Loading...
2010-04-20 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY APRIL 20, 2 010 00 P. M. Location-, Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street 4ft M 1 Roll Call Cit Council, ARRA, CIC 2. Public Comment on A Items Onl An wishin to address the Counci I/Board/Com mission on a items onl ma speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: City Councill/ARRA 3-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR P ro p.e rt Alameda Ferr Vessels and Ferr Terminals Negotiatin Parties- Cit of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authorit Water Emer Transit Authorit Under Negotiations: Terms under which Cit will transfer the Alameda Ferr Services to WETA CitV Council 3-B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (54957 Titles Cit Attorne Cit Clerk and Cit Mana Discussion of Process 3-C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Aqenc Negotiators: Interim Cit Mana Employee Organizati.Q..n.: Executive Mana c1c 3-D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Si Exposure to liti pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 Number of Cases: One ARRA 3-E. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956,8) Property. Alameda Point (Potential Lease of a 1 Acre Site Negotiating Parties- ARRA and Ba Ship Yacht Under Negotiation: Price and terms 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if an 5. Adjournment Cit Council, ARRA, CIC A everl k t n, a Chair, A Ynd IC r a C r U• ;�y f Zui raxq..> X CITY OF ALAMEDA •CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH To ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1 Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant 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 APRIL 2O 2010--- -7 :00 P.M. [Note: Regular council Meeting convenes at 7 :00 pm, City Hall, Council chambers, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and oak Street] 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 0. Regular Agenda Items 7. oral communications, Non Agenda (Public comment) 8. council Referrals 0. council 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 Assistant City Clerk if you wish to address the city Council. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING of THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 0 :00 P.M. REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 7 :01 P.M. REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COU NCIL CHAMBERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1 ROLL CALL City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation Declaring April 2010 as DMVIDonate Life California Month. 3 -B. Proclamation Declaring May 2010 as Asian Pacific Heritage Month. 3 -C. Presentation by the Sunshine Task Force on the List of Priorities and Number of Meetings. (Sunshine Task Force) 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 April 6, 2010. (City Clerk) 4 -B. Bills for Ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to Receive an Update on the City's Green Initiatives. (City Manager) 4 -D. Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Execute All Necessary Agreements with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority and Blue &Golf Fleet for the Operation of the MV Taurus. (Public Works) 4 -E. Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids for Culvert Reconstruction at Various Locations, No. P.W. 02- 10 -04. (Public Works) 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the City's intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing on June 15, 2010 Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2. (Public Works) 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Preliminarily Approving the Annual Report Declaring the City's Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing on June 15, 2010 Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (Marina Cove). (Public Works) 4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Application for Grant Funds for the Urban Greening Planning Grant Program Under the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84). (City Manager) 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from City Manager) 6 -A. Alameda and Contra Costa County City Managers' Proposal for Regional Pension Reform (Continued from March 16, 2010) 5 -13. Update on ordinance Prohibiting RV, Boat, and Trailer Parking 6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 6 -A. Public Dearing to Consider Introduction of an ordinance Amending Sections 30- 6, 30 -36, and 30 -37, of the Alameda Municipal Code to Improve the Design Review and Sign ordinance Provisions for the City of Alameda. (Community Development) 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda 8. COUNCIL REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilnernber may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item 8 -A. Consider Directing Staff to Develop Lobby Disclosure Ordinance and Registry. (Mayor Johnson) 8 -B. Consider Directing Staff to Draft a Resolution Supporting Measure E for Council Consideration on May 4. (Councilmember Gil r ore) 9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from 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 ball, Room 380, during normal business hours s 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 Fleeting to request an interpreter Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the city clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the council Fleeting Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available m Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request Please contact the city clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting CITY OF ALAMEDA •CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) TUESDAY -APRIL 20 2010 7:01 P.M. Location City Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Ave and oak Street Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council /Board /Commission on agenda items or business introduced by the Council /Board /Commission may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Council /Board /Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant City Clerk if you wish to speak. 1. ROLL CALL -City Council, ARRA, CIC 2. 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 is received from the Council /Board /Commission or a member of the public 2 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on April 6, 2010. [City Council, ARRA, CIC] (City Clerk) 2 -B. Recommendation to Approve a Second Amendment to the Grand Marina Village Affordable Housing Agreement Between the City, Community Improvement Commission and Warrnington Homes Decreasing the Number of Affordable Housing Units from Ten to Six and Authorizing the Interim City Manager /Interim Executive Director to Execute the Amendment; Recommendation to Direct Staff to Prepare Amendments to the Grand Marina Village Master Plan for a Reduction in the Inclusionary Housing Obligation and an Enhancement of City Landscaping and Paving for City Council Consideration on June 1, 2010. [City Council, CIC] (Housing Authority) 3. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION 3 -A. Semimonthly Update on Suncal Negotiations [city Council, ARRA, CIC] 3 -13. Election costs and Request for Reimbursement [city Council, ARRA, CIC 3-C. city Web Wage Suncal Updates and Repository [city Council, ARRA, CIC] 3-D. Cit Response to SunCal's Modified Optional Entitlement Application [Cit Council, ARRA, CIC 4. AGENDA ITEMS None 5. ADJOURNMENT Cit Council, ARRA, CIC everl J a Chair, AR d C (Procfamati"on WHEREAS, organ, tissue, marrow and blood donation are life- giving acts recognized worldwide as expressions of compassion to those in need; and WHEREAS, more than 100,000 individuals nationwide and more than 20,000 in California are currently on the national organ transplant waiting list, and every 90 minutes one person dies while waiting due to the shortage of donated organs; and WHEIZEAS the need for donated organs is especially urgent in Hispanic and African American communities; and W HEREAS, more than 600,000 units of blood er year are nee to meet th p e need in California, and at any given time, 6,000 patients are in need of volunteer marrow donors; and WHEREAS., a single individual's donation of the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas and small intestine can save up to eight lives; donation of tissue can save and heal the lives of up to 50 others; and a single blood donation can help three people in need; and WREIZEAS millions of lives each year are saved and healed by donors of organs, tissues, marrow and blood; and WREIZEAS., the spirit of giving and decision to donate are not restricted by age or medical condition; and. WHEIZEAS nearly seven million Californians have signed up with the state authorized Donate Life California Registry to ensure their wishes to be organ and tissue donors are honored. NOW3 7WEREFORE BE .TT RTSOLVED, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim April 2010 as in recognition of National Donate Life Month and in doing so encourage all Californians to check "YES!" when applying for or renewing their driver's license or I.D. card.. City council Bey Kj hn n Ag enda item #3 -A y v r r 04-20-10 WHEIZEAS under a joint U.S. Congressional resolution in 1978, the month of May was designated as Asian Pacific Heritage Month; and WHEREAS, the first 10 days of May were chosen to coincide with two important milestones in Asian Pacific American history: the arrival in the United States of the first Japanese immigrants on May 7, 1843; and the contributions of Chinese workers to the building of the transcontinental railroad, which was completed on May 10, 1869; and WliEIZEAS, Americans who trace their ancestry to Asia and the Pacific Islands have contributed much to the nation and to Alameda; and WUE1ZEAS Asian Pacific Americans have made the country and city better with their talents, hard work, diversity of cultural traditions, languages, and faiths; and WUEIZEAS the richness of Asian Pacific cultures enhances the total American experience and contributes to the country's and city's legacy of diversity; and WUEIZEAS the Buena Vista United Methodist Church is the oldest congregation serving the Asian Pacific Islander community in Alameda, beginning its service to Japanese immigrants in 1898; and WliEREAS, Alameda continues to grow in its diversity of Asian Pacific Islanders and continues to maintain a rich history of contributions from these communities. New, 7WEREFORE BE Ir RESOLVED that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim May 2010 as in the City of Alameda and congratulate Buena Vista United Methodist Church as it celebrates its Spring Festival Bazaar on May 2, 2010. I further call upon the residents of Alameda to learn more about the history and rich contributions of all Asian Pacific Islanders during Asian Pacific Islander Heritage Month. If B ver Joh son ayor City Council Agenda Item #3 .B 04 -20 -10 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPEC CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -APRIL -0:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Roll Call Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tangy and Mayor Johnson 5. Absent: None. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (10 -130) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Interim City Manager and Human Resources Director; Employee organization: International Association of Fire Fig hters (10 -131) Conference with Legal Counsel Existing L,i, gation; Name of Case: Alameda Gateway Ltd. v. City of Alameda Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding International Association of Fire Fi hters (IAFF), the Interim City Manager provided a report on the status of negotiations with IAFF; and regarding Existing Litigation, the City Attorney provided a status report on the Alameda Gateway litigation, the City Council provided direction on litigation strategy, no action was taken. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7 :10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:25 p.m. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (10-132) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Interim City Manager; Employee organization: Executive Management (10 -133) Public Employment; Title: City Manager Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Executive Management, the City Council ,received a briefing from the Interim City Manager regarding the status of negotiations with the Executive Management, no action was taken; and regarding Public Ens to ment, the Interim City Manager provided status on her existing employment contract and requested consideration of modifying her health insurance benefits; Council requested an amendment be brought back for consideration at the next meeting. Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 6, 2010 Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12 :00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara t eisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 April 6, 2010 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY CO UNCIL MEETING TUESDAY -APRIL 6 -7:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tarn and Mayor Johnson 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES ■•1' PROCLAMATIONS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ANNOUNCEMENTS (10- Proclamation Declaring April 17 as Earth Day Alameda 2010. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Public Works Coordinator. The Public Works Coordinator stated this year, Earth Day will have a Film Festival; the Recreation and Park Department will be having a sculpture contest. (10- Proclamation Declaring April as Fair Housing Month. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Angle Watson- Hajjem, ECHO Housing. Ms. Watson- Haijem stated ECHO Housing has been serving Alameda since 2008; Alameda has made progress in opening doors and providing housing access; that she appreciates the partnership between the City and ECHO Housing. (10- Alameda Unified School District Parcel Tax Update. Carla Greathouse, Chair of A gave a Poorer Point presentation. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the First Amendment to the Contract with Ninyo Moore [paragraph no. 10. 1 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmen ber Tarn moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph Regular Meeting Alameda City Council April 6, 2010 number.] *10- Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on March 10, 2010. Approved. *10- Ratified bills in the amount of $2,740,491.75. *10- Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids for the Alameda Point Multi -Use Field Upgrades, No. P.W. 04- 09 -11. Accepted. *10- Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1 ,499,000, Including Contingencies, to Sausal Construction for the Neighborhood Library Improvement Project, No. P. W. 10- 09-29. Accepted, *'I0- Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $97 Including Contingencies, to Schaaf Wheeler Civil Engineers, for Design and Preparation of Plans and Specifications for the Upgrades to the Northside Storm Drain Pump Station, No. P.W. 02- 10 -00. Accepted. 10- Recommendation to Approve First Amendment to the Contract in the Amount of $24,315, Including Contingencies, to Ninyo Moore, for Ceotechnical Support, Materials Testing, and Environmental Services for the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie" Stargell Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10- 08 -20. Councilmember Tarn stated costs ended up being 33% more than budgeted due to unforeseen conditions, such as underground fixtures from the former Naval base and drive -in theater and unsuitable sub -grade and multiple subsurface pavement layers; inquired whether said conditions would be typical for the area. The City Engineer responded Webster Street has two sub layers; stated the Alameda College area had a drive -in theater; abandoned utility lines were found; Ninyo Moore checked the compaction of the soil; some of the soil was lime treated, which eliminated a lot of the excavation costs; construction was expedited on the Stargell Avenue portion of the project; Naval properties would have a larger magnitude of unforeseen conditions than the rest of the City. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Sewer Fund loan is starting to be paid back, to which the City Engineer responded the loan would start to be paid back in June. Councilmember Tarn moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. *10- Recommendation to Approve a Letter of Understanding Between the International Association of Firefighters and the City of Alameda on the Fire Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 April 6, 2010 Investigation Program and Not Filling the Assistant Fire Marshall Assignment. Accepted. *10- Resolution No. 14433, "In Support of SB 1068; and Recommendation to Authorize the Mayor to Convey the City's Support for the Bill to Senator Hancock, and Modify the City's Adopted Legislative Program to Include a Policy on Business Development." Adopted. ordinance No. 3016 "Amending Sections 30 -37.6 of the Alameda Municipal Code Related to Design Review Approval Expiration and Extension." Finally passed. CITE' MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS 10- Civic Center Plan May "open House" The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is concerned with the financial overview; inquired when the financial overview would carne to Council, to which the Interim City Manager responded that she is aiming for duly. Councilrnernber Tam requested a comparison of other vision processes and costs. The Interim City Manager stated the Civic Center Plan cost is $55,000; the North of Lincoln visioning cost was $75,000. The Economic Development Director stated the North of Lincoln visioning cost also included the form -based code; that she does not know the cost was for the Downtown Visioning Plan; approximately $30,000 was spent on a conceptual plan for Webster Street. Councilrrember Tam inquired how much public outreach was done for the North of Lincoln project versus the Civic Center. The Economic Development Director responded the projects are different animals; stated the North of Lincoln area experienced a different economic change; losing the car dealership changed the street forever; a lot of detailed thought went into how to guide new development; some visioning was done to see what the sites could contain and what the massing would look like; a lot of time was spent with business associations, property owners, and interested people on the form based code; people were provided with an opportunity to review concepts and provide comments. Councilmernber Tarn inquired ghat would be the interplay given the proximity of the vision plans. The Interim City Manager responded the North of Lincoln Plan did not focus on the Civic Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 April 6, 2010 Center; stated the Civic Center Plan took information from the North of Lincoln Plan and interconnected the two plans to prevent the same uses; the geographical cut out has been expanded. The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated a similar [to the North of Lincoln Plan] in -house design workshop was held [for the Civic Center Plan]; stakeholders were invited; an open house outreach was held in May; focus groups were held in addition to the workshop. Vice Mayor del -laan stated the downtown visioning had many elements; staff is solidifying and updating thoughts that have already been in place; the process has been ongoing. (10- )Park Master Plan /Urban Greening Plan The Interim City Manager and Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the [recent] tree survey includes parks. The Recreation and Park Director responded the survey includes street trees; stated a comprehensive inventory has been completed fro three parks. Mayor Johnson stated Council gave direction to expand the survey. The Interim City Manager stated staff went to public facilities and parks to evaluate a tree program and then other issues carne up; park management and the Master Plan need to be reviewed, including trees. Mayor Johnson stated the health of the trees should be assessed. The Recreation and Park Director stated staff monitors the health of the trees. Mayor Johnson stated trees falling should be avoided; every tree needs to be assessed. The Recreation and Park Director continued the presentation. Vice Mayor del -laan stated money has been set aside for periodic maintenance; inquired how much has been set aside in the last ten years; stated getting to some of the hardcore items has been difficult. The Recreation and Park Director responded most of the money has been going toward routine maintenance; capital has been limited. The Interim City Manager stated an amount is not dedicated each year; a Master Plan for a city the size of Alameda would cost approximately $140,000 and include a needs Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 April 6, 2010 assessment, a tree plan and facility evaluation; a comprehensive Master Plan is needed to calculate a good impact fee for future development; a policy decision needs to be made on hove much money should be dedicated; that she does not want to run the risk of needing to close parks until money is available for repair or replacement. The Interim city Manager continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Park Master Plan would come back in June, to which the Interim city Manager responded the matter would come back with the budget. Mayor Johnson stated the plan is good and would provide understanding of the need for ongoing maintenance and upkeep; making a [funding] commitment would be easier with a plan; funding was not made available even in good times ten to fifteen years ago. Vice Mayor deHaan stated rebates and credits are available; [replacing] lighting and irrigation could have major paybacks. Councilmember Tam stated a developer usually dedicates [park] land; inquired how land dedication is factored into impact fees or in lieu of fees. The Interim city Manager responded the scale of the project is reviewed; under the Quimby Act, a developer can give a park a dollar -to- dollar basis; an evaluation is made on what the land and park are worth; most developers are willing to provide turn key parks because parks are a value to the developer and help sell houses; under impact fee, the amount is negotiated; impact fee legislation prohibits overbuilding in one criteria and under building in another; both options are offered. Councilmember Tarn stated sometimes impact fees require a Nexus Study. The Interim City Manager stated a Master Plan is needed before a Nexus Study; impact fees cannot pay for past deficiencies and park maintenance, only new things. In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated Nexus Study analysis is based on ghat Council approves from a policy standpoint; the Boatworks example of 225 [homes] adds 5% to 10% towards General Plan build out, but a subdivision of 10,000 homes reaches build out faster. