time to such three (3) hour period is :necessary. to
complete the work, or (b) when such a vehicle is parked in connection with, and in 'aid
of, the performance of a service to or on a property in the block in which. -such vehicles
parked and when additional time to such three. (3) hour period is reasonably necessary
to complete such service.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, parking. of heavy commercial vehicles
shall be prohibited along the frontage of all City Parks. The prohibiti shall be effedtive
when appropriate signage is installed giving notice thereof. Records shall be
established and maintained in the City Engineer's Office detailing the location and limits
of these prohibitions.
For the purpose of this section "heavy duty commercial vehicles shall: mean either a
single vehicle having more. than two (2) axles, a single vehicle or combination of
vehicles twenty (24') feet or more in length, or a single vehicle or combination of
vehicles six (0') feet, eight (8 inches or. more in width, an automobile dismantler's tors
vehicle, or a single vehicle or combination of vehicles satisfying the definitive of "tow
truck" in California 'Vehicle Code Section 615, arid. shall include.,. but shall not be limited
to dump trucks, moving vans, .tractors, pole., pipe dollies, and tors trucks, incl�din those
9
of automobile dismantlers..This section shall not apply to recreational vehicles.
(Ord. No. 2518 N.S. 1; Ord. No. 2080 N.S. 1; Ord. No. 2709 N.S. 1; Ord. No. 2855
N.S. 2)
Proposed Municipal code Section:
8 -7.9 Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
No person shall park a heavy commercial vehicle more than three (3) hours on a street
in a residential district or in any other area in a residential district except: (a) while
loading or unloading property when additional time to such three (3) hour period is
Honorable Mayor and December 15, 2009
Members of the City Council Page 4 of 5
necessary to complete the work, or (b) when such a vehicle is parked in connection
with, and in aid of, the performance of a service to or on a property in the block in which
such vehicle is parked and when additional time to such three (3) hour period is
reasonably necessary to complete such service.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, parking of heavy commercial vehicles
shall be prohibited along the frontage of all City Parks. The prohibition shall be effective
when appropriate signage is installed giving notice thereof. Records shall be
established and maintained in the City Engineer's Office detailin g the location and limits
of these prohibitions.
For the purpose of this section "heavy commercial vehicles" shall mean either. a. single
vehicle having more than two .(2) axles, a single vehicle or combination of vehicles six
(6) feet, eight (8') inches or more in width an automobile disrnantler's tow vehicle or a
single vehicle or combination. of vehi satisfyi the definition of "toter. truck" i
California vehicle code. section 615, and shall include, but shall not be limited to dump
p
trucks, moving vans, tractors, pole trucks, pipe dollies, and tom trucks, includin g those
of automobile dismantlers.
Existing Municipal Code Section:
8 7.10 Overnight Parking .of Large Vehicles,
It shall be unlawful to park any. large vehicle on any City street or ro ert between the
p p y
hours.. of 2:00 a.m. ..and 6:00:a.m.. purposes of. this section, .a large vehicle. s hall be
any vehicle greater. than eighty (80 inches in width, twenty (20') feet in len t� or
length,
greater than ten (10,000) pounds in gross vehicle weight, which As not a
recreational vehicle.
(Ord. No. 2618 I.S. 1)
Proposed Municipal code .Section:
8-7.10 overnight Parking of Large vehicles.
It shall be unlawful to. park any. large vehicle on any Cit y property street or ro ert between the
y
hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.rn. For purposes of this section, a large vehicle shall be
any vehicle greater than eighty (80 inches in width, twenty (2o') feet in length, g or
greater than ten thousand (10,000) pounds in gross vehicle weight.
Existing Municipal Code Section:
None.
Proposed Municipal Code Section:
8 -7.11 recreational vehicles, Trailers and Boat Trailers Prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to park or leave unattended an y recreational vehicle
(as defined in Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code), trailer as defined in
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
December 15, 2000
Page 5of5
Section 630 of the Vehicle Code) or boat trailer (whether or not such trailer or boat
trailer is hitched to a motor vehicle) on the streets of the City of Alameda. Such
recreational vehicles, trailers and /or boat trailers may be towed to, and stored at, an
impound facility at the owner's expense.
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance amending sections 8 -7.8 through 8 -7.10 of the Alameda
Municipal code to restrict the parking of abandoned and unattended vehicles,
commercial vehicles, and large vehicles, and adding section 8 -7.11 to prohibit the
parking of recreational vehicles, trailers and boat trailers on city streets.
WBT: sm l
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION 8 -7.8 LEAVING VEHICLE ON STREET IN
EXCESS OF
0
46 \A CID
SEVENTY --TWO (72) HOURS); AMENDING SUBSECTION 8 -7.9
(HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLES); AMENDING SUBSECTION 8 -7.10
(OVERNIGHT PARKING OF LARGE VEHICLES AND ADDING
SUBSECTION 8-7.11 (TRAILERS ARID OTHER NONVEHICLES AND
SELECT VEHICLES PROHIBITED) PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF
9 RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AND TRAILER COACHES ON CITY
1 1: STREETS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. Subsection 8 -7.8 of the Alameda Municipal code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
8 -7.8 Leaving vehicle on a Street in Excess of Seventy -two (72)
Hours.
It shall be unlawful for any person to park or leave unattended any
vehicle on the streets of the city of Alameda continuous) fora period
y p
exceeding seventy -two (72) hours. Such vehicles may be towed to, and stored
at, an impound facility at the vehicle owner's expense. For the purposes.of this
section, a vehicle shall be considered parked or left unattended if it is not
moved at least 1.0 miles within any continuous seventy two (72) hour p eriod.
Section Z. Subsection 8 -7.9 of the Alameda Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
8 -7.9 Heavy Commercial Vehicles.
No person shall park a heavy commercial vehicle more than three (3)
hours on a street in a residential district or in any other area in a residential
district except: (a) while loading or unloading .property when additional time to
such three (3) hour period is necessary to complete the work, or (b) when such
a vehicle is parked in connection with, and in aid of, the performance of a
service to or on a property in the block in which such vehicle is parked and
when additional time to such three (3) hour period is reasonably necessary to
complete such service.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, parking of heavy
commercial vehicles shall be prohibited along the frontage of all City Parks.
The prohibition shall be effective when appropriate signage is installed giving
notice thereof. Records shall be established and maintained in the City
Engineer's office detailing the location and limits of these prohibitions.
Introduction of ordinance #643
t 12 -15 -09
For the purpose of this section "heavy commercial vehicles" shall mean
either a single vehicle having more than two (2) axles, a single vehicle or
combination of vehicles six (6') feet, eight (8') inches or more in width, an
automobile dismantler's tow vehicle, or a single vehicle or combination of
vehicles satisfying the definition of "tow truck" in California vehicle Code
Section 616, and shall include, but shall not be limited to, dump trucks, moving
vans, tractors, pole trucks, pipe dollies, and tow trucks, including those of
automobile dismantlers.
Section 3. Subsection 8 -7.10 of the Alameda Municipal Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
8 -7.10 Overnight Parking of Large vehicles.
It shall be unlawful to park any large vehicle on any City street or
property between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. For purposes of this
section, a large vehicle shall be any vehicle greater than eighty (80 inches in
width, twenty (20') feet in length, or greater than ten thousand (10,000) pounds
in gross vehicle weight.
Section 4. Subsection 8 -7.11 of the Alameda Municipal Code is
hereby added and reads as follows:
8 -7.11 Recreational vehicles, Trailers, and boat Trailers .Prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for any person to park or leave unattended any
recreational vehicle (as defined in Section 18010 of the Health and Safety
Code), trailer .(as defined in Section 630 of the Vehicle. Code) or. boat trailer
(whether or. not such trailer or boat trailer is hitched to a motor.vehicle) on the
streets of the City of Alameda. Such recreational vehicles, trailers and /or boat
trailers may be towed to, and stored at, an impound facility at the owner's
expense.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding officer of the City Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
2
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the city 'of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the day of December, 2009 by the following
vote to grit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WH EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this day of December, 2009,
Lara Weisiger, city Clerk
City of Alameda
COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM
Name of Councilrnember requesting referral: Mayor Be J. Johnson
Date of submission to City Clerk (must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the
Monday before the council meeting requested): 12/7/09
Council fleeting date: December 15, 2009
Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform
the city council and public of the nature of the referral:
Consider closing city Fall Offices at noon on December 24, 2009 and at noon on
December 31, 2009.
Council Referral #8 -A
12 -15 -49
COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM
Name of Councilmember requesting referral: Mayor Beverly J. Johnson
Date of submission to City Clerk (must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the
Monday before the Council meeting requested): 1217/09
Council Meeting date: December 15 2009
Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform
the City Council and public of the nature of the referral:
Consider the development of an ordinance that would require 24 -hour, on -site
management of multi- family residential buildings that contain at least a certain
number of units, to be determined.
Council Referral #8 -13
12 -15-09
IJN,APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
WEDNESDAY- DECEMBER 2, 2009- -7:01 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson Convened the Joint Meeting at 8 :09 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Board Members
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson S.
Absent: None.
VfTT\TTTrPFq
09- CC/09- CIC Minutes of the Specia Joint City Council and
CIC Meeting held on November 17, 2009. Approved.
Vice Mayor Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the Minutes.
Councilmember /Commissioner Tam made a correction to page 1.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote S.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
09- CIC Update on Alameda Landing
The Economic Development Director gave a. brief presentation.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the second amendment to the
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) has been adopted, to
which the Economic Development Director responded in the
affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Commission has an $8
million obligation to Catellus because they bought the [Stargell]
right -of -way
The Economic Development Director responded that is correct if
Catellus does not move forward with the project; the amount would
be slightly less because a Small retail parcel was included.