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether owners only choice would be to write a check. The Interim city Manager responded 90% of developers provide a turn key park; stated owners usually write a check for impact fees; the last project that reaches build out ends up having to build the facility and usually a Mello Roos is included. Vice Mayor deHaan stated impact fees can only be for support of a development; the community would need to pay for something over and above. Regular Meeting Alameda City council 5 April 6, 2010 The Interim City Manager stated the developer, through negotiations, could chose to build something; having facilities are wonderful, but maintenance is needed; a lot of creative solutions are corning forward; park and field maintenance could be done by a non profit but the responsibility for calendaring and scheduling would remain with the City; staff is looking forward to bringing some solutions to Council in the spring; grant opportunities are limited without a faster Plan, the Urban Greening Plan grant is $250,000 can be used for a Master Plan; the City needs to have master plans that have a greening eco sustainable approach. Mayor Johnson stated impact fees are legal requirements if in place; negotiations are a whole different thing; the City would look for bells and whistles at the former Navy base through negotiations. ,Speaker Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City is now the proud owner of the Beltline property; that he hopes the visioning process will be similar to the Estuary Park/Northern Waterfront Park; the matter was addressed almost a year ago and should be included. Councilmember Gilmore stated hopefully, money would be appropriated for the Master Plan in the next budget; many of the slides shown tonight deal with existing park needs; inquired whether the Master Plan would include proposed parks and if so, what would be the level of detail. The Interim City Manager responded the detail would not be at a level of architectural design but would include location, use, an analysis of projected build out, a needs assessment, and reuse of old parks; homework has been done to get the RFP ready; staff would come back with the scope of work. Councilmember Matarrese stated a scope is needed to find out what are the deliverables; Council gave direction to set up a community process to define what the Beltline would look like; that he sees a parallel to the Master Plan; direction has already been given to go forward regardless of when the Master Plan is finished; requested that staff research the matter. The Interim City Manager stated the City already has the [Beltline] site and needs to decide what to put on the site. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Estuary Park /Northern Waterfront Park should be included [in the Master Plan], too. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the scope would include: 1) some broad concepts based upon demographics and changes within the City as a whole, 2) land and facilities owned by the City or those recently acquired, such as the Beltline, 3) privately owned land that the City might acquire, and 4) park lands controlled, operated, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 April 6, 2010 and maintained by the Bast Bay Regional Park District, including trails around the I sland The Interim City Manager responded said scope would components that the consultant would study; stated the consultant may recommend additional parks or facilities that the City should think about in the future; the General Plan was done prior to the Density Bonus ordinance. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Miracle League would be included, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (10- Recommendation to Accept Financial Report for Second Fiscal Quarter. The Interim City Manager gave a presentation. Councilmember Tam stated major juggling has been done with refinancing and cuts; the property transfer tax fund designated as "32200 Property Transfer Tax" under "General Fund Revenue by Source" shoves $3,250,000 budgeted but $3,050,000 is projected; inquired whether the amount would have been cut in half without Measure P passing; stated Measure P funds are not restricted; the City has the discretion to use the .fund s for vital City services such as Police and Fire; inquired where Measure P funds are spent. The Interim City Manager responded the $3,250,000 would be down to $2,200,000 without .the new rate; stated there is a nexus between property taxes and property transfer taxes; homes are being sold for less than pre October. [2008]; property tax is up because the formula increased; in the past, property tax increased by 2% to 5% [annually]; the City had were more short sales in the last six months than the prior y ear; comparing the property tax change pre and post Measure P .would be good Measure P funds are used to support the General Fund; 80% of every dollar in the General Fund is used 'for public safety, libraries, and recreation and parks; under State law, General Fund revenue cannot be an earmarked revenue source absent a special tax; the market was different when Measure P passed; housing was selling more; $3,050,000 is not bad considering the housing market. Vice Mayor deHaan stated this year's budget was put together under a different process and cost center; inquired whether there have been benefits. The Interim City Manager responded that she thinks so; stated program costs are more understandable; Finance is able to cost control and manage and oversee the budget in a more detailed fashion. Vice Mayor deHaan agreed cost centers are well serving their purpose. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 April 0, 2010 The Interim City Manager stated the conversion took a lot of work; budget preparation should be easier this year. Councilmember Gilmore stated a lot of work went into the budget preparation using a very old, antiquated computer system; inquired whether transferring the format over to a new system would be difficult. The Interim City Manager responded the phone system cost savings would be used to upgrade the computer system; stated staff is moving forward with outsourcing parking citations; staff will propose eliminating the existing business license module and add a module for permit processing; Fiscal Sustainability Committee Member, Lorre zuppan, introduced staff to an adaptive planning system which is Excel driven. The Deputy City Manager Administrative Services stated Washington County uses the system. The Interim City Manager stated using the adaptive planning system would cost $14,000 versus $250,000 for each new module; the only thing left would be the General Ledger that would be converted in Fiscal Year 2011 -2012; Public Works can also use the adaptive planning system. Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON AGENDA 10- James Wullschlegor, Alameda, discussed parking regulations related to motor homes. Mayor Johnson Inquired whether Mr. Wullschlegor's motor home was cited on his property or the street, to which Mr. Wullschlegor responded the street. Mayor Johnson stated the City wants to restrict motor horse street parking; people have commented that it would be helpful to have a permit to allow owners a certain number of hours to load up motor homes. Mr. Wullschlegor stated people do not need another vehicle if a motor home can be used for transportation; that he has tried to sell the motor home for two years; he should not be forced to own another vehicle. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Wullschlegor sent an email regarding the matter, to which Mr. Wullschlegor responded in the negative. Mice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the size of the motor home, to which Mr. Wullschlegor responded twenty feet. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 April 6, 2010 COUNCIL REFERRALS 10- Consider Pursing the Establishment of a Task Group to Promote, Market and Support Businesses, Educational and Technology Resource opportunities. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business Consortium was established in 1997; the City has economic development opportunities, such as America's Cup and Google wireless; an effort needs to be made to bring a marriage between education, technology, and business at Alameda Point; the College of Alameda, California State University East Bay, and University of California, Berkeley were involved; the Chamber of Commerce's Silicon Island was a marketing effort to gain high technology .business in Alameda; the Bureau of Electricity [Alameda Municipal Power] designated the City as an Electric City; that he does not want to start a task group but would love to see a business consortium to promote business, school, and technology resource opportunities; wind River was bought by Intel and will be Intel's future centerpiece; Alameda Point businesses want to come together and look at business opportunities to promote business, education and market assets. Councilmember Tam stated that she recalls a business incubator when former Councilmember Daysog was on the Council; inquired whether vice Mayor deHaan's referral is similar; stated that she thought the business incubator did not get enough traction because the effort did not have enough business momentum. Former Councilmember Daysog responded Silicon Island was developed and two job fairs were held in the late 1990's; the City had an Economic Development Corporation, which tried to bring Trader Joe's to town in the late 1980's and 1990's. Vice Mayor deHaan stated his referral is similar; the Chamber of Commerce wants to move forward with more proactive marketing; businesses need to get together; there are opportunities throughout Alameda. Councilmember Tam stated the City had an Economic Development Corporation and now has an Economic Development Commission (EDC); former Economic Development Commissioner, Donna Milgram, spoke about specific gays to outreach businesses; inquired ghat the EDC could do to help promote what vice Mayor deHaan is suggesting. Vice Mayor deHaan responded the EDC could be the centerpiece; stated businesses could be the real catalysts. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the concept; the EDC's role could be review how a local development corporation could be tasked with the mission of building a business consortium similar to the Advancing California's Emerging Technologies (ACET) model to allow private sector participation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 April 6, 2010 Vice Mayor deHaan stated Councilmember Matarrese vas involved with the greenbelt corridor, which is regional; Alameda could be a feeder; Electric City promoted converting everything to electric. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is struggling with the basic concept; the City has the EDC and business associations to outreach to businesses; however, the educational component is lacking; that she is not sure what the City is being asked to do that the EDC and business associations cannot do, with the exception of the educational component. Vice Mayor deHaan stated business associations look after individual entrepreneurs; that he wants to look at bigger entities, such as Abbot Labs, that have more technology to offer; that wants to see how the educational component can be linked to the University of California, Berkeley; provided a handout to Council. Mayor Johnson stated the EDC just gave a presentation to Council]; suggested that the matter be sent to the EDC and include educational and private sector components; stated the scope should be broadened; the Council Referral is very similar to ghat the EDC does; the EDC should be given the opportunity to review the matter and might suggest that something else be done. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she supports sending the matter to the EDC with direction to incorporate a broader educational component and technology feeders. Vice Mayor deHaan stated a wind power group is at the former Navy base; everything should be packaged; everyone [businesses] will sign up. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the EDC to come back to Council with a recommendation about ghat action would fulfill the goal of establishing a business consortium to promote, market, and support the many business, educational and technology resources in the City. The Interim City Manager stated that she would look at the core documents, particularly the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business Consortium; the documents could be offered to the EDC. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business Consortium was a nonprofit. Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of sending the matter to the Economic Development Commission, with the caveats discussed. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. 10- Consider, Discuss and Act on the Webster Street Business District Planning Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 April 6, 2010 and Revitalization. Councilmember Matarrese stated there has been a lot of progress on Webster Street, but there is still a need for a catalyst project, filling empty store fronts, and creating a buzz around Webster Street similar to the catalyst project on Park Street; moving in a uniform front across the City is important in order to be ready when the economy starts to recover; that he would like Council to consider giving direction to move in a uniform front and include that any revitalization plans start with an upfront planning process built on relevant, existing documents; Park Street had foundation with the Economic Development Strategic Plan and Downtown Vision Plan; that he would like to see the same approach applied to the Webster Street Business District; the matter should be included in budgeting discussions. Speakers Christopher Buckley, Alameda resident and West Alameda Business Association (WABA) Design Committee; former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda; and Cathy Moehring, WABA. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he purposefully put in the comment: "relevant to existing planning documents the City has a Vilest Alameda Neighborhood Plan, Stargell Avenue extension and streetscape, and an Economic Development Strategic Plan; a lot of building blocks make the foundation for the exercise; Webster Street is waiting for implementation of a catalyst project; the intention is to get from plans to implementation. Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council wanted to set aside $5 million [in redevelopment funds] for Webster Street; the money was not there; there was no revenue stream; the West End deserves to move forward. Councilmember Tam stated there seems to be a planning paralysis; everyone is anxious to implement something but nobody seems to find a way to get things going; that she is wondering whether a grand effort to stitch all the plans together will get catalyst projects; that she is not grasping how the plan can take shape. The Interim City Manager stated the idea is to go beyond landscaping and lighting plans; taking the next step of implementation is necessary; stakeholders have to be involved in shaping their own neighborhoods and businesses first; the core documents available for Park Street are not the same documents available for Webster Street; plans need to be stitched together; the private sector is not going to chase the idea if the City, through the redevelopment agency, does not. Councilmember Gilmore stated the City needs to move forward on Webster street as soon as possible; the Interim City Manager has stated everyone needs to do more with less; the reality of the situation is that the City cannot move forward all at once with all the good ideas; a work plan is needed for all priorities for the next six months, year, or whatever the period of time is determined; that she proposes to start discussions and prioritize the work plan; public discussions are needed so that everyone is on the same Regular Meeting Alameda City Council April 6, 2010 page; new ideas could be added to the cue; sometimes council gets distracted with new projects and old projects do not get finished; sometimes taking ones eyes off the ball is the issue, not funds; priorities need to be set. Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Gilmore; now is a good time for planning. Councilmember Gilmore stated Webster Street should be on the project list; a complete list is needed for community input. Mayor Johnson stated there are not a lot of projects going on now. Councilmember Gilmore stated the city should be the catalyst. Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff could take on the work. The Interim City Manager responded staff needs to concentrate on Webster Street in order to move ahead with a comprehensive, citywide economic development approach; the budget should be adopted in June; the budget workshop on June 1 9th would be a g p good time to set priorities; Management Partners did an assessment involving Council priorities and values. Mayor Johnson stated all .plans should be put together; there are many reasons why things have not been implemented; since the 1950's, plans .to improve Park Street were developed every ten years and nothing ever happened; now is a good time to look at plans more broadly and strategically and with a real goal of implementation. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with Mayor Johnson; projects need to be strategically planned out and prioritized so they do not get lost in the shuffle. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he feels optimistic about the next' level of planning reaching implementation. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the 2004 economic plan for Webster Street spelled out catalyst projects; Alameda Landing, which was going to be a salvation for Webster Street, did not happen. Former Councilmember Daysog stated a lot of great things are happening on Webster Street largely because of the work of the Economic Development Department; now, it is just a matter of tying up everything. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of giving direction to the Interim City Manager to prioritize a public planning process, built on relevant existing planning documents for revitalization of the Webster Street Business District, ensuring that existing planning documents be taken into account, that the planning process includes up -front public participation and there is a budget for the process. Regular Meeting Alameda City council 12 April 0, 2010 Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (10- )Mayor Johnson inquired whether temporary Recreational Vehicle (RV) parking permits should be brought back as a Council Referral or if it is something that the Police Department could review. The Interim City M anager responded a status report could be provided at the next Council meeting. Mayor Johnson stated people want to park on the street to load up motor homes; San Leandro provides a permit for [short term] parking. Councilrnember Matarrese stated that the speaker was issued a ticket and a boat has been stuck at the end of Grand Street for months; the City has an ordinance because junk is being parked on the streets. The Deputy City Manager Administrative services stated the ordinance has several pieces; vehicles have to be moved a mile every 72 hours; boat trailer and RV parking is prohibited on streets. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not think having a permit process for loading an RV would be unreasonable. Mice Mayor deHaan stated the speaker said his RV is 20 feet, which is a little bigger than a car and is his sole vehicle. Mayor Johnson stated the question is how an RV is defined. 10- Vice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda County supervisor Alice Lai Bitker made a presentation at the Yacht Club; the topic was manning and raising bridges; manning the bridges from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. is proposed, which would be one shift; four hours would be needed to respond to a request outside the timeframe [when bridges are staffed]; the Coast Guard is initiating the effort, not the County. Councilmember Tam stated that she was at the presentation; the shifts would be fully manned from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; after 4:30 p.m. would require on demand service; the proposal would be from the Coast Guard because the Coast Guard is not under any obligation to hold public hearings; Supervisor Lai- Bitker felt there is an opportunity to make sure those most affected would have the ability to comment and provide feedback; the matter was published in the Federal Register on March 31 St the comment period is open for 90 days. Mayor Johnson stated when she met with the Coast Guard, the idea was to man two Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 April 6, 2010 shifts and provide on demand service overnight; having two shifts on demand seems more problematic; questioned the cost effectiveness of paying someone on call. Vice Mayor deHaan stated data shoves that most bridges are raised three times per day. The Interim City Manager stated there the proposal last October was the result of previous discussions regarding closing the bridges; that she does not recall four hour on call response] being mentioned; questioned who would pay to have the bridges opened. Councilmember Tam responded the County would pay for the staffing; stated the County is trying to save $005,000 by looking at some type of compromise. Mayor Johnson stated statistics show an industrial user would occasionally need on demand service at the High Street Bridge; that she does not know the statistics from 4:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. The Interim City Manager inquired whether Council would like staff to prepare a City response during the comment period. Vice Mayor deHaan responded that he would like a response; stated that his concern is whether the City has been engaged in the conversation. Mayor Johnson inquired when the Federal Register published the proposal, to which the Interim City Manager responded March 31 st Mayor Johnson stated the proposal is a good thing to consider; right now, the County is staffing the bridges twenty -four hours a day, seven days per week; the County has budget issues; the first solution was to dose the bridges; that she does not think on demand service would be something that the City could not overcome; it seems like the County would pay more in call back time. Councilmember Tam suggested that the Interim City Manager and Public works Director meet with the County Public Works Director; stated the County has all the data and did an analysis of the call back time; the Fruitvale Bridge is the only bridge that receives public subsidies; there may be some opportunity to man the bridge twenty -four, seven and coordinate with the other bridges if there is a case that can be made for Homeland Security. The Interim City Manager stated that she would follow up on the matter; inquired whether Council wants to respond during the comment period. Mayor Johnson stated a meeting should be set before responding. Vice Mayor deHaan stated Homeland Security is another concern. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 April 5, 2010 (10- Councilmember Matarrese stated that former Councilmember George Beckam passed away in the middle of March; requested that the meeting be adjourned in his memory. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that former Councilmember Beckam was voted into office under Measure A and received the State's first Engineering Certificate. There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting in memory of former Councilmember Beckam at 10:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, La ra Weisiger City clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda city Council 15 April E, 2010 CITY OF ALA EDA Memorandum To: honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Lisa Goldman Deputy City Manager Date: April 15, 2010 Re: List of warrants for Ratification This is to certify that the claims listed on the attached check register and shown below have been approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers Amount 227495 227822 $1 ,307,1 37.79 V20279 V20431 $110,939-49 EFT 832 $84,368.47 EFT 833 $54,194.45 EFT 834 $11,953.50 EFT 835 $5,391.73 EFT 833 $11,953.50 EFT 837 $34,589,30 EFT 838 $8,796,00 EFT 839 $153 EFT 840 $102;800.37 Void Checks: 227277 ($222.05) 227307 ($730.00) GRAND TOTAL $1,885,415.92 Respectfully submitted, Deputy City Manager BILLS #4_g Council Warrants 04120/10 4120/2010 CITY OF ALAMEDA. Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: April 20, 2010 Re: Receive an Update on the City's Green Initiatives In February 2008, the City Council adopted a Resolution setting a greenhouse gas reduction goal of 25% below the 2005 baseline level. The City Council also adopted the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection, a document prepared by community members and City staff to describe the policies and measures :that the City will .take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Since that tune, the City has worked to promote and implement a number of strategies to reduce both the City's and the community's carbon footprint. DISCUSSION This report provides an update on the City's "green" activities over the past year in the areas of ordinances, resolutions, and programs and policies. Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA), a public- private group comprised of community members and City staff, has been working with the City on a number of these initiatives. The City Council adopted two ordinances in 2009 that will have an impact on Alameda's carbon footprint. In May 2009, the City adopted the Civic Bay Friendly Landscaping Ordinance, which amended the City's existing water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance to promote sustainable landscaping practices for civic and public /private partnership projects that exceed $100,000. in construction costs. These. projects. must meet minimum Bay Friendly Landscaping Scorecard points and required practices as recommended by StopWaste.org. The ordinance also encourages voluntary inclusion of bay friendly landscaping practices for private projects or projects not meeting the $100,000 construction cost threshold for civic. and public /private partnership projects. One staff member in the Community Development. Department received training last year Stopwaste.org and is now a Bay Friendly Qualified Landscape Design Professional. In October 2009, the City adopted an ordinance that amended the Alameda Municipal Code to include the 2008 California Green Building Standards Code. The California City Council Agenda Item #4 -C Honorable Ma and April 20,.2010 Members of the Cit Council Pa 2 of 7 Green Buildin Code contained a number o f voluntar measures that will b.e.co.me mandator with the adoption of the 2010 California Buildin Code. The -volu measures include: the sealin of j oints and .openings around the. ex of buil a 20% reduction of indoo.r. usa the. use. of grater savin fixtures and flow restrictors; indoor air q ualit y improvements throu the u of Low-VOC..adhe.sives, paint, and carpet; and r equirements for interior moisture. control. One staff member in the Communit Development Department has been trained as a G.reenPoint Rate r. Under the GreenPoint Rated pro a Certified G Rater evaluates and verifies a home's g re e n features, allowin builders and homeowners to brand their homes with a reco seal of approval. Resolutions In Februar 2010, the. Cit C adopted a. Resol .auth the. Cit participation in the .Cal Tbe..Resol.uti.on :authorized California Communities, a joint powers authorit of the. Lea g ue.o f Cal.if6rnia Cities and 1he California State Association o to. accept application s. .from property ow. ners within Alameda for municipal. financin of ..rene wable. ener ener efficienc and water efficienc im t th Ca.1 ifb r iaF RST Progra r Th propert owners who cho to. participate will repa the.:cost of.the clean ener project throu a line item on their propert tax bill, thereb spreadin the pay t and out over makin such improvements more affordable. The pro is scheduled to. launch in summer 201 In conjunction with the a doption of the CaliforniaFIRST Resolution, the Cit C also adopted two additional Resolutions .authorizinCounty.and g :Sac r a r n e nt o.-�.the A of Ba Area. G overn m ents (ABAG) res to �a as I ead a on b e h a If of the Cit for two separate St Ener Pro m.(SEP): The SEP .Stat Effi C to g rants are bein funded with the e's�Ener onserva ion Block Grant (EECB.G) monies.. The. SEP 1 g rant, 1111ith, Sacra County :as th lead applicant, will help. support the implementation. of the.: CaliforniaFIRST Pro providin fundin to offset the co to all participatin cities.. and c for initial pro set-up. and a one percent interest r bu on the first $25 million '.:of projects in the CallforniaFIRST pilot pro The SEP 2 grant, with ABAG as the lead will allocate funds for buildin retrofit. standards developm.e.nt, marketin and market anal trainin and workforce development, and q ualit y assurance. In..Alameda Count the funds will be used to expand StopWaste.or Green Packa Pro Pro and Po Solid Waste and Rec The Local Action Plan identified a number of initiatives to help Alameda reduce its carbon footprint, includin development and adoption of .a Zero Waste. Plan. The Public Works Department, which is responsible for the Cit solid waste and recycling Honorable Mayor and April 20, 2010 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 7 programs, hired a consultant to help with this effort. The consultant conducted several outreach surveys and meetings to gain input and support for the. programs that will ultimately be part of the Zero Waste Plan. A draft plan has been developed and is currently under staff review. In 2008, the city Council adopted a ban on polystyrene foam to -go containers. Public Works staff conducted extensive outreach. with the business community prior to commencing enforcement of the ban in July 2008. As a. result of hat.effort, the. vast majority of restaurants comply. with the law, and staff receives very. fever complaints of non compliance. This ban will assist in meeting the. goals of the Zero Waste Plan. The City recently negotiated an amendment to the F with its Integrated Waste Management Services provider, Alameda County. l ndustries. (AC 1). One of the new requirements is. that those Ac.l vehicles providing service to Alameda must be 100% alternative fuel vehicles by December 2.4.1.2. The Alameda Unified School District.has obtained a new provider for. integrated. waste collection services and will be. phasing in .a three stream collection s yste m that mirrors the system used by the rest of Alameda. organics collection is being phased by. school, and all schools. should have an organics. collection .system in place. within one year. city staff has assisted in training student volunteers, who gill, in turn, educate their schoolmates. Transit. Transportation, and Fleet The City has secured grants to design and .i rnplerne.nt signal coordination progra on both Park Street and Constitution Way. These programs reduce ..the incidence of vehicles idling at traffic signals and emitting greenhouse gases.. A s.irniar, grant- funded program is being designed for W The.. City. also. received a grant to design and install Smart Cameras at key intersections. in order to improve traffic flog and reduce idling time. The cameras are expected .to be completely in :place. by the end of the year. In 2009, the city updated the Transportation Blerrent of the general Plan to reflect the goals and objectives of the City's Local Action Plan for Climate. Protection. The. City.js also in the process of updating the 1999 Bide blaster Plan and is workinc with .the community and the Bicycle Plan Task Force (comprised of. representatives from various City Boards .and. commissions) to identify new. policies,. programs and projects. to. help. make Alameda a more bicycle friendly .city. The current schedules calls for. the Planning Board to review the new Bike .Master Plan inlay, followed by City Council adoption in June. Asa small first step toward m.aking.Aarneda more bicycle.fre.ndly, 10 new bicycle racks. have been installed in Lot C, across from the Alameda Theatre.and Cineplex. Honorable Ma and April 20, 2010 Members of the Cit Council Pa 4-of.7 Last y ear, staff wor to brin Cit CarShar to town. This. or pro convenient, affordable. access to cars so that parti give .up. their own vehicl but still have access to a car when needed for erra.nd,s or weekend. g etawa y s. B makin it eas for people to g i v e :up their own ca e speciall y in .a. compa walkable cit like Alameda, Cit CarShare helps to reduce traf con and g reenhouse g as. emissions. The City has two CarShare v.ehiples.available; the vehicle is 'p.arked in .Lot C is an alternative-fueled car. In terms of the .Cit ow fleet, the Cit hired a consultant several m onths a t in se g rants. and. c th Cit fleet to..alte vehicles rhorever possi I n ad fi Iter. kit insta to treat the exhaust gases. fo r d iesel vehicles continued in 2009, with. three. additional vehicles retrofitted with filters.. These kits have made.. a noticeable differ in the exhaust :quality of :the. vehicles.. While no. retrofits. for bio-di fuel vehic.les have been. pe far because .of limitations:on. fuel tank capacit staff gill be investi options for incre fuel stora which ma require replacin existin fuel stora tanks. The Cit owns .four diesel catamaran ferries: the Ba Breeze and t he E :ll,.Which are used for the Alameda Harbor.. Ba Ferr s ervice. AH BF and Enc and the Pe ra Ita, which are .0 sed. for the. Al ameda 0 a kI a nd.. err S ervice (I n a the Cit operates the Water Emer Transportation Authorit (WETA} -owned Gemini, Pisces, and Scorpio, and it. wil.l.so operate the Taurus. As of .Jul 1, 201 all Cit owned. boats will. operate .0n. a 5%..bio-die.sel...Iow-s.ulf.ur.:ble In 2009, the Per recei n Tier ll:.ma.i.n e Ti 1.1 is. th hi current Environmental Protection A EPA ratin for marine diesel :engines. The Ba Breeze will receive new Tier. I I..en Jn Ma y A t o {tir :on the Encinal.a tiro .on th Peralta) have..been. repla with Tier I I.. The Cit will install two Tier I inthe Ba B reez i n Ma All WETA-owned boats. operate -on a blend of 5 biodiese an ultra-low.-sulfur diesel fuel. All of the. b .surpass WETA's e mandate of 8.5.% cleaner than .E.PA emission sta for Tier .1.1. Marine Enginesi.... They also.. inc a. selective catal reduction. a.nd..sol technolo T.he. :Cit fleet. consultant �.'.has. schedu meetin with representatives of the US Coast Guard to discuss the. s uitab i lit y of using li natural. g as. LI N G. .on ferries in the Ba Area. A meetin wil also be held: with WETA staff` to.discuss.a. potential LNG pilot pro using .one of: the vessels th the Cit will transfer to WETA. Ener and Ener Efficienc In 2009, Alameda Municipal Poorer (AMP) added two new landfill- pr ojects to its portfolio, .Ox Mountain in Half Moon Bay and Kellar Can in Pittsbur g h. These new projects increased AID P's landfill .gas contribution to 17%, resultin in an overall 64% renewable power portfolio, with 8 of the power carbon-free. In fact, as the Honorable Mayor .and April 20, 2.010 Members of the City Council Page 5 of 7 following chart shows, AMP's renewable pager. portfolio .i s the highest in th.e.state. (The CEC Eligible Renewables. chart be.lor reflects AMP's 2008 reneable.poer portfolio and does not include the new 2909 landfill gas contribution..) In addition, the California Energy Commission does not consider large hydro projects as. renewable, Which accounts for the discrepancy between the 55% reported by the CEC and the figure reported by AMP. In 2009, AMP also developed .and implemented a. project to. eliminate no.load distribution equipment and consolidate. much. of the. lour -load equipment at Alameda Point. to assist in the energy efficiency .of the distribution system.. Additionally at Alameda Point, AMP started a $1.4 million project to. remove .six aged and :.inefficient 3,750 -kVA transformers .and replace the equipment with wo 2,500 -kVA and tiro 1 kVA energy efficient transformers that contain biodegradable oil. Through AMP's energy efficiency. programs, 2,211 megawatt hours have been saved. This is equivalent to the annual energy use. :of. 451 average Alameda residential customers. The resulting greenhouse gas ..emissions reduction from the 2009 energy- efficiency programs is x'84 tons of equivalent carbon dioxide, which is equal to the annual emissions of 98 cars.. AMP staff conducted a Great White Light sa..le in April and October, participated in a corn, pact fluorescent light exchange in conjunction with the Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 20, 2010 Page 6 of 7 City's e -waste event, and implemented a light emitting diode. (LED) street light pilot program on Clement .Street to test .the performance. economics of LED. street lights. Last .year, A .M.P staff took the. lead. in applying. for the..City's .energy Efficiency and. Conservation Block Grant funds.through the fed.eraI stimulus bill. The City's.allocation of $640,600 is being used to purchase end install a 63.6 kilowatt solar. 5yste m on the Main Library to .generate approximately 19°l0 of electrical load and enhance the. Webster Street SMART Corridor Program, which Will improve traffic. monitoring and signal operations on Webster street. 1= u nds are also being used to complete energy and its for all City and. School. District facilities, install lighting occupancy sensors throughout City Hall, and retain a .non profit consulting firer, to provide. a:turnkey program that will .train. volunteers to .conduct residential .energy audits and perform !energy efficiency. upgrades. Miscellaneous After three years of public. review and ne.Oti ngs, the City Council. adopted the. street Tree Master Plan in February 2010. The street Tree Master Plan provides detailed information about the status of the City #s :.streot trees and g guidelines. for .their maintenance and expansion. A tree matrix was developed for selecting the best species. for the. var planting site .conditions, -with a n. emphasis on maxim zing the photosynthetic. activities. Although adoption of ..a trpet Tree: Master.. Plan. is not specifically id.enti Pied as. a task in the Local. Action Plan, a: healthy. street tree population is important for the capture and treatrnept of carbon d I n 2009, the City joined... the East.. Bay Green Corridor, a partnership of :cities, universities, community .college. dlstrlcts, and th.e Lawrence Be rational La.b formed to develop and expand the regional greed economy. The Green Corridor includes JC Berkeley, Lawrence ..Berkeley Nati (LB.NL), Peralta COmmunity .College District, Contra Costa Co.rnrnunity College District, Cal State East Bay, and the. cities of Alam.eda, Albany, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Emeryville, Oakland, Richmond, and San Leandro. The City is .actively contributing to. the Green C efforts .through staff participation on the Business. Development Committee the :.Policy Committee,. and the Steering Committee. staff has assisted the.. Corridor by drafting. letters of: s4pport. for various Corridor projects, providing :content for the partnership's soon.7* 1aunch website, a assisting companies considering locating. their .green businesses in the Corridor. I n fact, the City is in pre.l.i.m i na ry discussions.with one.company that is considering Alameda Point for a solar energy test .site. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact associated with receiving this update on the City's green initiatives. However, staff is actively seeking grants to enable the City to further its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council RECOMMENDATION Receive an update on the City's green initiatives. April 20, 2010 Page 7 of 7 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Cit Mana Date: April 20, 2010 Re Authorize the Interim Cit Mana to Execute All Nece A with the Water Emer Transportation Authorit and Blue Gold Fleet for the Operation of the MV Taurus BACKGROUND On December 2, 2008, the Cit of Alameda and the San Fran c isco..B.a y Area .Water Emer Transportation Authorit WETA entered into a f n u.. din a g reement throu which WETA a to reimburse the Cit for additional capital, operational costs, and insurance premiums as s ociated. w ith placin WETA-owned ferr the Alameda ferr services. Since that. time, the..Cit has chartered.:three.W.E.TA boats: the Scorpio and Pisces for the Alameda Harbor Ba Ferr Service, and th Gemini for :.the Alameda/Oakland Ferr Service AOFS A fourth WETA-owned: vessel, the MV Taurus is available for the Cit to charter for AOFS operatio If. approved b the. Cit Council, the MV Taurus is anticipated to be service in Ma 2 g. DISCUSSION Public Works s has ne g otiated terms of the WETA/Cit of Alameda. Ba.reboat.Charter for the MV T and the Twelfth Amendment to... th ..Blue Gold Fleet B&GF Operatin A The principal a terms are a follows: Bareboat Charter (Charter): The Cha spe th terms under which the Cit can take pos of the Taurus, and it g ives th :Cit the .right to subcharter the ves B&GF for AOF.S. operations. The. i.niti Charter. t ends on Jul 1, 2011, thou the Charter includes a provision. for. term. extension. At the time of deliver the vessel will. be under a. one- vessel builder warrant and a five- MTU Detroit Diesel extended en warranty. Honorable Mayor and April 20, 2010 Members of the City council Page 2 of 2 Copies of the agreements are on file in the City clerk's office. FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds for the AOFS are budgeted in the Public works Department's account for Capital Improvement Program (Project No. 621.20), with monies allocated from Measure B Ferry, Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Program, and farebox revenue. Additional costs for Taurus related expenses are provided through the Regional Measure 2 Program administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in accordance with the previously executed funding agreement between the city and wETA. There is no impact to the General Fund associated with AOFS operations. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed project does not affect the Alameda Municipal code. The City's Ferry Service is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Interim city Manager to execute all necessary agreements with the WETA and B &GF for the operation of the MV Taurus. Respectfully submitted, Ise— O Matthew T. Naclerio OW, Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, UV Evelyn Leung Interim Supervising Accountant ES:gc cc: Watchdog Committee (Ferry) CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: April 20, 2010 Re. Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids for Culvert Reconstruction at Various Locations No. P.W. 02 -10 -04 BACKGROUND The City of Alameda's Capital improvement Program (CIP) includes a project to upgrade the storm drain culverts at various locations throughout the city. The principal goal of the program is to improve the health and safety of the residents of Alameda by reconstructing storm drain culverts at street intersections, eliminating the buildup of debris, minimizing discharge of sediments into San Francisco Bay, and reducing the potential for flooding. DISCUSSION The proposed project will reconstruct the existing drainage culverts at the following four intersections: Second Street at Brush Street, Washington Street at Pearl Street, Buena Vista Avenue at Moreland Drive, and Yosemite Avenue at Cambridge Drive. FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds for this project are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (90 -06), with monies allocated from the Urban Runoff Clean Water fund. No General Fund monies are required. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), these projects are Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities. City Council Agenda item #4-E ®4 -20 -10 Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council RECOMMENDATION April 20, 2010 Pa 2 of 2 Adopt plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids for culvert reconstruction at various locations, No. P.W. 02-10-04. Respectfull submitted, Matthew T. NaclerioC Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, AA Evel Leun Interim Supervisin Accountant BH:RC:gc CITE( of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: April 20, 2010 Re: Adopt Resolution to Preliminarily Approvethe Annual Report Declaring the City's Intention to. order the Levy and collection of Assessments. and Providing for Notice of Public bearing on June 15, 2010 Island City Landscapina and Liahtina District 84- In accordance with the Landscape and Li ghtingActo 9�'�, the city council is re q uired to annually appoint art Engineer and an..Attorney to prepare. an .Engineer Report and.advpt a resolution that preliminarily approves. the report, declares the C intent to levy and collect the assessment., and sets .a public hearing date on the proposed assessments. The resolution is. required to be published at.least. once in a local. paper with a minirnurn.of ten days .between the first p.ublicatlon .of the City' resolution and the. public hearing. Qn February 3, 2010 the City: Council appointed an Engineer. and an Attorney. for the Landscaping and .Lighting Assessment District (LLAD) 84 -2, and authorized the preparation of the engineer's Report. DISCUSSION The Engineer's. Report was prepared in accordance with Section X2585 et seq. of the California Streets and Highways Code. The. report provides an annual budget to provide enhanced mai tenance •of .the improvements .withi.n Zones 1 through 7 of LLAD .84 -2 not typically performed by the city. The En g i n eer Report provides an e.sti mate of Cost by each of the seven zones. to be addressed for FYI 0 -11. Maps of. the seven zones are attached. The Zones and .enhanced maintenance work are: Zone 1 Lincoln Avenue between Sherman Street and St. Charles Street: This Zone is responsible for.the maintenance of the landscaped median in the 1100 and Zoo blocks of Lincoln Avenue, including the utilities for operating the irrigation.. The fevenuefeceived through the assessments for this zone. is sufficient to fund .100% of the. maintenance budget. For FY1 0-11 the property assessm ents will remain u nchanged f rom the previous year's assessment. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item ##4 -F Honorable Mayor and April 20, 2410 Page Members of the city council Pa e 2 of 4 Zones 2 and 3 Webster Street from central Avenue to Lincoln Avenue and Webster Street from Lincoln Avenue to Atlantic Avenue; These two zones work together and fund landscape maintenance and seasonal banners. In.addtion, the vest Alameda Business Association (WABA) oversees a.$55,000 annual contract, partially funded b the LLAD for Y six days a week litter and graffiti removal and weekly. mechanical sweeping of the sidewalk and .general public areas,. and associated maintenance supplies. Assessments have remained unchanged.since the early 1990s. currently, the revenues received through these zones fund on ly 81% of the total maintenance budget for..Zone and 86% for..Zone .3. In 2007, a ballot to. increase assessments failed, and. the WABA Board is not. supportive of another ballot measure to increase assessments. due to the current economic condition. The d budget for propose.. 9 FY10 -11 Continues to allocate.e portion of the reserve fund balance and maintains last year's $6,200 decrease n. maintenance expenses. Last Y ear, WABN was.: able to use alternate funding sources to replace the maintenance cuts funded .by the district, resulting in no. redaction in services. For FY10 -11, WABA Is investigating alternate fun din availability to continue providing the same level of maintenance.: services .as in previous Mears. however, negotiations. f or.the .annual maintenance .contract have. not be.e.n finalized. Together these zones are drawing on reserves at the. rate of $7 100 per year after the decrease in expenses. if assessments are g not Increased by FY1 -16, additional bud reductions will be required. Zone 4 Park Street from the Park Street Bridge to San lose Avenue including. areas of Webb Street Santa Clara Avenue Lincoln Avenue and Central Avenue: This zone funds landscape maintenance, semi annual sidewalk steam cleaning, supplies, and seasonal ban nersldecoratlons. Assessments have remained unchanged .since tie ear y 99o.s. Currently, the revenues received. through the assessments from this zone.. is sufficient to fund 100% of the total maintenance budget due to recommended :budget reductions. Previously, the Park Street Business Association (P.S.BA) a nticipated that an assessment increase would be .propC7sed for FY09 -1.0; however, due to the eco lo condition, this Increase did .not move forward S ince the economy has not i m proved, t ie PS BA Board is not recommending are increase in assessments for FY.1.04 1 T. .Based on disdussior s. with and concurrence by PSBA, the maintenance budget has been adjusted to be rithn the projected revenues. This mill reduce the maintenance budget by..an additon.al $1. 000.from the previous fiscal year's reduction of $4,600. PS BA _proposes to supplement this reduction with other PSBA funds and does not anticipate reducing the maintenance level from last year. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council April .20,fl o Page 3 of 4 Zone 5 harbor Bay Business Park: This. zone funds. irri ation and landscape 9 p maintenance costs. within the. Harbor Bay Business Park (HBBP) in CIO din tree tr.i r min g 9 sidewalk and pathway. repairs, energy cost and streetlight maintenance costs. The budget for this zone is. developed in conjunction with the HBBP Assoc ation Based on approval by the. property owners, an .automatic Consumer Price I ndex CPI increase can be applied to the assessment. The revenues received through the assessments from this zone are sufficient to fund 100% of the proposed 1=Y.1 o -11 maintenance budget. Last year's maintenance bud 9 et included an allocation of $359,000 from reserve funds to re- landscape: the street nedans and reduee.the amount of sod, resulting in an overall reductio msintenance utllit y costs. The. property owners requested that the project be deferred until FYI -1 1 Staff supports this request. For 1 =Y10 -1 1, the proposed property assessment includes an annulPl increase .of 1.79 which increases revenues by $1.3,237. The remaining unallocated reserve will be 1 50,000. Zone 0 Alameda Marina Village: Commercial Areas: This zone funds �i and landscape maintenancecosts the commercial areas of .Marina Villa e, inc udin tree .9 9 trimming, the. linear. shoreline park, sidewalk and pathway: re airs, street li htin y p 9 g maintenance, and energy costs. The revenue received through the ass essments from this zone..i sufficient to fund 1.0.0.% the proposed maintenance budget. The bud g et for. this zone s. developed in conjunction frith the:Marina:Village lva nagerr e ntgroup. Based on previous approval by the properly owners, an automatic CPI increase is applied to the assessment. The. proposed budget fvr this district includes an annual CPI increase of 1.79 which. increases revenues by $0,133. Zone 7 -1100 and 1200 blocks of Ba Btreet: This zone was created at the r�squest.of the property owners who wanted enhanced maintenance for the eIm trees along Bay. Street. currently the revenues .received through assessments from this zone cover 9UWof the total. maintenance budget.. .Due to. the type and frequency of the tree maintenance i nvolved there are years w here b .udget:.is greaterthan others. The asse ss7eClts arP Dept stable, and allocations are.: made from reserves as necessary, The prop'rty owners request that the assessments remain .at 1 50 per property Staff su ppo rts this request, as there are sufficient long- term maintenance. reserve funds availa to fund the proposed maintenance budget. For FY1 -1 1, the property assessment will be $1 5o per property. Public 1f orks staff proposes that. tie City Cou ncil adopt a resolution to preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report:and. set.the regular City Council. meeting of.J.une 15, 201 o as the date for the public .hearing. A copy of the Engineer's Depart is on file with the City Clerk's office. Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council FINANCIAL IMPACT April 20, 2010 Page 4 of 4 The city funds portions of the districts through the following program budgets: $13,075 from Street Tree and Median Maintenance (001- 4250 66410) and Golf Administration (601- 5305 61060), for the landscape maintenance for Harbor Bay Parkway between Maitland Drive and Doolittle Drive; $1 5,000 from Recreation Park Administration (001 51110- 61060), for maintaining the shoreline park along Harbor Bay Parkway within Zone 5; $3,000 from Street Tree and Median Maintenance (001 -4250- 66410), for street tree maintenance for Zone 7, and approximately $84,000 is shared by each zone in proportion to the value of their annual assessments for the city to administer the Assessment Districts. These costs are included within the operating budget for each department. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to preliminarily approve the annual report declaring the city's intention to order the levy and collection of assessments and providing for notice of public hearing on June 15, 201 0 Island City LLAD 84 -2. Approved as to funds and account, er k Evelyn Leung Interim Supervising Accountant M M .JVV.gc Exhibit. 1. Zones 1 through 7 maps ad z i y Xj v v i. v pia€ I z. 14 4 !w CL af-L� !�T -0147 q!� .s! L� •io eoa w 3 ti ;7 to, 4C R `T 4 acs 9 as CIt7 "i or3 fare f di 00- l4k7 t ra Lu r4 Q ra w.. a p r� giQ q d o a T p D q a v q C3 r a ,T� C T it ;4 w� T Sri o sa ca n q p v a ct NJ L '`b 14 _%j -Z r• it Exhi to Report Fie: Agenda item #4 -F 04 -20 -1 co a sue. iRt t Q. all ��'K�_t u I-Q L tz a•, L tj L 1 1 4'� �-crni VO-V17 Y Qv rn❑ ''V 70 ZV f Zv caa -rGtl Rd 00- P-0a rv• tom t fa t!Q z a]i 1 to-coat IL7 4� -tro /v na--yfa 3 1 1'- 1t w 1�••1 �D -gyp f vD JSTff •e I Ir cz 1=7 /7 t c UC3 a� t rfl -ud I l f r rry o� SAD Qo -cre l 1 MY .77J --�,3 f? -A av -■rav -rrr.r C� -arc 1 ►v tlr� -c!v IO wt7 00 ra IL IYJ NI �V aQ- ziv NJ oc -cam p'�• vr"a Zl 2D -lLa oQ -ono as -.rx1 j••1 t .n crcr 7� t ca-� D 4 d ❑t a r t y l s C3�..�� w� OL �.z vo r Ll f (7• �tr,I" rr� �rrrrr��+v7 •E Q 3 3Z C2 1 C7I: r z#o[ ...1 i 00-0/0 3 go t rNi f qt ,�3 Q OG-groa 4, t4 l M me, g a iC o C] e v a G G C c a p V4 NP 'k In LC-1 I 0 -OLD LOO --044 04A 04 x qz If mom 3 C v -CJC ro ;np Y it k ti Y a z ,xa•�vcrt oo -BCD 3 All 33 CC► -7�D s �]I i v ao- acv ti� 7 Ott •7C C`7 -!G'0 f +D- -roa .70- 1600 aO- ■ate ara- �fo F wrr ••I�D k M y aa sow# 7 �-4 E .err• ■Cp DQ'- =+"G x:• 't' r. ...y ..r .t: yam r cl xi Za C3 I MCI n A raw 1 a Vk l e3 w• s r h r r F w i i l,- ,T,• 4 �3 0 d 4 l t t N i x S x s s z ZZ RA fl oc Zi bra-} ti p `+1 •t ;c :ter 1 ?1 1 s r i e st•. s �f 1 i i 4 x. r� =��j •�v s S i ti r 1t q 0,4 I I rrk w a �J 4.9 s 1 v t Y ■u?.�.nr 1CZ ..t of M 1 ov -rr�� an -sore aca_t �a w F it•xt7 n ate` .n ii r i U4 1 S T NV ol JZ 3 -F•c r f f V W 7 rs' �i-: r r titer y `•s fi r. .�_..a.Z t. t.... ...."..n t. .a t .r .J�•.........r•» �.s t...•.. .rt ...e -.i w L• yk";t� f y r p� Lai in ca K �77t 1 a :Z ++i[ l ►a ■r�; r tx .tt: .j t ANCI '"'r"t w r4 �...i w.''• w 1 yE. G r orrns���- .��►.Nr prAC Lq .rr.rv•rr r,�lrrrr �1 y Z. r v e� a Rh�00LLAi -ft n O r���r.rrrrrt•r r yr, 4vr azan3 c a z y ar ;aQ aa.iwI Q a ft aCCgC,•x�,! r fwd .,.w� r �,7y^ asp err.tr....u►�•Rr! r w C] EEC t� �s.�r•n.r� +..r�w+� r r te... y j 4 :zi NA mi i yw� w r. •�i s�� Lv.a.l4RVZpq�a3 �•yJ w m" LtL7RaE L w �•s a �w fry �X+ w,ly r rr�ayrrr+ar�.�rrwrdw. qr Qra4441% 044u ir 7 V j ti �vsrw ..w..r.rrw►+r V� 7A1 MM Mw.w.+►+r C rr F Ew ❑f Y� zh q•+aZ3+]❑ �tawexaavxuoaa�r�RR 7� aflo�� .i r r t Or 3 Q'3 'Q 1 01 •7 -tL g v fl 9 o Q p gOlk VA a i� D D "�A r �A■ Tk-J ,'Y}M•r..w rr r. wa V axa�:4aaaoo�aQav�vano a�avvv.a ra.ov4aa w w y a -6 ;Nx ww y ;rte �a �i �.w� .a7 �a._�,.�ri ��rr�w.r �ti r.. ���.swrw'!+�/�*+M w.'•+fw *rr����sr•.rw e d r ti"1 ter• Twr+t w. r.. rt +s ti.Z ►�wrrsrwe +i "r��wrw r !!t ekt> arm, C► CQ @r1L+iR o S� rr �q��v ta. az ��o =�n nznnrlaiz @yvop r ao0ry. +ar�asv'�a►aE rr r. r •ft ►J►wralti- w'!w'wr'M' 'R44 Q�s"�"��rt Irrtf 04 •e @C @dC►n�]alrka�•�rew+r tr. rrrC4 r1rEti7v'mC7+lr►Rr►w� rR @�44w •S� r..r wr r, •M rw'•` w rr.�'+�._ww.r r+r w....�w _..w .r w A r r x= rt •fir �F e.. t� r. yt• 4 y 1t 1.1 17 MCI 4- tia T n w A s r JL qL bv w 3 7 S y 4 a x'ti e x Va Jr fie Y At I 51' r fr F 1 °p Eip Ll M A ter► -+SIC J ra 7 Q CL }Tl •r7� 3i S�C1 42C a Z ti� X43 r' �3��� z w w y Iz �Ni •y w r F Y -t7 v :,..•ate i N. I dlR :rl ?r c -J Z y 711 N I CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 0 U. 0 0 M PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE ANNUAL REPORT DEC LARI NG TH E CITY'S I NTENTION TO ORDER TH E LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 15 2010 ISLAND CITY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT 84 -2 WHEREAS, the City of Alameda (the "City has duly created the Island City 0 Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2 (the "District under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (Sections 22500 and following of the Streets and Highways Code of California) (the Act) to install and maintain certain landscaping and lighting improvements (the "Improvements and WHEREAS, the City has directed the City Engineer, as engineer of work for the District, to file an annual report in accordance with the Act, and that report is on file with the city, and shows the proposed improvements and the estimated costs and assessments, all for the fiscal year 201012011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City council of the city of Alameda that: 1. The report of the engineer of work on file with the city is hereby preliminarily approved and the city intends to levy assessments on the properties shown in the report for the fiscal year 2010/2011, subject to any changes that may be ordered by the city council. 2. On June 15, 2010, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock P.M. the city Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed improvements and the proposed assessments for the fiscal year 201012011. The hearing will be held at the meeting place of the city Council, in the Alameda City Fall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, council chambers, Alameda, California, 94501. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the hearing required by the Act by publishing a copy of this resolution at least once in the Alameda Journal a newspaper regularly published and circulated in the city. The first publication shall be not later than ten days before the date of said hearing. 4. The Public Works Department is directed to snail notices to all property owners who are experiencing an increase in assessment from the 200912010 fiscal year. These notices will list the total amount chargeable to the d istr i ct, the amount chargeable to the owner's parcel, the duration of the payments, the reason for the assessment, and the basis upon which the amount of the proposed assessment was calculated. These notices will .a.lso adyise property owners of the procedures for conducting a ballot. Resolution #4 -F CC D4 -20 -10 5. Interested persons should contact Large McLean of the City of Alameda Public Works Department, 950 West ball square, Room 110 Alameda, California 94501, telephone number (510) 749 -5896, regarding this hearing, the assessments, and the report. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed b the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 20 day of April, 2010, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 21 st day of April, 2010. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date. April 20, 2010 Re: Adopt Resolution to Preliminarily Approve the Annual Report Declaring the City's Intention. to order the Levy.. and. Collection of. Assessments and Providing for Notice .of Public fearing on June 15, 2010. Maintenance Assessment District o 1 -0 1 (Marina Cove z]0ffMKq&*01A In accordance with the Landscape and Lighting Act of .1072, the City Council is required to annually appoint an.Engineer and an Attorney to prepare an Engineer's Reportand.adopt a resolution to preliminarily approve the report, declare the City's intent to levy and collect the assessment, and set a public. hearing date on the. proposed. assessments.. The resolution is required to .be published. once in a local paper with a mi.nirnurn of tendays between the first notice.. by. publication of the1esolution and the public hearing. Can February 3, 2010 the city Council. appointed are Engineer.. and an. Attorney. for the Maintenance Assessment District 01 -01 (MAD) in Marina Cove.. and.:.. authorized the preparation of the annual budget report. DISCUSSION The Engineer's. Report was prepared in accordance. with Section 22565 of seq. of the California Streets and. Highways code. The.report includes. an.estimated.annual. budget to maintain the public improvements within MAD. When the MAD. was established, an automatic Consumer Price Index (CIP) increase was pre approved. Accordingly,. staff recommends that the. assessrnents increased by 1.79 Which is the. CPI for the .Bay Area for the year ending February 2010, anda vote. of the propertyowners is not required. Public works staff proposes.. that the city Council .adopt a reso.lution to preliminarily approve the. Engineer's Report and set the regular city Council meeting of June 15, 2010 as the date far the public hearing. A copy of the Engineer's Report is on file with the city Clerk's office, City Council Agenda Item ##4 -G 04-20-10 Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council FINANCIAL IMPACT April 20, 2010 Page 2 of 2 The MAD was created to maintain public improvements associated with the Marina cove development. The funds that are not expended in a fiscal year remain within the assessment district and may be used for future expenses. The city's cost to administer MAD, including full city cost allocation, is approximately $6,200 and is included within the proposed budget. There is no impact to the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Adopt resolution to preliminarily approve the annual report declaring the City's intention to order the levy and collection of assessments and providing for notice of public hearing on June 15, 2010 MAD 01 -0 (Marina Cove). Approved as to funds and account, Evelyn Leung Interim Supervising Accountant MM:JW:gc CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. t4 0 U. a 0 PRELIMINARILY APPROVING THE. ANNUAL REPORT DECLARING THE CITY'S INTENTION TO ORDER THE LEVYAND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING JUNE 15 MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 01 -01 (MARINA COVE) WHEREAS, the City of Alameda (the "City has duly created the Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 the "District" pursuant to Chapter 3 p p Article v of the Alameda Municipal Code, and Resolution Flo. 12417 to install and maintain certain landscaping and lighting and other improvements (the 3 S "Improvements and WHEREAS, the city has directed the city Engineer, as engineer of work for the District, to file an annual report in accordance with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 "Act and that report is on file with the city and shows the proposed improvements and the estimated costs and assessments, all for the fiscal year 201012011. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city council of the city of Alameda that: 1. The report of the engineer of work on file with the city is hereby preliminarily approved and the city intends to levy assessments on the properties shown in the report for the fiscal year 2010/2011, subject to any changes that may be ordered by the council. 2. On June 15, 2010, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock P.M., the Council will hold a public hearing on the proposed improvernents .arid the proposed assessments for the fiscal year 2010/2011. The hearing will be held at the meeting place of the city council, in the Alameda city Hall, 2263..Santa Clara Avenue, Third Floor, council chambers, Alameda, California, 94501. 3. The city clerk is authorized and directed to give notice of the hearing required by the Act, as that Act is incorporated in chapter 3, Article v of the Alameda Municipal code, by publishing a copy of this resolution twice in the AlarnedaJournal a newspaper regularly published and circulated in the City. The first publication shall be not later than ten days before the date of said hearing. 4. interested persons should contact Marge McLean of the city of Alameda Public Works Department, 950 W. Mail Square, Room 110, Alameda, California 94501, telephone number (510) 749 -5840, regarding this hearing, the assessments and the report. Resolution #4 -G CC 04 -20 -0 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 20P day of April, 2010, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nay hand and affixed the official seal of said city this 21" day of April, 2010. Lara Weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager Date. April 20, 2010 Re: Adopt a Resolution Approving the city's Application for Grant Funds for the Urban Greening Planning Grant Program under the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and coast Protection Bond Act of 2000 (Proposition 84) BACKGROUND On November 7, 2008, California voters passed the Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006 (Proposition 84 which authorized the State Legislature. to appropriate up to $17.5 million for the purpose of creating urban greening plans that will serve as the master document guiding and coordinating greening projects in local jurisdictions throughout California (Urban Greening Planning Program). Because of the built -out nature of California's urban areas, the Urban Greening Planning Program will provide funds to assist entities in developing a master urban greening plan that will ultimately result in projects to help the State meet its environmental goals and the creation of healthy communities. The plans must outline or lay out projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide multiple benefits including, but not limited to, decreasing air and water pollution, reducing the consumption of natural resources and energy, increasing the reliability of local water supplies, or increasing adaptability to climate change. DISCUSSION! Staff proposes the city apply for $250,000 in grant funds from the Urban Greening Planning Program for a city of Alameda Master Urban Greening Plan (Plan). The proposed Plan will include most of the same aspects of a Park Master Plan but could also include the greening of city streetscape and other public areas, such as public parking lots. The Plan will likely include: (1) an urban greening needs assessment; (2) plans for retrofitting existing parks with upgraded facilities, Bay Friendly landscaping, City council Report Re: Agenda Item ##4-H Honorable Mayor and April 20, 2010 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 new water conservation techniques and stormwater detention; (8) identification of locations and development of conceptual designs and costs for new parks, streetscape, and community gardens in underserved areas, including sustainable design features; and (4) potential opportunities for coordination with the Alameda County Health Department on incorporating health education into local recreation programs. The City will be receiving letters of support from various community groups and stakeholders, including the Alameda County Health Department, Alameda Unified School District, Friends of the Park, the Alameda Recreation and Park Commission, and the Youth Advisory Commission, among others. As an integral part of the Plan development process, staff proposes soliciting community participation through stakeholder interviews, focus groups, and community workshops. The City's success in securing grant funding from the State for preparation of an Urban Greening Plan will assist the City in creating a healthy community through improvement of its parks and open space, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, conservation of water, flood control, and coastal protection. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no requirement to provide matching funds for this grant, therefore, there is no direct impact to the General Fund from this action. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution approving the City's application for grant funds for the Urban Greening Planning Grant Program under the Safe Drinking water, water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coast Protection Bond Act of 2008 (Proposition 84). sp�'ctfully submitted J E. Ott Deput�jbty Manager JEOIdl CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. �7_ L" 0 U. 0 0 25 APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE URBAN GREENING PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER, WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY, FLOOD CONTROL, RIVER AND COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 200.6 (PROPOSITION 84) WHEREAS the Le and Governor of the State of California have and provided funds for the pro shown above, A-a 6,04 WHEREAS the Strate Growth Council has been dele the responsibilit for the administration of this g rant pro establishin necessar ecessar procedures and WHEREAS, said procedures established b the Strate Growth Council re a resolution certif the approval of application b the Applicants g overnin g board before submission of said application to the State; and WHEREAS, the Applicant, if selected, will-enter into an a with the State of California to carr out development of the Urban Greenin Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Cit Council of the Cit of Alameda: Approves the filin of an application for the Cit of Alameda Master Urban Greenin Plan; and 2. Certifies that Applicant understands the -assurances. an certification in the application; and 3. Certifies that.. applicant will have sufficient funds. to 'develop.. e th plan or will secure .the resources to do so; and 4. Certifies that applicant will work towards the Governorl s State Plannin Priorities intended to promote e stren the econom protect the environment, and promote public health and safet as included in Government Code Section 65041.1; and 5. Appoints the Interim Cit Mana or her desi as a to conduct all ne execute and submit all documents includin but not limited to applications, a pa re and so on, which ma be necessar for development of the aforementioned plan. Resolution #4-H CC 04-20-10 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 20th day of April, 2010, by the following Grote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT:. ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set ray hand and affixed the seal of said City this 21 st day of April, 2010. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Pr o p osal for g Alameda County Cit Managers association Contra Costa County Public Managers Association February 2, 2010 Introduction After reviewing the work of several other regional California City Management associations on pension reform, the Alameda County City managers Association and the Contra Costa Count Public Managers Association established a ,joint working group on pension reform to hake recommendations to our respective organizations regarding regional public pension reform.. The need for such a working group is rooted in the following concerns: I The general state of the economy has sparked a public outcry over public pensions that may lead to overreaching and inappropriate pension reform by statewide initiative. 2. The majority of current public pension programs under the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) and most other public retirement systems in California are not financially sustainable. 3. It is important for cities in the sane geographic region to work toward a uni form set of goals for pension reforn7 so as to avoid an inherent competitive disadvantage in hiring qualified staff. The working group concluded that existing pension programs have worded well to support career local government employees for decades, however, there is a growing recognition that they are not financially sustainable. To that end, the public managers recommend a new tier pension offering that could be implemented by the great majority of cities in Alameda an Contra. Costa Counties through the bargaining process. Such pension offerings would not affect existing employees who have vested rights to the current pension programs, but would affect new employees after a date certain and be both sustainable and defensible. As to existing employees, the public managers recommend that public employers require employees through labor negotiations to fluid a portion of their pensions through direct payroll contributions. In these difficult economic times, this will create an immediate annual operating savings for public agencies as well as create more parity within the workplace as it relates to future new tier pension offerings. Background For more than 70 years, the Mate of California and local govern -rents have offered a "defined benefit's retirement plan to employees. This system provides a guaranteed anneal pension based upon retir age, salary, years of service and the appropriate benefit factor multiplier. Most, but not all, municipalities in California participate in the California Public Employees' Retirement System, (CaIPERS). All municipalities in Alameda /Contra Costa County, with the exception of the Cities/Towns of Danville, Lafayette and Orinda and the Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, are CalPERS members. City Council CM Communication A Item #5=A �w: The goal of pension reform is to provide current and future employees with an appropriate pension upon retirement after a career in public service. The benefit level should be set to be fair and adequate, but fiscally sustainable for employers and taxpayers. Any proposal for such a regional pension standard roust be based on sound actuarial work. Many financial planners and actuaries suggest that a replacement of 65% to 75% of salary is needed to provide a reasonable retirement income. Financial Planners take into account lower expenses in retirement and public workers saving for their own retirement, e.g. contribution to a 457 Plan rather than relying on CalPERS for a 100% replacement of pre-retirement income. While we recognize that the defined benefit plan has worked for decades and should be retained at some level., it is clear that defined benefit pensions are increasingly rare in the private sector. The great majority of private employers offer "defined contribution" plans where the employer contribution is a fixed an -.aunt and the benefits are based on contributions and investment earnings. These plans put the risk largely on the employee to amass and manage assets to ensure adequate income after retirement. Such 457 and 401(k) plans, and the like, have not performed well in recent years due to tum oil in the markets. Yet, there is a growing sentiment amongst the public and opinion leaders that State and local government workers should be forced to defined contribution plans. We believe this would be a ni.istake, for the following reasons: Defined benefit plans have proven to be more efficient than defined contribution plans for delivering pension benefits. Defined benefit plan investments generally earn far more than defined contribution plans, because tliey are professionally managed. Defined benefit plans offer lower fees and cover disability retirements and death benefits that are not included in defined contribution plans. Further, defined benefit plans offer a protection for inflation and manage longevity risk. better than defined contribution ibution plans by pooling larger numbers of people. Moving from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan entails large start --up costs and forces changes in .asset allocations that will produce lower investment results in the defined benefit plan that remains for existing employees. In other words, a forced conversion to a defined contribution plan would cost the taxpayers more for many years. However, defined benefit plans have become more expensive in recent years. hi the late. 1990s, when CalPERS was earning extraordinary retul las on its .portfolio, the California Legislature enacted significant benefit enhancements for public employees in the CalPERS systems that were optional for participating local governments. Market conditions at that time led to "super funding" of local government pensions causing management and labor to seek increased benefits to stay competitive. It is now common for public safety officers to retire close ..to age 50 with almost a full pre-retirement salary under the 3% at 50 Plan. These increased benefits have proven to be unsustainable and need to be rolled back to more appropriate pre -1999 levels. The costs for these defined benefit plans vary based on two factors: the benefits paid to retirees, and returns earned by investments. The pension funds are not immune to stock market declines, and CalPERS has suffered staggering losses in its portfolio since mid 2008. while the market is showing some resiliency, member agencies will be called upon to pay significantly cantly increased contributions over the next 30 years to fund pensions for current employees and make up huge losses. Because of the global recession, local revenues are significantly depressed. The two major city revenue sources, property taxes and sales taxes are not expected to recover to their previous levels for some time perhaps years_ The CalPERS policy adopted June 16, 2009, spreads the deep losses over the next thirty Mears, beginning iii 2 -0 l 0 and- rising t �roUcth 201 -3. The increased rates may well hit Cities J est as they are finally beginning to escape fr oni the effects of the recess As such, ])elision costs will soon escalate beyond our ability to manage them while the benefits exceed Nvhat taxpayers themselves can receive and what is needed to attract qualified employees. The local government pensi011 sitttation Will become untenable. In the past five years, a number of proposals have been introduced to reform the public pension system in Calif ornia. T date, n o effective reform action has been t aken by CalPERS, the Covemor, or the State Legislature. Several organizations are now consideiing ballot initiatives that would reform the pension system in response to the inaction of State government. It is for this reason the working group has inset on this subject several times since August and involved experts to assess the financial impacts of a systematic and regional refonn effort. our findings follow. Finciin s The public managers groups recognize that the most effective reform would be addressed at a statewide level with consistent pension standards for all. Ideally this would be accomplished through the State legislature, but could occur through the initiative process. However, poorly conceived pension reform by initiative could lead to greater costs for taxpayers and harm local government's ability to attract and retain qualified employees. By acting as a region, no one city will be disadvantaged by pension refon Therefore, the managers groups support the goal of a modified level of retirement benefits for all new city employees in the Alameda /Contra Costa region. The managers also recommend that current employees pay fora portion of their pensions and that a new pension tier be created for city employees hired after the reforms are negotiated by the respective cities, with. the fo llowing features: I Current employees shall participate in the funding of their pensions in all cities. This reform will generate immediate budgetary savings to cities to the extent that existing employees participate in paying for their own retirement, Savings could initially range from 1 9% of Ca lPERS able payroll annually. 2) New Tier Retirement Proposal Safety employees 2 at 50 (which rises to 2.7% at age 55 or older); Miscellaneous employees 2 at 60 (which rises to 2.41 at age 63 or older); and Average of highest three years compensation as basis for pension calculation. The proposed new tier will deliver savings over a much longer time period as it affects only new hires after a new tier becomes effective. when the majority of employees are under a new tier, cities can expect to save approximately 2% of payroll per year. within 30 years, annual savings of 5 w 7 of payroll can be expected through redaction in the normal cost of the PERS contribution. The new tier will also lower each city's volatility index (ratio of assets held for pension payments to payroll), which will help stabilize future rate increases. These changes must be negotiated and implemented at the local level. Each city has a responsibility to meet and confer in good faith to reach agreement with its bargaining units. These reforms would. provide adequate and sustainable pensions for long- t:erni eniployces in Alameda /Contra Costa COL111ty cities and enhance fiscal sLIs ainability throughout the reglon. Next Sl2 Given that the two Management Associations have adopted these goals for pension reform, the following steps need to be taken: The City Managers Department of the League of California Cities has asked that regional approaches to pension reform be a topic of a panel discussion at the annual meeting in February 2010. The League Public Employment Committee and Board are also investigating pension reform recommendations on a statewide basis. Ideally, these efforts would result in a consistent policy from the League that can be advocated to the Legislature and Governor. The managers groups also r ecormnend that Alameda and Contra Costa cities work with the League to seek legislative pension reform at the State level. These reforms should, at a minimum, include: Establishing a reasonable benefit cap for miscellaneous employees and safety employees, including retaining safeguards against spiking which creates pensions of 100% or more of final salary; Giving employers flexibility to determine when part -time employees are entitled to pension benefits; and Changing CaIPERS Board membership to achieve better employee /employer balance and greater public agency representation; and Allowing existing employees to be enrolled in negotiated new tier plans on a prospective basis. The East Bay Division of the League of California Cities should advocate these changes to the League Board and to our State representatives. The working group identified further potential legislative amendments that could be impoilant in overall pension reform efforts. They are not outlined here, as we focused on highlighting the factors most critical to local agencies. It will be valuable for individual City representatives to articulate other identified possible legislative changes of interest. we suggest that information be provided to the League Board through the East Bay Division, the City Managers Department, the Employee Relations Department and the Employee Relations Policy Committee. Short of comprehensive State action, any significant pension reform will only happen on a city -by- city basis. Individual city managers will need to discuss these recommendations with their city councils and seek direction to begin negotiating pension reform as labor agreements expire. In this way, sustainable and defensible pension plans will become the norm, over time, among Alameda /Contra Costa County cities. It is clearly understood that not all cities will reach these goals to the same extent within the sane time frame. Members of the Pension Reform Task Force, listed below, are available as resources to explain the research and discussion that led to this recommended set of goals for local pension reform. Pension. Reform Task Force Members Lai-ry Cheeves Belinda Espinosa Nelson Fialho Michelle Fitzer C, I'1 1.10 'C�, Steve Hollister 0 C Herb Moniz gj. I z :l;x S�,I III.-al-no Ca, nrc) Joni Pattillo Gar Pokorn P L) 0 n- ��,�s�-�� C Iv Mike Se Julie Ytian-Miu Isa"ML CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: honorable Mayor and Members of the city council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager Date: April 20, 2010 Re: Introduce an Ordinance Amending Sections 3.0 and 30 -37 of the Alameda Municipal code Related to Design Review and Section 30 -6 Related Signs and Related Arnendrnents to the wide to Residential Review and the Webster Street Desig Ma nual BACKGROUND The proposed amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code design review p (AMC) g regulations, sign ordinance, and related manuals are intended to: clarify, streamline, and improve the City of Alameda's Desi n Review program; g p g Improve customer. service and satisfaction with the program; Correct .existing problems -with the. pdhl :and ap cal p rocedures; and p Maintain consistency between the. sign requirements and. the amended design review regu lations The draft amend were developed with assistance and advice from the Cit y of Alameda customer. service I .mprove dent Committee and representatives from the Webster Street Design C omm ittee..and. .Park. Street Business. Association. The Planning Board unanimously approved the recommended amendments. on December 14, 2000. DISCUSSIO N The proposed improvements to the design review program require amendments to several sections of the Alameda Municipal code (AMC The following nal sis is g y. organized in the order in which they appear in the code and in. the recornmended ordinance. Section 30 -36. Design Review Procedures Sections 36.1 through 36.4 describe the procedures by which design review applications are considered, noticed and appealed. The current code has caused. a City Council Public Fearing Agenda Item ##6 -A 04 -2® =1 0 Honorable Mayor and April 20, 2010 Page Members of the City Council Pa e 2 of 7 variety of problems over the years, which have been. detrimental to the quality and effectiveness of, and confidence in, the City's Design Review Program. The proposed revisions to sections 30.1 through 36.4 improve the design review process by: 0 Ensuring that the public.and neighbors are. better informed and more productively involved in design review application .review, and Ensuring that the Planning Board is better in of endin .and recent staff p g decisions on design revier. applications .so .that staff decisions may be called for review if necessary to ensure consistency Frith communit y design standards. Under the amended code, the notification and appeal process. would be improved to work as follows: At least 10 days prior .to a decision on a design review application, the site will be posted and a letter sent .out to all neighbors informin g theta that the staff will make a decision on a specific date, and. that a 10-day appeal period will begin on that date. This is similar to the approach that is used for Planning: Board and Cit Council Y decisions. The. posting and. letter will describe the nature of the proposal and the opportunity to review and comment on the application. When staff makes a decision on the project, a Notice of Decision will. be sent by mail to the. ro ert owner and an p p y y neighborhoods. or. interested parties requesting the notice. During the 0 -day app,eaL period, staff will report the decision to the. Planning Board, at which time the Planning Board will have the opportunity to call. the decision for review, if necessary, if the project is to be heard .by the ::Planning Board or Zoning Administrator, then the. noticing procedures governing Planning Board or Zoning Ad.m.inistrator decisions gill be .utilized (i.e. the 20. -day notice of upcoming hearing but no notice.of decision to the nei hbors g New administrative guidelines. ensure that current and future staff consistently implements these procedures. As drafted, the Administrative Guidelines instruct staff to: Maintain a public st of pending design review applications. Maintain the. list on the. City ebsite, so that the Planning Board or any. member of the community may at any time review the applications on file, including the proposed plans. Include the .l st in the Planning Board's regular packet. Report to the .Panning Board. at. each meeting on .any design revie..decisions .made and provide the Planning Board the opportunity tthe decision for review. The Administrative Guidelines also :include the criteria for which. projects should automatically .be referred to the Planning Board. Design review projects that shall. be automatically referred include: New commorcial.build.ings, New residential buildings, but not second units consistent with 30 -4.1, Any project for which a neighbor or the applicant requests Planning .Board review, Honorable Mayor and April 20, 201 0 Members of the City Council Page 3.of 7. Any project that includes an entitlement that requires Planning Board review, such as a zoning amendment or General Plan amendment. To further inform the neighbors of pending applications and assist staff, the Planning Board and the community in the review of proposed additions in residential areas staff is proposing to institute a "story .pole" requirement for all residential applications. Story ry poles .are commonly used. in a number of .communities to improve and inform the revie of design review applications. Staff w ould req that a licants ro osin new homes q pp p p g or new additions .of 200. square. feet or more place story poles on the site .showing the height and general form of. the proposed new home or residential addition. The temporary poles are. placed .on the site prior to. an final decision on the ro osed y p p addition and removed after the final design review decision on the proposal. Based on staff's experience in other cities, the story poles are a ve cost- ,effective means of informing the neighborhood of the proposal,. and the are ve •hel ful for eo le who y ry p p p are not accustomed to reading and reviewing architectural :plans. Section 30--37 Desig Review Re u lations Section 30 -37 Design Review Regulations describes the• types of projects that are subject .to design review, the findings for approvin a .deli n. review p ro j ect and the g g p 1 f time limits on design review approvals. Currently, the code establishes three categ ories g of