Commissioner Matarrese requested a table with all of the details;
stated the Commission is spending money that Catellus is obligated
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda 1
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
to reimburse; a ledger should he prepared showing the balance of
the reimbursements on both sides; $2 million was spent on the
hospital that burned down; all future updates should show the
balance on both sides.
The Economic Development Director continued the presentation.
Chair Johnson inquired ghat Catellus is supposed to be doing now.
The Economic Development Director responded Catellus is supposed to
be moving forward with the project; stated milestones provide
outside deadlines; new design review is needed for the alternative
first phase; continued the presentation.
Chair Johnson requested information on the number of people
employed for the Stargell project.
Commissioner Tam stated $3 million was borrowed from the Sewer Fund
because Catellus was not able to provide the match for the STIP;
inquired how the amount would be repaid.
The Economic Development Director responded lease revenues from the
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) budget; stated a minimum of
$90,000 has to be repaid each year; however, the plan is to repay
the full amount in five years.
Commissioner Tarn stated that she was asking about the Sewer Fund
because letters have been received about rat infestations at
Alameda Point; there have been sewer overflow issues; that she is
concerned about repayment in the event a major repair i.s needed.
The Economic Development Director stated lease revenues from ARRA
Cover Alameda Point; funds are separate.
The Interim Executive Director stated there are questions about
whether the rat infestation is the ARRA portion of the sewer or
somewhere else; the matter could be addressed later; the loan was
done because staff felt it was important to protect STIP funding;
the Public Works Director would address the Seger Fund at a later
time.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the CIC has to repay the Sewer Fund;
inquired whether CIC funds are vulnerable to State taking, to which
the Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated FISC funds would be used first.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether repaying the loan would
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda 2
Reuse and Redevelopment .Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
help keep the funds from the State, to which the interim Executive
Director responded it is the opposite; the State cannot take debt.
The Economic Development Director stated the payment to the State
is from tax increment money, which is not being used to repay the
Sewer Fund.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the loan should be repaid if the line
gets crossed at some point and the debt is not worth carrying.
The Economic Development Director stated the State structured the
statutes so that agencies with debt are not obligated to make
payment; however, the General Fund can make the payments; agencies
are shut down until payments are made.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the issue could be addressed in an
off Agenda Report.
Commissioner Tam inquired whether the entire redevelopment agency
is shut down [in the event of non payment].
The Economic Development Director responded the States shuts down
agencies administratively; stated only up to 75° of the previous
year administration costs can be spent; bonds and new projects are
not allowed; limited housing can be done; continued the
presentation.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the whole hospital structure is
gone, to which the Economic Development Director responded not
completely.
Chair Johnson inquired whether removing the building after the fire
was more costly, to which the Economic Development Director
responded Catellus bids show demolishing the building before the
fire would have been less expensive.
Chair Johnson inquired whether an investigation was conducted
regarding whether the Fire Department let the building burn and if
so, ghat were the results.
The Interim Executive Director responded that she would find out
and provide information
Commissioner deHaan stated a report was supposed to come back.
Chair Johnson stated the fire ended up costing a lot of money.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda 3
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
The Economic Development Director stated costs escalated when the
material burned because hazardous material mixed with non hazardous
material.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the costs of fighting the fire
and monitoring the site are included in the $2.2 million, to which
the Economic Development responded the cost is the contract cost
and does not include Fire Department costs.
Commissioner deHaan questioned whether including the costs of
fighting the fire would be appropriate; stated that he believes so
because Catellus was tasked with demolishing the building and
neglect caused it to end up being burned; various loans have been
provided; inquired whether all loans have payback agreements.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated there are promissory notes.
Commissioner deHaan inquired about the duration of loans and
whether loans have interest, to which the Economic Development
Director responded the sewer loan has interest; stated that she
does not believe the loan from the ARRA to the CIC has interest but
the loan is to be paid back from the first developer proceeds.
Commissioner deHaan stated the .ledger has tiro sides; Catellus
putting up $8 million is commendable; the other side of the ledger
has $5.2 million; the delta is closing; the last update in Larch
indicated there has been no activity for six months; nine months
later there has been no activity, except City activity; inquired
what oversight the City has to hold the developer's feet to the
fire.
Chair Johnson stated the question goes back to what the developer
is supposed to be doing now.
The Economic Development Director responded the developer is
supposed to be facilitating a first phase prior to the outside
deadline of 2012.
Chair Johnson inquired whether specific things are required.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there is not a take down
requirement.
The Economic Development Director responded in the negative; stated
the developer does not have to take down any property until after
the 2012 period; pre conditions to taking down property, including
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda 4
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
plans and engineering, have to be done to facilitate the transfer
of the property and start of construction; by 2012, all of those
things need to be done or the developer needs to inform the
Commission that they will not be moving forward with a project.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether all the things that need to
be done to take down the property need to be done by 2012 and
whether there is a list of the items, to which the Economic
Development Director responded in the affirmative; stated
entitlement actions have to be in place; the developer is coming
back with a schedule and wants to work towards having Construction
start within the next 18 months to two years; to do so, plans would
have to be submitted by January or February of next year.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the developer would meet
the schedule, to which the Economic Development Director stated the
developer is working very hard, with a key tenant to come forward
with a project.
In response to Chair Johnson's inquiry about what would be
presented to the Planning Board in January or February, the
Economic Development Director stated a new design review permit
would be needed.
Chair Johnson stated demolition and backbone have to be done by
2012; inquired whether the developer would be in default if they
are not ready to go by December 2012.
The Economic Development Director responded in the affirmative;
stated take down is not required for a couple of years after.
Chair Johnson inquired whether anything between now and 2012 would
Cause the developer to be in default, to which the Economic
Development Director responded in the negative.
Commissioner deHaan stated the developer is land banking because of
the market.
The Economic Development Director stated consideration was given.
because Catellus provided money for [Stargell] right -of-gray
acquisition; being ready for construction will take 18 to 24
months; old infrastructure needs to be ripped out and new
infrastructure needs to be installed.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates the investment of
$8 million for the right- of-way, which is also for Alameda Point,
not just Alameda Landing; something got done; the College got a
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda 5
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
laboratory; 2012 is not far array; that he wants to hear ghat is
being done to meet the deadline; the city should be thinking about
a Plan B if things are not on track and the milestone is not met.
The Economic Development Director stated alternative strategies
include interim leasing in two warehouses
In response to chair Johnson's inquiry about interim leasing, the
Economic Development Director stated the minimum lease time would
need to be three years to cover rewiring costs.
Commissioner Matarrese stated negotiations could be done if the
prospect is that the [2012] deadline might not be met; that he
grants to hear from Catellus about what is occurring.
Chair Johnson stated the interj._m leasing improvements could be
amortized in three years; the demolition and backbone will tape two
more years; the project is phased; interim leasing could be done;
the frustration is nothing is being done; that she understands the
economy; the city appreciates the $8 million to get Stargell done;
the perception is nothing is being done.
Commissioner Gilmore stated Catellus stepped up and facilitated
Stargell; the city is not out trying to attract tenants; getting
financing is very difficult; banks are not lending and are sitting
on cash waiting for the commercial real estate market implosion;
that she understands the frustration and feels it; however, the
developer is trying to bring in a tenant in the worst market since
the depression.
Mayor
Johnson, stated Catellus
obtained
the project entitlement
during
the good economy; stated
that she
is anxious to hear ghat is
being
done; inquired what year
Catellus
received entitlement.
The Economic Development Director responded the original DDA was
approved in 2000; the project was bifurcated in 2003 to allow
Bayport to go forward; re-entitlement was not done until 2006.
Chair Johnson inquired ghat year the Exclusive Negotiation
Agreement ENA was done.
The Economic Development Director responded that she does not have
the history; stated that she heard there was not a .lot of interest
in the property.
Commissioner deHaan stated five developers were boiled down to
three and all were substantial companies capable of completing the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda 6
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
proj ect
The Economic Development Director stated the 2003 changes
recognized the office market was gone.
Chair Johnson stated housing would not be built right now because
houses would not sell even if financing could be secured.
The Economic Development Director stated half of the potential
tenants from one year ago do not exist.
Sean Whiskeman, Vice President of Retail operations for Catellus,
gave a brief presentation on the history of the company and
project; stated Catellus has a signed letter of intent with Target
and is in active negotiations with several other retailers;
Catellus is in a position to justify a project that is quite a bit
larger than the project that went through the community and staff;
the City's 2004 Retail Study put the project on hold; Catellus
has not been sitting idle; the real [investment] number is close to
$20 mill -ion, including entitlement money, designs and plans,
without any return.
Chair Johnson stated the City has been involved in the steps; not a
lot has happened in the past couple of years.
Mr. Whiskeman stated it is a new market; the .rules changed
September 2008; retailers have put expansion plans on hold, filed
bankruptcy or liquidated; Catellus has to have a tenant in order to
justify the construction expense; building cannot be done cn a
speculative basis; discussed the Target negotiations and deal;
stated Catellus hopes to commence the process in early 2010 and is
excited about discussions with a potential second anchor.
Chair Johnson stated the fundamental question is whether Catellus
will be able to meet the first performance milestones.
Nor. Whiskeman stated Catellus is very aware of the timeframes,
believes milestones can be met and is reviewing co=encing the
first residential phase, which would have a significant lead up;
Catellus is trying to advance aspects other than just retail.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the demolition and backbone
conditions would be met by December 2012, to which Mr. Whi s keman
responded in the affirmative; stated Catellus could even be ahead
of schedule.
Chair Johnson inquired whether something would be submitted to the
Special joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda 7
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
Planning Board -in January or February.
Mr. Whiskeman responded in the negative; stated the process would
start; the site plan works but needs to be revisited; starting in
early 2010, Catellus would work with staff to build the package and
address issues.
Chair Johnson stated the Commission needs to hear whether or not
the project will move forward; Catellus should not plan on land
banking; her intent is not to allow the land to sit.