projects: "major design review, "minor" design review, and projects that are "exempt" from design review. The. intent of. the minor design category is to allow for staff level design decis on small projects. Most. minor. design review approvals are .conducted over the counter" or approved within .a. couple of days. However, the minor desi g n review:. p rocess has been problematic and.has caused a number of problems for applicants, n and staff. pp g As currently written, all. .design review decisions may be:.a ealed b "an arson" but y pp y y p only the applicant..receives the notice..of decision on minor design review ap royals. p Minor design review projects ..are .disc.retionary. decisions that should be sub'ect to J. appeal, but the applicant is the only person .who actually ts the o ortunit to a eal y g pp y pp the project. if a staff decision .requires judgment and d iscretion such :as a determination as to whether the "improvement is cor�sister�t with the neighborhood or the "improvement wi. ll not impact the neighbors'', then that decision should be subi ect to appeal. Reasonable people can and do disagree on these `ud rents and when staff is 0 making these judgments, .which the minor design review process requires, then those decisions should be subject to an effective appeal process. For minor design review applications. the:public. and. neig hbors. do not et a notice of the get application or .a notice of decision; they do have a right of appeal. The ordinance has resulted in some very unfortunate situations. Because there is no. notice of minor design review, the neighbors do. not find out about minor design review decisions until the actual construction work :.begins. At this point in the. rocess, it is extremel y Honorable Mayor and April 20, 2010 Members of the City Council 'age 4 of 7 problematic to start questioning whether the appropriate findings were made to approve the project in the first place, and the 1 0-day appeal period has usually passed. In addition to the noticing and appeal problems with minor design review described above, the minor design review category adds an unnecessary level of complexity and uncertainty to the program. Minor design review includes "routed" minor design review projects and "over the counter" minor design review projects. If a project is "over the counter", it is approved at the counter by the planner. If it is routed, the project gets review by other departments before it is approved. Therefore, when a resident comes to the permit center for a building permit for exterior modifications to their property, there are four n otential design y p g review tracks that their project may follow before being reviewed for a building permit: exempt, minor design -over the counter, minor design review- routed, or major design review. There are four different design review tracks (major design review, routed minor design review, over the counter design review, and exempt). Each track has. a different process and fee, and the planner at the counter often determines appropriate the a ro riate track. Some applicants "planner shop" for a preferred answer. These applicants may return several times to the permit center hoping to find a planner at the counter who will determine that an inexpensive, faster track is available. In some cases, staff Will change its determination about the design review track. Both of.these circumstances are detrimental to the quality of the City's design review program and the p ublic's confidence in the program. In many cases, these small `=minor design review" projects are quite simple, but in some cases, they might take a lot of staff work and tine. From a cost recover y and customer service perspective, this is problematic. Minor. design review requires a flat fee. of approximately $270 if it is routed. to other departments. Over the .counter minor des i n g review is only $37. If.the project takes more than about two hours of staff time, then the Community Development Department is subsidizing a routed pro J ject for.the applicant. If staff spends more than 15 minutes on an over the counter design. review, the department is subsidizing the project. This often happens when the applicant it lanner pp p shops" or has chosen not to hire a design professional and instead uses City staff to design the project to comply with City standards. In cases where applicants hire .design professionals for minor projects, the work can often be done in two hours, without the City subsidizing the project. To address these problems, the proposed text amendments streamline and simplify the design review program by eliminating the minor design review. process. As osed, prop all "improvements" would be subject to design review, public notice, right of appeal, and call for review, unless the project is "exempt By creating a simple and clear list of exempt projects, the new ordinance will significantly reduce differing interpretations "planner shopping simplify the process for applicants, and eliminate situations where the City subsidizes the project. x x x x x x nee new rc X. Y .........wi.n.::...r.........x. x x:::: V.`:•:::•.v x ..:I r Honorable Mayor and April 20, 2010 Members of the City Council Page 0 of 7 A Changes to existing parking lots that are not visible from the public right -of -way, provided there is no change in the number of spaces or amount of landscaping. 0 New signs, provided that they have an approved sign permit. 0 Solar collection facilities. Section 30 -0 Sign ordinance Amendments Currently, a proposed sign requires two permits: a sign permit and a minor. design review permit. Under the current regulations, the size and number. of signs is reviewed as part of the sign permit, and the design of the sign is reviewed under minor design review. Under the proposed revisions to the Design Review Ordinance, sig ns with g approved sign permits would be exempt from design review. To..rnaintain the. City's existing ability to review and. approve signs for new businesses expeditiously, the proposed code amendment would allow the City to review the design of the sign as part of the sign permit process. Design Guidelines Manuals and Handouts The attached amendments to the City of Alameda Guide for Residential Design (Exhibit 1) and Webster Street Design Manual (Exhibit 2) are required t� rnaintsin consistent between the proposed amendments to the Design Review Ordinance.. and the Guidelines and Manuals that are used by the public and staff to n implement the design g review program. The attached handouts (Exhibit 3) are intended to provide easy to understand descriptions and tips for applicants and homeowners. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact from adopting the recommended Code amendments. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed zoning text amendment is necessary to ensure that design review can be uniformly and efficiently processed and assist staff in attaining General Plan g oals to develop a protection of Alameda's historic neighborhoods and small town character as stated in the City's Desig6.Element. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed. amendments are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1530 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. The proposed amendments amend the review process for design. review and do not increase the intensity or density of -use that would be permitted on property in Alameda. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION April 20, 2010 Page 7of7 Introduce an Ordinance amending Sections 30 -30 and 3037 of the Alameda Municipal Code related to design review and Section 30 -0 related to signs and amendments to the Guide to Residential Review and the Webster Street Design Manual. Exhibits: 1. Amendments to the Guide to Residential Design 2. Amendments to the Webster street Design Manual 3. Handouts Cit of Alameda Guide to Residential f pag e s 9 th roug h and e i' P art flow does general plan designation and zoning district affect what I can do? 0 Use The General Plan provides policies relating to use and design and specific uses are permitted or conditionally permitted in each Zoning District; others are prohibited. Development. Standards each Zoning District has a specific set of rules which regulate the size, location and. he.ig ht for development. There are also rules which reg u late the off- street parking and open space. The Counter Planner in the .Planning and Building. Department can provide information on Uses and Development Standards for each zoning District. When do I need Design .Review? All exterior improvements re uire Desic in Review approval unless. are specifically exempted from the reg uirernent. The following imp roveirnents p rojects) do not re uire Design Review pursuant to Alameda Munici al:Code 30- 37: Any improvement that does not re uire a building permit ursuant to the Building code; Interior Improvements; Replacement of a structure or architectural element which is a visual match to the existin or oriconal structure or element in terms of location size and shape and is made of materials that outward l have the same dimensions proportions, details and textures of the existin .or ori and that outwardly a ear unchanged from the existing or on ina1.' addition or improvement that meets all of the following: criteria: the roes floor area of the im rovement is less than 200 s care feet the improvement is a one sto access buildin or the improvement is located on the:first sto :as definedby the Buildin code the im rovernent is located in the:rear and area the improve ment is in compliance with all a licable lot covera e open space and setback re uirements of the applicable zonin district and the improvement includes exterior materials roof pitch and desi windows, and doors that are a visual match the existing or original design of the structure• City Council Exhibit I to Public Hearing Agendas item #6 -A Si that meet the re of an approved si Prog-ram, si with pproved sin permits, and re-facing of existin si ns that meet ordinance ,requiremen New awnin provided that the are covered in an a non-gloss fabric material .-Match an existin awnin--q-s on the buildin do not cover transom windows, reveal prominent vertical architectural elements, p-rovide a minimum of ei (8) feet of vertical clearance, exhibit a slanted or domed shape, are not internall illuminated, and have all re g u i red encroachment permits.; ---EaQ de- improvements or awninqs with approval by the City of Alameda Fa rovement Pro Chan to an existin parking lot provided that the lot is not visible from the public ri of wa and the number of parkin spaces or the area �of landsca ing is not b ein reduced New solar collections s or sk mounted on the roof of an existin structure-, Docks on la which compl with established Cit Standards; and Second units consistent with all develo ment re of 30.4.1. w III'@ Willi 2r. 010. Mr. liar Pa 2 of 5 MIL40� 9 110 LWAqL Wilt I ILR LLIR qr 'W ii Aft "MAL USAII MI-W ORAN "11 %AAM 1111, MOIWAVAVIIIII!m OWL- MKTW�11111 lawiLwslima�illi AL 111111 qW I uL1VRE%ILWAMrW�1tWAEMUL AM @—*AL=:%'LVMrAPk XVP ILW1ffLWXMV4Vt4W§U 0 �AL M 1kWAWft%T.VAift1 ftW W Vllt l If 17"I"A IS �J I N 11 III. FAKIV My w K 41 1 qW E Ak F—T44 dAd FAA 4 F'Aki ithir-inFAIP ;b Tank 2 MWA ,w R. W IKE It" ILINVANIEWA LIM! LLINM�AALNtv I ILION =1r—'T r Avjr—'� "'I xg JIM jr—T-0 .4 AIL ML P "r USEH".M. TWOEMENEVVEPHINE" 0 REP. ja Alb A AII- Pa 2 of 5 A 111, IN 1 i! A A a i i E A A A A r R§ LWMJLW2 0 0 A i i A A i f 2, w 111 w w wr w w w 11i w p AALWA �1. w a w a AMIMMI C IUM w ■w A .R rr w W w w w w I r w w w w iti r ►r i s w w .w A iR is A i i ww w A f s A i �R i w .w w •w rr w r ■r w s w AL i 1 A A& i i A S w 4w i �r rr W w w w A A Ai A w A w A w A A A A w w i w w ■r w a 0W .r ■r r 1 w r w w w w w •r. A I Mr Please note that Building Permits may be required for the above work. Please check with a Permit Technician for further information.) Replacement kind The Alameda Municipal Code states Re lacement of a str ucture or arch it ec tural element which is a visual m to the existing or ori ai nal structure or element in terms of location, size and sha e. and is made of materials that outardl have the same dimensions p ro oni ons details and textu o the existin o.r on ina and that out ap ar u nchang ed from the ex ist ing or origin a l is exem t from desi n review. 4G 77 de` Below are examples. of "rer flacement in kind Window Replacement: A double hung wood window is proposed to be replaced with a single hung wood indoor which has the same. dimensions, details and proportions. This proposal would be considered a replacement -in -kind and would be exempt from design review. A double hung wood window is proposed to be .replaced with a vinyl or metal clad double hung window with the .same dimensions, deta snd proportions as the double hung good window. This proposal would.. be considered.. a replacement -kind and �e \/rouid be exempt --SRI bt from to design review. An aluminum sliding window in a 19207 era Craftman is proposed to.be replaced with a good or clad Q lid4;g-window with the sane dimensions, details and proportions of a that is lypical to 1929's era Craftman. This proposal Page 3of5 would be considered a replacement -in -kind and would be exempt from M101 1 M RE �b afe d it id esign review. Siding Replacement: A proposal to replace 8 wide redwood siding with 8" wide Douglas fir siding would be considered replacement -in -kind so long as it has the same texture. This proposal would be exempt from design review. A preposq!l te_ rep 4,' sh iplap redwood siding with 471 n sid ing would NOT Y be considered replacement -in -kind and WOULD BE subject to design review. 'ttllhat are the Design Review Submittal Requirements? All applications for Design Review must be made at the Permits. center, located in Room 190 of City Fall, 2283 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, at the sane. time the building permit application is submitted. A checklist for. all submittal requirements is attached to the Design Review application and must be followed (please see Appendix v 0 What are the Design Review Procedures? Once an application is filed, Staff has 30 days to determine. whether.. the application is complete. If the application is incomplete, the applicant will be notified in writing about the part(s) of .the application that is incomplete. and. hoer the application can be made complete. Upon receipt of any..submittal of the application, a new 30 -day period will begin, during which Staff will. determine the completeness of the application. Miziz o nce an application Js.. deemed complete, owners of property within one hundred (100) feet.of the. roe line .of p p the project site must be notified of the application and g iven ten (10) calendar days from the date of the notice to comment on the proposed project. Pu Iic i hearings are not required for Design Re fe r I 1'%W 161 1 1 decisions but hearings may be held where members. of the. public express interest in the application. The applicant and all interested parties estin not ification will be notified in v riting .of the final decision by Design. Review Staff which includes any conditions of approval. Any decision by the Desig Review Staff may be appealed to the Planning Board or called for review by the Plannin Board or the City Council. Page 4 of 5 PRELIMINARY DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURES hA::dnr- Preliminar Desi Review m ay be completed for pro re i a %.41 %.0 Desi Review prior to appl for.a buildin permit. Prelimin Desi Review assists both the applicant and Cit Staff in resolvin b a sic desi issues prior.to the expenditure of funds for detailed workin dr awin Preliminar Desi R e v iew applications must be submitted to the.Permits. Center, located in Ro 190 of Cit Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda. Upon completion of. Preliminar Desi Review, a Notice of Preliminar Desi Review approval will be mailed to the applicant, which must be submitted as part of the buildin permit application. APPEALS Decisions ma be appealed to the Plannin Boards within ten (1 o) cal da after the date of decisi A petition for appeal form. must b c o mpleted and .filed with the Plannin and Buildin Department. An application fee is re alon with the application. Appendix Part 11 Alameda Municipal Code Replace Text of Article 11 Structural Desi Review Re Pa 5 of 5 Al 11 AMIN a] tic t% I >4oWNIA ol ',r4*,f, I I MVA§P-,0!f-T4i I 144--;fs a ra s M:4-111�Z El k� A VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV xxxxxxxxxx so Ach a w x AM 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING SECTIONS 30-6,30-36, AND 30-37 OF THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPROVE THE DESIGN REVIEW.AN.D SIGN ORDINANCE PROVISIONS FOR THE CITY OF ALAMEDA BE IT ORDAINED b the Cit Council of the Cit of Alameda that: Findin In enactin this Section, the Cit Council finds as follows: 1. The amendments maintain the inte of. the General Plan. The proposed zonin text amendments are necessar to ensu that desi review can be uniforml a efficientl processed and as staff in attainin General Plan g oals to develop a prot of Alameda's historic nei and small town. ph a.racte r. as stated in. the Cit Desi Element. The proposed amendments will also simplif and improve the desi review process in Alameda and provide relief for propert owners who are re to dela construction on approved projects. 2. The amendments will support the g eneral welfare of the communit The proposed zoni t a will .require that all ..exterior:.:chan are.subje.ct to Desi Review, unless exempt ensuring .complianc with the Residential. acid Commercial Desi Guidelines. The amendments also. provide..reief to p rope ft that: ma been re to del t t* 'due to a con.s.ruc ion the.. worldwide.. -economic dornturr .��b riot r .then to. p.a f pefn ts. 3. The.. am a e The.proposed z a e In t h.at... the estab.lish consistent notioing and appeal proced for. all prop owners. The proposed z amendments are also e in that the establish a consistent expiration and extension re for all desi review pro irrespective of whether the are joined with a variance or use permit. Section 1. Section 30-36 of the Alameda Municipal Code is hereb amended to read as follows: 30-36 DESIGN REVIEW PROCEDURE 30-36.1 Desi Review Staff. The review of applications re b this article shall be made b the Plannin Staff desi b the Plannin Director. In those instances where. the, Pa 1 of 7 Introduction of Ordinance #6-A 04-20-10 Planning Director believes an application will generate significant public interest, involve policy issues, require other entitlements reviewed by the Zoning Administrator or Planning Board, the Planning Director shall refer the application to either the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Board for review and action. 30 -30.2 Notice. At least ten (10) days before final decision by the Planning Director on a Design Review application, a notice shall be sent to the owners of property located within one hundred (100) feet of the property line of the applying property and prominently posted on the project site regarding the application and the opportunity to comment on the proposed design. No hearings on Design Review applications are required; however, the Planning Director may refer an application to hearing as provided for in subsection 30 -36.1 Applications referred to the Zoning Administrator or Planning Board shall b in conformance with Zoning Administrator or Planning Board noticing procedures. 30 -30.3 Notice of Decision. Final action on a Design Review shall be made in writing listing any conditions of approval. A copy of the action shall be mailed to the applicant, provided to the Planning Board at the next regularly scheduled meeting, and to any person or interested party that has requested notice. The date of the final action shall be the date the Notice of Decision is postmarked 30 -30.4 Appeals and Call for review. Any person dissatisfied with a decisio the Planning Director. may file an appeal to t Beard within ten. (10) calendar. days from the date the notice of decision, pursuant to subsection 30- 3.0.3, is nailed The appeal shall be. made. in writing and filed with the P lanni ng Department. Fa ilure to.: fi ti mely appeal shall result in a waiver of. the right to appeal. Th e appea :.sha I state in detail the factual .basis for. the appea Appeals shall be heard pursuant to Section 30 -25. The decision of the Plannin Director rna be ea lied for review p ursuant to Section 30 -25. Section 2 section 30 -37 of the Alameda Municipal code is hereby amended to read as follows: 30 -37 DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS 30 -37.1 Definitions. a. Additions shall mean the expansion of an existing structure, affixed to real property. b. Improvements shall mean the construction of a structure, an addition, or alteration to the exterior of a structure affixed to real property, which requires a building permit. Page 2 of 7 n; r� r C. A V I f�4j W Desi g n Review shall mean an improvement subject to review under subsection 30-37.2.a. gz ran Lzr'nkr"'r-N nt C)f ::mv cztrl Jr-ti I= :3Ge,rne_.nt iin-1,6itnir-Ai meaR,, tll.' W, %.AII oF a r_r-_hifPrtur_n1 inintminnt whir-h iq irinntir-pi tin th^ ^rinim:�ii sztrilatilra s �nd is made ef m::iLzrinic thn+ M, teFRIS E) f 1nr_Pf1r%n c-i;zn �nd Qh�:;nn- thiz E; prnnnrfinmiz dszt::0c :=A ame Hin-wene-lons t.,n)4filres, C )f thin nriciinni nnd fh:::it nwfur:=_Hhx thiz nrirtinnl L I I %..F d. Structure shall mean a buildin or facilit of an kind, or an piece of work artificiall built up or composed of parts Joined to in some definite matter. 30-37.2 Improvements subject to Desi Review and Exemptions. a. All improvements reauire Design Review ar)r)roval unless specificall exempt pursuant to 30-37.2.b. b. Exempt Improvements:. 