Mr. Whiskeman stated dialog with staff would continue; nothing will
sneak up on anyone; that he is making a presentation to the west
Alameda Business Association (WABA); Catellus has supported WABA
events and pledged money to the Miracle League.
Chair Johnson stated more frequent reports would help the
Commission understand the status.
Mr. Whiskeman stated that he would be happy to do so; one of the
DDA commitments is to meet with the City Manager's office once a
quarter, which has been done.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the leasing discussed is for
existing structures, to which Mr. Whiskeman in the negative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the quarterly meetings should be
official reports to allow the Commission to hear directly from the
developer.
Mr. Whiskeman noted names [of potential tenants would not be
discussed in public.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he wants to hear about
activities; the Conunission needs to be informed if the project is
dead in order to start formulating decisions that would need to be
made in the event the milestone is not met.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the December 2012 decision point
would be whether the project would go forward as scheduled or if
there would be an extension or adjustment of the milestones, to
which Mr. Whiskeman responded Catellus should know long before
December 2 012
Chair Johnson inquired when Catellus would have a good sense of
whether Target wants to come to Alameda.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda S
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
Mr. Whiskeman stated. Catellus has a good sense that Target wants to
come to Alameda now; it is the beginning of a long process;
Catellus will work towards needed approvals to meet the projected
opening date.
Chair Johnson inquired ghat is the opening date.
Mr. Whiskeman responded the date is in flex right now, but is
before December 2012.
Commissioner deHaan stated when Catellus was bought out, it was six
to eight months before decisions were made about the company
continuing to do development; in the past, not too many acres were
going to be given to Target; the staff report indicates 'Target
would now have 10 acres and be sprawling; inquired whether Catellus
is Contemplating selling off that much property.
Mr. Whi s keman stated the project would be one of Target's smaller
stores and would be around 130,000 square feet.
Commissioner deHaan inquired how much parking would be required, to
which Mr. Whiskeman responded right now the pro ect includes the
City maximum of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
In response to Commissioner deHaan' s inquiry, Mr. Whiskeman stated
Target prefers to be part of a shopping center, but does do stand
alone stores; noted guidelines setting maintenance standards would
be recorded against the property.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Catellus anticipates
developing the shoreline.
Mr. Whiskeman responded Catellus has an interest; stated there are
restrictions; the largest available land use is commercial/office;
amenities will be out near the waterfront; other Land uses are
being considered, such as senior housing.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether longer -term .leases could be
done to span the time.
Mr. Whiskeman responded Catellus is open to cooperating; stated
many buildings are generating revenues.
Commissioner Tam stated Catellus has been in various negotiations
in the past including Clif Bar and Target; requested that Mr.
Whiskeman elaborate on lessons learned; inquired whether Target
terminated a previous letter of intent.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, A -ameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
Mr. whiskeman responded that he was not involved with Clif Bar
negotiations; stated the site and building could not be delivered
in a time frame that worked for Clif Bar; the first time around
with Target, the City made a decision to take a Collective time out
to do the Retail Study; analysis took time.
Chair Johnson stated the City is fortunate office buildings were
not constructed because they would have been empty; Towne Centre
would have been half empty if Catellus had gone forward with the
retail; buildings would be empty if the City had been more
aggressive.
Commissioner deHaan noted that the City of Alameda did everything
possible to move the Clif Bar project forward.
Mr. whiskeman stated Catellus underestimated what it would take to
deliver t he site to Clif Bar.
Chair Johnson stated Clif Bar was concerned about being in the area
alone; other businesses would not commit to locate at the site.
Commissioner Tam stated Catellus has holdings in other Bay Area
locations; inquired whether getting a planned development to move
forward in Alameda is more difficult than other cities.
Mr. whiskeman responded the 1.1 million square foot project in
Fremont was a different experience because the site is not near
residential and there was a lot of City and community support.
Chair Johnson stated projects get sidetracked, such as the gas
station at Towne Centre; the process needs to be streamlined and
should not take so long.
Mr. whiskeman no -Led it costs money when approvals take a long time.
Commissioner Tam stated community members are concerned that there
should be a way to control the mix or types of stores that go into
a retail development; people want stores similar to Emeryville;
inquired how high end stores make decisions about where to locate
and whether said stores would go in next to a Target.
Mrs whiskeman responded the City is an Island with a primary trade
area that Can only rely on Alameda, which is almost always not
enough; high end retailers end up in Communities with a greater
draw; provided examples; stated there are exceptions.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda 10
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
Commissioner Matarrese stated limitations are understood, but the
project needs to be sold.
In response to Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding retail leakage,
Mr. Whiskeman stated Target has been trying to locate in Alameda
for ten years.
Chair Johnson stated the City needs to be ready to proceed when
Target is ready.
Commissioner deHaan noted Bridgeside did not live up to
expectations; stated Catellus is required to inform the City about
the type of businesses that will be built.
Mr. Whis keman. stated the retail industry has changed; disposable
dollars have evaporated; the way people shop is changing.
In response to Chair Johnson's inquiry about current leakage
numbers, Commissioner Tam stated the 2006 leakage report shows the
City loses $0.74 of every $1.00.
Commissioner Matarrese stated quarterly updates are important to
ensure months do not go by without addressing where things are
going and the Commission can help manage the process and set
priorities; an objectionable project will not go forward because
times are tough; the Commission will not let Target slip through
the City's fingers.
Chair Johnson stated standards should be set in advance for
businesses trying to locate in Alameda; the City's procedures need
to be set so locating in Alameda is not a multi- -year process.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the Commission looks forward to
Catellus returning in three months time for additional discussions;
public, developer and tenants expectations need to be managed for
development projects; the City's task going forward is to let
everyone know how long the process takes and what is possible.
Commissioner Matarrese stated Target should be mindful of the
City's past discussions on labor, big box and parking requirements;
the laundry lists should be revisited; the City needs to Clear the
way and ensure people understand ghat is coming.
Mr. Whis keman stated people in the industry might be willing to
come to the quarterly updates to provide additional information.
COUNCIL REFERRAL
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
09- C C /ARRA 0 9-
CIC Discussion of Policies for Leases at the
and Tidelands Leases under the City's Jurisdiction.
Counci /member /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese made the referral
because it dovetails on earlier discussions regarding the maritime
industry in Alameda. He would like to have the Council /ARRA /CIC
provide direction to the Interim City Manager to look at leasing
policies and consider a few points: 1) look at terms of leases and
the City's ability to have .longer term leases with the goal of
building a business Community and a business sector out at Alameda
Point that will be the future commercial occupants, so that the
developer does not says there is no market for commercial at
entitlement; 2) because we are an island and have a great seaside
location, there need to be review of what can be done to support
and make-healthy marine-related industries, whether it is ship
building or the private boat sector, which throws off a significant
amount of sales tax; 3 also Zook at protecting the waterfront a
.lot of installations are on tidelands where there is potential for
someone else to maintain the bulkheads and the shore side
investments. The key issue is Creating a leasing policy to grow a
diverse commercial sector and not a monolithic commercial sector;
leasing strategies should include a diverse economic base to take
advantage of potential, such as maritime industry, a growing
specialty foods industry, a wine and distillation industry,
entertainment production, and a potential for green businesses. If
marketed correctly and the City can get some relief from the Navy
on the provision of unilateral termination of leases, in order to
build the sector that is going to be the future Commercial tenants;
risk will be spread in economic downtimes and benefit to the City
will be maximized that will also relieve over reliance on
residential property taxes. He would like to get direction on
giving these points to the City Manager and looking at revising
lease policies that go back to 2007.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated that if the
Council /Board /CIC decides that this is a good idea, Changes should
not be done in a vacuum. one of the items pulled from the agenda
the other night was a long-term lease with WETA. The WETA. lease
should be analyzed in the context of whatever new policies are
created, because that could very well be the template for moving
forward as WETA will be a major tenant out there for a very long
period of time. How the City deals with WETA Could very well set
the stage for how the City deals with any other industries. It is
something in hand now, is not something being theoretically talked
about, and is also a maritime industry.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda 12
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2009
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese added that i'ETA
is trailing $20 million that they want to plant on the shoreline.
His plain point is that templatin.g leases was tried before. There
are some speakers that can talk specifically about some of the
unique facets of the private marine industry; WETA is a public
agency with a different guarantee of revenue than the private
sector. The City has to diversify and look at policies not in a
template, but against goals; some goals may not be revenue-
participation as mentioned in 2007, but may be more investments in
the land side structure to keep the bulkheads intact so that the
Island doe s not slide into the grater, or to maintain the berths, or
to bring jobs, or to generate sales tax. opening with a set of
goals to attract and establish desirable businesses and industry at
Alameda Point, have diversity rather than a monolithic, single
sector-driven development, which Could be the future of Commercial
development; when entitlement happens, the developer does not come
back to tell the City that they have to build more houses because
there is no commercial market. The City should build its own
market, look at the issue comprehensively and set up a flexible
policy, more goal-driven, and not narrow.
Mayor/Chair Johnson clarified that there is no Current leasing
policy in place except for de facto policy; potential tenants go
through a lengthy and delayed process and eventually give up.
The Interim City Manager stated that one of the ways to tackle the
issue, because it is comprehensive, rather than gait 90- -120 days
for a paper with a huge narrative, is to engage in dialogue.
Suggested the issue be placed as an item on the ARRA meeting in
February and a discussion start with a City Manager presentation of
a working outline that deals with policy parameters, financial
issues, users, the major big categories; then take Council's
thoughts, incorporate them, have dialogue and get reactions to the
working draft outline before staff starts Crafting language and
find out it is going in a totally different direction than the
Council grants to go. A comprehensive asset management policy and
strategy will take months to drag up, so before staff starts off in
one direction, let's get a working outline, make sure we are on the
right track in terms of business points, and then it is easier to
go back and deal with the language.