1 An improvement that does not re a building permit pursuant to the Buildin Code 2. Interior rovemen 3. Replacement of a structure or architectural element which is a visual match to the existin structure or element in terms of location, size, and shape: and is made of materials that outwardl have the ..same dimensions-, pfoportions details: and textures of the existin and that ouwardl appear unchah ed from the existin 4. Restoration of an ori architectural element that has either been reviousl -removed, covered over with nearer. rn ate ri a I s.. or :altered and the restoration the fin :eleme c ered, if �the.or ial.design D a �:remove ov or altered element is net *no n,._ the replacement eleme is consistent with the structure s architectural style as set forth in the Cit of Alameda Design Review Manu 5. An addition or improvement that meets all of the followin criteria-., a. the g ross floor area of the improvement is less than 200 s uare feet, b. the improvement is a one st.or y accessor\ b uildin or the I improvement is located on the first sto as defined b the Building Code, C. the improvement is located in the rear and area the improvement is in compliance with all applicable lot coverage, open space, and setback re. of the ap licable zonin district, and Pa 3 of 7 d. the improvement includes exterior materials, architectural detailing, roof pitch and design, windows and doors that are a visual match to the existing or original desi n of the structure 0. Si ns, as regulated under Section 30 -0 of this Chapter with approved sin ermits and si ns that meet the req uirements of an approved sin p 7. Anv awning that meets all of the following criteria: a. Is covered in an a non-glossy fade and fire resistant fabric materia l b. [hatches the ali nrnent and shape of any existing permitted awninq on the buildin C. Does not cover transom windows or extend more than six inches be and the perimeter of a window door or other o en in d. Is not laced over pilasters columns or other rominent vertical elements, e. Provides a minimum of ei ht et of vertical clearance for framed portions and seven 7 feet for any unframed valances f. Exhibits a slanted shape or if over arched windows or individual upper floor windows a domed sha e and g. Is not internally illuminated. 8. Anv awning approved by the C it of Alameda l= a ad e Improvement Prog ram. 9. Changes to an existin arking lot provided that the lot is not visible from the ubIic riq ht of era and the number of p arkin ci spaces or the area of landscapi is not bein reduceCl 10. New solar collections s sterns or skylights 11. Docks on lagoons which with established City. 3tandards 12. Second units consistent with all develo rnent re ulations of 30 -4.1 •r n► r r ,r• r air r .e 1 w !t r A� i i •r w w A W ARM 1 r rR A AE iz zzl•• .r. r IN ire III ililo& W �!VALI"mn IR a w S i ■It !E ■r w we ■e r r r r r s r W r r •r rr r r sills r r r wr w► rr w r r r r r r r r r r r a i r r rr r ww w 4 ii !i MIN r i w i w w i A i w i �R A +a OL r r &WRIall IVA= L W r 'I W o!=EW i i i i w w w i i .w. .w Page 4 of 7 w w !t r r s wAi r a M w 1117% P am 0 #21W &WM Mw r +w MOM MILWIM-AM 'A' A Ask Aft Idal E4 out A is 491k r r. r w w wr rr r r r r r r r A w r r i w A a wr► ww! r A+ r! r r w N O W W-e r #r W akrig r r a on w 1 IS �•w +IR w A AA A ir► w w A w w! r# I a Wvw MU 1 4 wr r r r ■e w W w r ae r Mil via i 1� i A1► 1� A w A w 1.A A in Ai A w rr a r r r i 40 w r M 9 0 2 r IME LWA w r r VLlllIMWAILWWWU r rR A +A A A+ w A A A A wr err A 1! w w w A■ rr rr w► w wlr 19 i w r r w Ma r i r' r r r r Aw ir 7il All r r/ r1r W r EL"24twealmoss r III. 46 W s Wial A rIR i s A w w w ■.r L WA L WI Mr r RM WJim r rs r 30• -37.3 Applications for Design Review. a. Any person or .entity proposing to construct or locate within the. City any improvement subject to Design Review, shah file an application for review of the design, prior to or concurrently•with the application for a building permit. b The form of the Design review applications shall be as required b the staff, and shall be accompanied by architectural and site develo pment drawings, drawn to .scaleand shah include all informationspecified. in the ap plication form. G. staff may require additional. lnfor ration. from appiicarts hio is pertinent to the applica necessary to evaluate the project. 30 -37.5 Findings. To grant Design Review approval, the following, findings must. be made: a. The ro osed de si n is consistent with the General Plan and the cit of Alameda Design Review Manual- b. The proposed desi n is approrriate for the site is compatible with adiacent or nei buildings or surroundin s and rQrnotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different desi nated land uses' and c. The proposed design of the structure(s) and exterior materials and landscaping are visually compatible with the surrounding development and design elements have been incorporated to ensure the compatibility of the structure with the character and uses of adjacent development. Page 5 of 7 30 -37.6 Expiration and Extension. Design Review approval shall expire two (2) years from the initial date of approval unless construction. has commenced under valid permits. Design review approval may be extended upon application for up to two (2) additional years from the date of expiration. Section 3 Section 30 -6 of the Alameda Municipal code is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 30 -6.1 In General; On- Premise and off Premises Signs b. Permit Required A sign permit shall be obtained and a building permit. shall be obtained as provided in Sections 6 -3 and 13 -1 of the Alameda M unicipal code. Section 30 -6.3 General Requirements on on- Premise Signs a. Regulations Pertaining to All Ors Premise Signs: 1. Permit Required for All Permanent Signs. In order to assure. compliance with the regulations of this section, no permanent sign (including signs that do not require building permits) may be .installed .until a sign permit has been issued. Sign permit applications shall be filed with the Planning Department, and reviewed by the Planning Director, or person so designated To grant a sin ermit the Planning Director must find that the prop a. Are consistent with all applicable General Plan policies, all si n regulations of: Section 30 -6 of the Alameda Muni ci aI Code �and all p rovisions of the cit of Alameda Desi n Review Manual tht a l -r t r the to the o ect e o site b. Exh a del n a nd materials that that area ro riate fcr::the site and compatible:: with adjacent or nei hborin buildin or surroundings. Section 4 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 6 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. Page 6 of 7 Section 6. CEQA. The proposed amendments are categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15305 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. The proposed amendments amend the review process for Design Review and do not increase the intensity or density of use that would he permitted on property in Alameda. Attest: Presiding officer of the City Council Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Page 7 of 7 COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM Name of Councilmember requesting referral: Beverly Johnson Date of submission to City Clerk (must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the Monday before the Council meeting requested): April 11 10 Council Meeting date: April 20, 2010 Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform the City Council and public of the nature of the referral: In February, the City Council appointed a Sunshine Task Force to examine issues related to open government and transparency. The Task Force was asked to develop, prioritize, and recommend a list of issues for further City staff analysis and work. One of the items on the City-Council's original list was a lobb yist re istr Given that a number of cities including Oakland and Los Angeles have alread developed lobbying disclosure ordinances and lobo ist registries, I recommend that staff move forward to develop this ordinance this fiscal ear so that it will be in place well in advance of the November City election. The Los Angeles ordinance which is currentIv undergoing a cony rehensive review can be found at the following link: http: /ethics.lacity.orq /pdf /laws /law mlo.pdf. The Oakland ordinance is attached. Council Deferral #8 -A 04 -20 -10 APPROVED AS To FORM AND LEGALITY c f TY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE No. C.M.S. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATION OF LOBBYISTS IN OAKLAND MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 3.20 Oakland Municipal code is amended to add chapter 3.20 as follows: Chapter 3. 20 THE CITY OF OAKLAND LOBBYIST REGISTRATION ACT Article 1. Findings and Purpose 3.20.010 Title This ordinance shall be known as the city of Oakland Lobbyist Registration Act, hereafter "the Act." Article 11. Definitions and Interpretation of This Act 3.20.020 words And Phrases Words and phrases used in this Act shall have the same meanings and be interpreted in the same manner as words and phrases used in the Political Reform Act of 1974 as amended and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, unless otherwise expressly provided or unless the context otherwise requires. 3.20.030 Definitions For the purposes of this ordinance, the following definitions shall be applicable: A. "client" means the real party in interest for whose benefit the services of a local governmental lobbyist are actually performed. An individual member of an organization shall not be deemed to be a "client" solely by reason of the fact that such member is individually represented by an employee or agent of the organization as a regular part of such employee's or agent's duties with the organization as long as such member does not pay an amount of money or other consideration in addition to the usual membership fees for such representation, B. "Contractor" means any party to an agreement in which the value of the consideration exceeds one thousand dollars, and, (1) The city is a party, or (2) the redevelopment agency is a party, or (3) the agreement or its effectiveness is in any way dependent or conditioned upon approval by the city council or redevelopment agency board or any board or commission, officer or employee of the city or the agency. C. "Designated employees" mean city and redevelopment agency employees who are designated employees within the meaning of the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, and who are required by the Political reform Act or a city or redevelopment agency conflict of interest code to file financial interest disclosure statements. D. "Local governmental lobbyist" means any individual who: 1) receives or is entitled to receive one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more in economic consideration in a calendar month, other than reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses, or 2} whose duties as a salaried employee, officer or director of any corporation, organization or association include communication directly or through agents with any public official, officer or designated employee, for the purpose of influencing any proposed or pending governmental action of the city or the redevelopment agency. No person is a local governmental lobbyist by reason of activities described in Section 3.20.030(A). In case of any ambiguity, the definition of "local governmental lobbyist" shall be interpreted broadly. E. "Governmental action" means any administrative or legislative action of the city and the redevelopment agency other than an action which is ministerial in nature. F. "Payment" means a payment, distribution transfer, loan advance, deposit, gift or other rendering of money, property, services or anything else of value, whether tangible or intangible, G. "Person doing business with the city" means any person whose financial interests are materially affected by governmental action as defined by Section 3.20.030(E It includes persons currently doing business with the city or the redevelopment agency, planning to do business with the city or agency, or having done business with the city or agency within two years. For purposes of this Act a person's financial interests shall not be found to be materially affected by the issuance of any license or permit which does not require the exercise of discretion by city or agency officers or employees. H. "Public official" means an elected or appointed officer or employee or officially designated representative whether compensated or not, of the United States or any of its agencies, the State of California, any political subdivision of the state, including cities, counties, districts, or any public corporation, agency or commission. Article 111111. Registration of Lobbyists 3.20.040 Registration With The Public Ethics Commission A. No person shall act as local governmental lobbyist before registering as a local governmental lobbyist with the City Clerk. B. At the time of registering, the local governmental lobbyist shall file with the city clerk, in writing, his or her name, business and residence addresses. C. The lobbyist shall reregister annually during the month of January and at that time shall resubmit the required information. 3.20.060 Cessation of Employment. A local governmental lobbyist who has terminated all activities requiring registration shall notify the city Clerk of that fact and thereupon shall be relieved of any further obligations under this Act until such time as he or she commences activity requiring registration. 3.20.060 Exceptions The provisions of this Act shall not apply: A. To a public official acting in his or her official capacity. B. To the publication or broadcasting of news items, editorials, or other comments, or paid advertisements, which directly or indirectly urge governmental action. C. To a person specifically invited by the city council or redevelopment agency or any committee thereof, or by any board or commission, or any committee of a board or commission, or by any officer or employee of the city or agency charged by law with the duty of conducting a hearing or making a decision, for the purpose of giving testimony or information in aid of the body or person extending the invitation. D. To a person who, without extra compensation and not as part of, or in the ordinary course of, his or her regular employment, presents the position of his or her organization when that organization has one or more of its officers, directors, employees or representatives already registered under the provisions of this Act. E. Any attorney, architect or civil engineer whose attempts to influence governmental action are limited to: (1) Publicly appearing at a public meeting, public hearing, or other official proceeding open to the public; (2) Preparing or submitting documents or writings in connection with the governmental action for use at a public meeting, public hearing, or other official proceeding open to the public; and (3) contacting city or redevelopment agency employees or agents working under the direction of the city manager or executive director directly relating to 1. and Z. above. F. To designated representatives of a recognized employee organization whose activities are limited to communicating with city officials or their representatives regarding 1} wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment pursuant to the procedures set forth in Government code sections 3500 3510, or 2) the administration, implementation or interpretation of an existing employment agreement. G. To persons whose only activity is to 1) submit a bid on a competitively bid contract, 2) respond to a request for proposal or qualifications, or 3) negotiate the terms of a 10 written contract if selected pursuant to such bid or request for proposal or qualifications. This exception shall not apply to persons who attempt to influence the award of terms of a contract with any elected official or member of any City board or commission. 3.20.070 Noncompliance order to Show Cause A. Upon the request of the council, the mayor, or any board or commission or member thereof, or any officer or designated employee of the city or redevelopment agency, the Public Ethics Commission shall issue an order to show cause to any unregistered person. B. Such order shall specify a time and place where such person shall appear to provide evidence satisfactory to the Public Ethics commission that he or she has complied with the registration requirement or is exempt from registration. C. If the Public Ethics Commission determines that such person is subject to registration and he or she fails to register within seven days of that determination, he or she shall be barred from acting as a local governmental lobbyist except when appearing before the city council, redevelopment agency or other board or commission at a noticed public meeting or upon oral petition on his or her own behalf. Such debarment shall be in effect for three months from the date of such determination or until registration, whichever is later. 3.20.480 Availability of information. All registration information shall be retained by the City Clerk for a period of five years from the date of filing, shall constitute part of the public records of the City, and shall be open to public inspection. 3.20-090 Filing Under Penalty of Perjury All information required by this Act shall be filed with the city Clerk on forms prescribed by the Public Ethics Commission, and accompanied by a declaration by the local governmental lobbyist that the contents thereof are true and correct under penalty of perjury. 3.24.144 Records A local governmental lobbyist shall retain, for a period of five years, all books, papers and documents necessary to substantiate the registration required to be made under this chapter. Article Iv. Disclosure of Lobbying Activities 3.20-110 Quarterly Disclosure For each calendar quarter in which a local governmental lobbyist was required to be registered, he or she shall file a quarterly report with the City Clerk. The reports shall be due 4 no later than 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter. The report shall contain the following information: A. The item(s) of governmental action and the name and address of the client(s) on whose behalf the local governmental lobbyist sought to influence. B. For each item of governmental action sought to be influenced, 1) the name of each city officer with whom the lobbyist communicated, 2) the name and title of any city boardmember or commissioner with whom the lobbyist communicated, and 3) the identity of any city employee with whom the lobbyist communicated identified only by the office or department in which the employee works and his or her job title. C. A brief narrative description (no longer than three sentences) of the position advocated by the local governmental lobbyist on behalf of the identified client. D. If any lobbyist, or a registered client at the behest of a lobbyist, employs or hires an elected city officeholder, candidate for elected office, a designated employee, or a member of the immediate family of one of these individuals, the lobbyist shall disclose 1) the name of the person employed or hired, 2) a description of the services actually performed, and 3) the total payments made during the reporting period identified only by the following categories: less than $250; between $250 and $1,000; greater than $1,000 but less than $10,000; greater than $10 E. If any elected city officeholder or candidate for elected city office employs or hires a lobbyist to provide compensated services to the officeholder or candidate, the lobbyist shall disclose 1) the name of the person who employed or hired the. lobbyist, 2) a description of the services actually performed, and 3) the total payments made during the reporting period identified only by the following categories: less than $250; between $250 and $1,000; greater than $1,000 but less than $1 0,000; greater than $10 F. If a lobbyist solicits any person to make a contribution to an elected city officeholder, candidate for city office or to any committee or fund controlled by such officeholder or candidate, the lobbyist shall disclose the names of the persons whore the lobbyist solicited, and the officeholder or candidate for whose benefit each solicitation was made. A solicitation does not include a request for a contribution made (1) in a mass mailing sent to members of the public, (2) in response to a specific request for a recommendation, (3) to a gathering which members of the public may attend, or (4) in a newspaper, on radio or television, or in any other mass media. A lobbyist does not "solicit" solely because his or her name is printed with other names on stationary or a letterhead used to request contributions. If a lobbyist makes a solicitation to more than fifty (50) individual members or employees of a corporation, union or other association that is a registered client of the lobbyist, or if the lobbyist makes a solicitation to all members or employees of a corporation, union or association that is a registered client of the lobbyist, the lobbyist may choose to disclose the name of the registered client instead of the names of the persons whom the lobbyist actually solicited. 5 Article V. Prohibitions 3.20.'1 Z0 No Unregistered Employment or Activity A. A local governmental lobbyist shall not engage in any activity on behalf of a client as a local governmental lobbyist unless such lobbyist is registered and has listed such client with the City Clerk. B. No person shall accept compensation for acting as a local government lobbyist except upon condition that he or she forthwith register as required by this Act. 3.20.130 Personal Obligation of city officials Prohibited Local governmental lobbyists, clients, contractors, and persons doing business with the city or the redevelopment agency shall abstain from doing any act with the express purpose and intent of placing any city or agency officer or designated employee under personal obligation to such lobbyist, client, contractor or person. 3.20.140 Deception Prohibited No local governmental lobbyist, client, contractor or person doing business with the city or the redevelopment agency shall deceive or attempt to deceive a city or agency officer or designated employee as to any material fact pertinent to any pending or proposed governmental action. 3.20.150 Improper Influence (Prohibited. No local governmental lobbyist shall cause or influence the introduction of any ordinance, resolution, appeal, application, petition, nomination or amendment thereto for the purpose of thereafter being employed as a lobbyist to secure its granting, denial, confirmation, rejection, passage or defeat. 3.20.150 False Appearances Prohibited. No local governmental lobbyist, client, contractor, or person doing business with the city or the redevelopment agency shall attempt in any way to create a fictitious appearance of public favor or disfavor of any governmental action or to cause any communication to be sent to a city or agency officer or designated employee in the name of any fictitious person or in the name of any real person, except with the consent of such real person. 