Mayor /Chair Johnson Called the speakers: Andy McKinley, General
Manager and harbor Master of Grand Marina, expressed his support in
working with the City to maximize the income from the marine
industry. He provided the Board with a copy of a letter regarding
an economic threat permit by the State Water Resources Control
Board.
Spec al JainL Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda 13
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
Bill Elliot, Bay, Ship Yacht Company President, expressed his
concern about the two owners (Alameda Gateway and the City) of the
property which Bay Ship Yacht occupies; that they are in
litigation, which puts their.busin.ess in an unsuitable situation.
He wants to work with the City to draw up a lease which is mutually
beneficial to all parties.
Mayor /Chair Johnson recommended that a more appropriate approach
for Mr. Elliot to discuss this issue is to set up a meeting with
staff, as the larger impediment is the litigation.
The Interim City Manager agreed and stated that it is a strategic
issue and is best that the Council has an opportunity to discuss
the issue in Closed Session and get an update from the City
.Attorney as to the status of the litigation, and to see what role,
if any, the Council and staff can deal with in terms of the
strategy with respect to the litigation and hoer it can positively
impact Bay Ship Yacht. As the Mayor stated, the .issue needs to
be carefully discussed inside so as not to compromise either side.
Bob Henn, Bair Ship Yacht, also supports having a dialogue with
the City. The Assistant City Attorney committed to calling Mr.
Henn to discuss the issue without possibly jeopardizing any
confidential settlement communications.
Leslie Cameron, Owner of Bay Ship Yacht, supports a continued
relationship between the City and Bay Ship Yacht and stated some
key points: Bay Ship Yacht provides $90,000 to $1-10,000 sales tax
dollars per year, has spent $17 million on its facility, pays over
$100,000 per year in property taxes, spent $600,000 in Alameda this
year, and is actively involved in many community projects. Bay Ship
Yacht currently employs 250 people. Ms. Cameron expressed that
she appreciates the support of the City.
Councilrnember/Board Member/Commission
understand and clarify the discussion.
of Bay Ship Yacht and the revision of
matters. She further s rated that C
Corrnmissioner Matarrese has submitted
policies for leases at Alameda Point.
`Warn made statements tc
She stated that the issue
the guidelines are separate
'ouncilmember/Board Member/
a request to revise the
The Interim.. City Manager suggested a fuller discussion at the next
ARRA meeting be held to try to understand expectations and develop
an asset management strategy.
The Council, /ARRA/CIC agreed with Councilmember /Board Member/
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda 14
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 2009
Commissioner Tam's statements and agreed with the Interim City
Manager's recommendation to itemize the issue to discuss and create
a working draft outline at the next ARRA meeting in February.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair J ohns on adjourned the
Joint Meeting at 11:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Wei s iger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
Irma Glidden
Secretary, ARRA.
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda is
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission
December 2, 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
Date: December 15, 2009
Re: Accept Transmittal of the Community Improvement Commission of the City
of Alameda, Basic Component Unit Financial Statement for the Year Ended
June 30 2009
BACKGROUND
Transmitted herewith is the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda, Basic Component Unit Financial Statement for the Year Ended June. 30,
2009. The report, intended to be easily readable and efficiently organized, provides
detailed financial information by which the Cornrnunity .lrnprovement Commission, and
the public, including market analyst investors, may assess the relative attractiveness of
investing in Alameda.
DISCUSSION
The Community Improvement. Commission of the. City of Alameda. (CIC) was
established under the provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law. to
assist in the economic revitalization of areas located in Alameda that were determined
to be in a blighted condition. There are .th.ree redevelopment areas. The West End
Community Improvement Project Area (W.ECIP) was adopted in 1983, and the Business
and waterfront Improvement Project Area BWIP) was adopted in 1991. In 2003, the
C I C merged the WECI P and BW I P project areas. In 1998, the Alameda Point
Improvement Project area (APIP) was adopted.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
At June 30, 2009, the Community Improvement Commission's governmental funds
reported combined fund balances of $21 ,362,412 million, of which $1 4,41 9,921 million
is legally reserved and $8,942,491 million is available to fund ongoing Commission
operations and projects.
CC1C C
Agenda Item #2 -B
12-15-09
Honorable Ma and December 15, 2009
Members of the Cit Council Pa 2 of 2
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Communit Improvement Commission
RECOMMENDATION
Accept transmittal of the. Communit Improvement Commission of the Cit of Alameda,
Bas.ic Component Unit Financial Statement for the Year Ended June 30, 2009.
R SP ull submitted,
Economic. Development.-Director
Approved_ as ta funds .and :account.
Glend J
Interim Finance Director
Exhibit:
Communit Improvement Commission of the Cit of Alameda, Basic Component
Unit Financial Statement for the Year Ended June 30, 2009 (on file in the Cit
Clerk's Office)
cc: Cit Auditor
Maze Associates
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
Date: December 15, 2009
Re: Authorize Transmittal of the Community Improvement Commission's Annual
Report to the State Controller's Office and the City Council; Authorize
Transmittal of.the Redevelopment Agency Annual -lousin. Activity- Report to
g y p
the State. Department of Housing and Community a Development.and the State
Controller's office; Accept the Annual Report; and Adopt Resolution Making
9
Certain Findings Regarding Administrative Expenses
BACKGROUND
State Law requires the Community improvement Commission (CIC) to submit an
Annual Report to the City Council, and file a copy of this report with the State Controller
by December 31'. of each year. The law also requires the submission of the
Redevelopment Agency Annual Housing Activity Report to the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) and State Controller.
DISCUSSION
The CIC's Annual Report is available for review in the City Clerk's office. The. CIC's
annual report for FY08 -09 includes the following:
0 Independent Auditors Report on financial statements;
Independent Auditor's Report on legal '.compliance;
Annual Deport of Financial Transactions of Community Redevelopment
Agencies Fiscal Statement
0 Redevel.opment Agency Annual Housing Activity Report;
Housing Activities Report Summary;
Blight Progress Report;
0 Loan Report; and
Property Report
CC/CC
Agendas Item #2 -C
1 2 =1 5 =09
Honorable Ma and December 15, 2009
Members of the Cit Council Pa 2 of 3
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Communit Improvement Commission
The independent financia audit .for FY08-09. has been prepared. b M &.Associates.
The audit examines the CIC's com pliance with .1 St ate laws, re and
administrative re inc CIC. policies and proc rela ted to record
keepin public hearin contractin for services, s, use of tax increment funds and
indebtedness. Accordin to the a udit, the. CIC w found to be in compliance with
applicable laws, re administrative re
The fiscal statement con t information re b Health Safet Code
§3308.0.5. The.Hpus.i Report, describing :CI activities affectin housi .an d
displacement; the. BIig Pro Report, describin the CIC's p rogress to. a
bli the Loan. R eport, de.scrib.in CIC.Ioans in.default..or not. in.:c and the
Prope Report.,. describin CIC ..owned. .and.. prop are on -file in. t he Cit
Clerk's Office. The g oals. of the CIC.'s th redevelopment pro are also ors file.
The Resolution.. asserts that. the. plannin and administration expenditures. from. tax
increment housin f'u a necessa for the.p.ro. improvement t or prese.rva tion
of low-a nd-moderate. income housin
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact .to the General Fund or the. CIC's annual b as a result of this
action.
RECOMMENDATION
Communit Improve rrent Commission;
Authorize transmittal th .Com unit Improvement Commission'..sAnnual Report to
the State Controller's Offic a t Cit Council; authorize. transmitt of the
Red A Annual Housin Activit Report t th Stat of
Housin and communit Development and the State Controller's Office; acc the
Annual Report; and adopt a resolut.ion snaking certain fi.ndi,n re administrative
expenses.
Cit Council:
Accept the Annual Report.
Honorable Ma and
Members of the Cit Council
Honorable Chair and
Member of th Gom. m unit y Improvement Commission
Sq
Re pectfull. _br M itted,
LL/eslie Little
Economic .Development Director
N M.: d C
Exhibit:
December 15, 2009
Pa 3 of 3
Communit Improvement Commission Annual Report for FY08-09 (on file in the Cit
Clerk's Office)
cc: Economic Development Commission
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGET AND
APPROPRIATING CERTAIN MONEYS FOR THE EXPENDITURES PROVIDED
IN FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010
1.
0
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to and filed with this Commission at
the Special August 3, 2009, meeting, a budget representing a financial plan for
conducting the affairs of the Community Improvement Commission for the City of
Alameda for the Fiscal Year beginning July1, 2009, and ending June 30, 2010
and
WHEREAS, the budget as presented included several major goals as
follows
Facilitate reuse and redevelopment of former. federal lands. by
effectively implementing contractual development documents for
Bayport, Alameda Landing, and Alameda Point.
Administer an efficient interim commercial and residential leasing
program for Alameda Point.
Develop and promote affordable housing through. tax increment
funds, down payment and mortgage refinancing assistance, and the
residential Substantial .Rehabilitation Program.
Provide funding to community and .social service agencies and
programs using federal, Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) monies.
Promote citywide business attraction, retention and expansion
activities.
Revitalize historic "main street" areas using various economic
development and physical improvement programs; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has considered this spending plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Community Improvement
Commission that the Commission hereby determines that pursuant to California
Health Safety Code33334.3 (Low and moderate income housing fund) the
planning and administrative expenses incurred are necessary for the production,
improvement or preservation of low-- and moderate income housing.
Resolution #2 -C CC
Special Joint CC CIC Meeting
12-15-09
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of
the city of Alameda in a Special Community Improvement commission meeting
assembled on the 1 6th day of December, 2009, by the following vote to grit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the
official seal of said Commission this 16th day of December, 2009.
Lara live isiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, chair
Community Improvement Commission