3.20.170 Prohibited Representations. No local governmental lobbyist, client, contractor, or person doing business with the city or the redevelopment agency shall represent, either directly or indirectly, orally or in writing that such person can control or obtain the vote or action of any city or agency officer or designated employee. no 3.20.180 Restriction on Payments And Expenses Benefiting Local Public officials, Candidates For Local Office, Designated Employees And Immediate Families A. No lobbyist or a lobbyist's registered client shall make any payment or incur any expense that directly benefits an elected city officeholder, candidate for elected city office, a designated employee, or a member of the immediate family of one of these individuals, in which the cumulative value of such payments or expenses exceeds $240 during any calendar year. B. The payments and expenses specified in subsection A include gifts, honoraria, and any other form of compensation but do not include (1) campaign contributions; (2) payments or expenses that, within 30 days after receipt, are returned unused or are reimbursed; (3) food, beverages or occasional lodging provided in the home of an individual lobbyist or individual lobbyist's registered client when the individual or member of the individual's family is present; (4) a pass or ticket to a fundraising event for a campaign committee or candidate, or for an organization exempt from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code; (5) a pass or ticket given to a public agency and which meets the provisions of 2 Cal.Code of Regs. No. 18944.1 (a) through (e), inclusive; (6) informational material; and (7) salaries, consulting fees or other payments for services rendered or bargained for. No other exception to, or exclusion from, the definition of gift or honoraria contained in the Political Reform Act of 1974 as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall apply to this section. 3.20-190 Restriction Can Former Elected City officers From Acting As A Local Governmental Lobbyist No officer of the city, or person who has held the position of department head or budget director, shall be permitted to act as a local governmental lobbyist for a period of one year after leaving office. Article VI. Enforcement 3.20.200 Procedures and Action A. Any person who violates this Act is subject to civil enforcement proceedings before the Public Ethics commission pursuant to the Commission's General complaint Procedures. No complaint alleging a violation of any provision of this Act shall be filed with the Public Ethics commission more than four years after the date the violation occu rred B. If the Public Ethics Commission finds a violation of this Act, the Commission may (1) Find mitigating circumstances and take no further action, (2) issue a public statement or reprimand, or (3) impose a civil penalty in accordance with this Act. 3.20.210 Civil Penalties A. Civil penalties shall be imposed by resolution of the Public Ethics Commission. B. Except as otherwise specified in this Act, the Commission may impose penalties of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each complaint sustained. C. If any civil penalty imposed by the Public Ethics commission is not timely paid, the Commission shall refer the debt to the appropriate city agency or department for collection. 3.30.220 Criminal violation A. Any person who knowingly or willfully violates the provisions of this Act is guilty of a misdemeanor. B. The prosecution of any misdemeanor violation of this Act shall commence within four years after the date on which the alleged violation occurred. C. No person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of this Act may act as a lobbyist, render consultation or advice to any registered client, or otherwise attempt to influence a governmental action for compensation for one year after such conviction. 3.20.230 (Effective Date The effective date of this Act shall be September 1, 2002. 3.20.240 5everabi l ity The provisions of this chapter are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or portion of this Chapter, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstances, shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Chapter, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances. COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM Name of Councilmernber requesting referral: Councilrrembe Gilmore Date of submission to City Clerk (must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the Monday before the Council meeting requested): April 12, 2010 Council Meeting date: Aril 20 2010 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: Re guest that the City Council adopt a Resolution supporting Measure E, the Alameda Unified School District's parcel tax. A presentation re ardin the arcel tax was given to the Council on A ril 6. If the Council agrees I'd like the Resolution on the Council agenda for May 4. Council Referral #g. 04-20-lo UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- -APRIL 6 -7:01 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10;35 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmernbers 1 Board Members 1 Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor /Chair Johnson —5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember /Board Member /CommissionerTam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] *10- CCIARRAI* 1 O- CIC Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 3, 2010; and the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and CIC Meetings of March 16, 2010. Approved. ARRA Recommendation to Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council, BSA Sea Scouts, Ancient Mariner Regatta. Accepted. CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATION (10- CC /ARRA /10- CIC) Update on SunCal The I nterim City Manager /Executive Director and Deputy City Manager Development Services gave a brief presentation. In response to Mayor /Chair Johnson's inquiry about what is meant by negotiating a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) based on prior efforts, the Deputy City Manager Development Services stated the City was in negotiations with SunCal on the DDA based on the plan proposed in the initiative; negotiations stopped when the initiative failed; until the City has a pro forma and defined project description, the City cannot negotiate on aspects of the DDA; aspects of the DDA, including transfer provisions, force majeure, and term, can be negotiated without knowing the actual financial deal or project Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission April 6, 2010 description. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether staff is waiting on the pro forma; further inquired whether SunCal is working on the pro forma. The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded staff is waiting and has requested the pro forma. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether there is a time frame when the document will be provided, to which the Deputy City Manager— Development Services responded staff has not been given a specific time frame for when the information will be provided. Vice Mayor /Board Member /Comrr issionerdeHaan inquired when the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) expires, to which the Deputy City Manager Development Services responded July 20. Mice Mayor /Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the time line does not seem adequate to put things in proper perspective; a whole lot of work has not been presented to staff for analysis; it [the document submitted by SunCal] seems very incomplete and does not appear close to an "A" paper. The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated staff would be meeting with SunCal on Thursday and would be requesting information. Dice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan provided a handout; stated when the City started negotiating with SunCal, the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).was used as the baseline to make determinations regarding the number of residences, commercial use and various land use issues; the handout breaks down the PDC, the Measure B Specific Plan that was voted down [February 2, 2010], and the modified Optional Entitlement Application (OEA); the OEA could generate more residential units than the Measure B Specific Plan because of the Density Bonus, which was not requested in the [Measure B] Specific Plan; that he compared the PDC and the residential project grew 144% under the modified OEA; the PDC included 2,116 residential units; the maximum SunCal could have [under the modified OEA] is 6,162, which is a substantial growth; in the commercial area, 3.4 million [square feet in the PDC] has been moved up to 4.6 million square feet [in the modified OEA], which is a 34% increase according to his figures; questioned whether the [modified OEA] path is repeating the [Measure B] Specific Plan, which is not what the City requested; further stated even though the modified OEA is going to be Measure A compliant, the project is incompatible with the 2006 PDC; the direction seems bizarre and out of line with what the voters voted against; everything goes up; there are more houses than the [Measure B] Specific Plan; the details of the plan are so important at this stage; there are only a couple of months to put the project together, which is a concern. special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 2 Community Improvement Commission April 6, 2010 The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated staff would review the comparison [submitted by Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan]. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated there has been a lot of discussion around the issue of transparency and disclosure; sharing information in a public forum is not necessarily standard operating practice; the Alameda Point project is not normal for Alameda; the City is trying to come up with the mechanism and type of reporting out that can be done regularly at City Council meetings] every two weeks; stated that she would read a letter that she would send tomorrow as a follow up to Frank Faye's presentation on March 16. CouncilrnemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the offer constitutes a proposed change to the current ENA; stated that he believes the Council voted on whether SunCal was willing to change the restrictions in the ENA regarding what is proprietary; nothing is different unless a modified ENA is presented to Council. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded the letter asks for additional clarification to provide the City with a clear understanding of what SunCal is willing to release; stated [Mr. Faye's] comments last time in the public forum indicated that SunCal wants to release information, but has caveats regarding proprietary information in terms of competition, which is a legitimate request; there are still questions about pro forma information; the pro forma includes a proprietary model; more information is needed in order to proceed with an amendment to the ENA; submitted and read the letter for the record; stated the last paragraph focuses on discussions regarding documenting predevelopment costs; the City is following up in writing on other requests, which are more complicated and comprehensive than just the details between D. E. Shaw and SunCal and the proprietary models used to calculate their pro forma; the City does not want to take the risk and assume everything else is transparent; listing what should not be disclosed might be easier; staff is trying to narrow down what transparency means; now that the OEA is moving forward, the City will look at new pro forma, which will have certain assumptions on Return on Investment; the City does not want to assume SunCal is willing to put the information in the public forum. CouncilmemberlBoard Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated assuming SunCal comes forward with a pro forma and says it is disclosable, inquired whether staff is anticipating that the City would handle disclosure or if SunCal would provide a copy or disk for the public when submitting documents; stated there would be less room for misunderstanding if SunCal indicates a document should be disclosed at the time the document is submitted. The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that she agrees it has to be the later [SunCal providing a copy or for the public]; after an operating pro forma is submitted, time is spent in negotiations addressing details, such as impact fees; the process is dynamic, Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 3 Community Improvement Commission April 5, 2010 not linear; negotiations are not done in a vacuum; things change; the question is what to do for updates; logistics can be challenging and need to be thought through. Councilrnember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated there are two issues going forward: what is disclosable and how is it disclosable; the community has been interested in the underpinnings of Measure B; the other issue is what prior documents SunCal will disclose, which might be more straight forward; that she assumes some of the prior documents are now static. The Interim City Manager /Executive Director stated in some cases, the documents are now irrelevant; stated rather than staff taking the risk of defining what is and is not [confidential], SunCal should say what is and is not [confidential]. Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Tarn stated the City needs to seek clarification on the logistics of how information is received and distributed; there needs to be critical thinking about what is in the City's best interest as it negotiates with the Navy; confusion could be created unnecessarily; an example is calculation of conveyance price. Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated Councilmember /Board Member/ Commissioner Gilmore asking for the static stuff [prior documents] is important; the public has asked for said information. The Interim City Manager /Executive Director stated the letter is being provided to ensure that the Council/Board /Commission understands staff is following up and trying to get clarification about disclosure, which sounds good on the surface until digging through the details and thinking strategically; the letter is also being provided to ensure that the City is not deciding what is and what is not disclosable and confidential. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether staff plans to provide an update every two weeks, to which the interim City Manager /Executive Director responded very short fact sheets would be provided to avoid hypothetical and incorrect assumptions. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether SunCal knows about the item being on the agenda. The Deputy City Manager Development Services responded staff discussed what aspects of the conversation [between SunCal and staff] would be made public; stated staff wanted to ensure that SunCal agreed about what would be reported out publicly and indicated reporting would be made to the Council and public. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether having a SunCal representative present to answer questions makes sense. The Interim City Manager /Executive Director responded SunCal [representatives] can Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 4 Community Improvement Commission April 6, 2010 speak, if they want to. Speaker Philip Tribuzio, Alameda, submitted letter. In response to Mr. Tribuzio's comments, vice Mayor /Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the Interim City Manager/ Executive Director should be able to give an update on the City's efforts regarding America's Cup at the next Council meeting. ORAL REPORTS (ARRA) Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative Highlights of March 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the March 4 RAB meeting, including on- going remediation efforts: The Building 5 storm drain sewer lines leading up to the sea plane lagoon are being removed; the infrastructure did not match the drawings; radioactive sediments were found in a number of storm drains beyond the drains that are being removed; the Davy is opening up a new Time Critical Removal Action (TCRA). Ground water contamination clean up is being done under Building 5 using soil vapor extraction. The RAB had a long discussion about a benzene naphthalene plume under the Marina Village housing that is being remediated. He did not attend the April meeting, but would attend the May meeting. There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:13 p. M. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CI C The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and 5 Community Improvement Commission April 0, 2010 CITY of ALAIE3A Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council Honorable chair and Members of the community Improvement commission From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager/Interim Executive Director Date: April 20, 2010 Re: Approve a Second Amendment to the Grand Marina village Affordable Housing Agreement Between the City, Community Improvement Commission and Warrington Homes Decreasing the Number of Affordable Housing Units from Ten to six and Authorizing the Interim City Manager /interim, Executive Director to Execute the Amendment Direct staff to Prepare Amendments to the Grand Marina Village Master Plan for a Reduction in the lnclusionary Housing obligation and an Enhancement of city Landscaping and Paving for City council Consideration on .dune 1, 2010 BACKGROUND On January 17, 2007, the City council approved the Grand Marina Village Master Plan (Master Plan) and associated entitlements for the development of 40 single family homes at the foot of Grand Street by Warmington Homes (Project). The Master Plan and associated entitlements obligated the Project to provide 10 affordable units, including two units affordable to very low- income households, three units affordable to low- income households, and five units affordable to moderate- income households, consistent with the Community Improvement Commission's (CIC) 2004 I nclusionary Housing Resolution (2004 CIC Resolution). The 2004 CIC Resolution required 25% of all units in residential projects within the Business and Waterfront Improvement (BWIP) Area be made available to very low low and moderate- income households. Due to changing economic and market conditions after Project approval, Warmington Homes placed the Project on hold for a period of time. However, on October 30, 20087 the CIC and the city entered into an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) with Warmington Homes for construction of the required inclusionary units. The AHA fulfilled a condition. of approval imposed on the Master Plan to build and maintain the 10 affordable housing units. CC /AR CIC Agenda Item ##2 -13 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council Honorable Chair and April 20, 2010 Members of the community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 5 On November 17, 2009, the CIC reduced the inclusionary housing requirement in the redevelopment areas from 25% to 15% to correspond with the citywide 15% inclusionary requirement as part of the process for adopting the Density Bonus Ordinance (2009 CIC Resolution). This change was made so that future projects in redevelopment areas would not automatically qualify for incentives, concessions or waivers pursuant to the state of California's Density Bonus regulations. On February 10, 2010, the city council and CIC approved the First Amendment to the AHA modifying the Project phasing plan to enhance the health and safety of the Project homeowners. On April 9, 2010, Warrnington Homes submitted the attached letter requesting that the City and CIC reduce the inclusionary housing requirement for the Project from 25% to 15 If approved, the attached Second Amendment to the AHA would reduce the number of required affordable housing units at the Project from 10 to six units. DISCUSSION Required Amendments. The Project was originally obligated to provide 10 affordable units (25 as part of the adopted Master Plan. The AHA approved by the CIC and city Council in 2008 implements the Master Plan requirement for 10 inclusionary units. Therefore, to reduce the Project's affordable housing obligation both the AHA and the Master Plan must be amended. Given that the Master Plan's 25% requirement was based on the 2004 CIC Resolution, staff is requesting that the CIC first consider the request to reduce the affordable housing obligation on the Project. If the CIC and city council approve the request to reduce the affordable housing obligation by amending the AHA, then staff will proceed with the necessary public hearings and reports to the Planning Board and city council to amend the Master Plan. As proposed, the second Amendment to the AHA would not become effective until and unless the City council, after holding a public hearing, and after considering the recommendation of the Planning Board, approves the necessary amendments to the Master Plan to reduce the number of affordable units from 10 to six. If for any reason, the City council does not approve the necessary amendments to the Master Plan, then a decision this evening to amend the AHA will automatically expire. The Master Plan amendment required to reduce the inclusionary requirement for the Project is a simple text amendment. The tent in the Master Plan would be amended as follows: "Affordable Housing The project provides 4-0 six Q units of below market rate housing, which are dispersed throuclhout the residential development (see Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council Honorable chair and April 20, 201 Members of the Community Improvement commission Page 3 of 5 Landscape Plan), of a quality and style consistent with the market rate units, and will be available to households with very low, low, and moderate incomes, per City and County standards. By providing 15% of the units as affordable below market rate units, the project is t fir oLf� P49et consistent with the amended requirements for construction of residential units within the Business and waterfront Improvement Plan (BWIP) area." Affordable Housing Reduction at the Project: During the five years X2004 through 2009} that the CIC's 25% inclusionary requirement was in effect, two projects were obligated to meet the 25% requirement: the Project, and the approved, but not yet built, Alameda Landing project. The Project is the only approved residential project that was required to provide 25% affordable housing without any financial support or other city assistance during the five -year period. Since adopting the 25% inclusionary requirement in 2004, the viability of a 25% inclusionary requirement on single family home development has diminished as economic conditions in the Bay Area have changed dramatically. Since 2007, private housing development in the Bay Area, and in Alameda, has come to a virtual halt. Even in communities without any inclusionary housing requirements, private housing construction has slowed significantly. The fact that Warmington is proceeding with the Project represents a vote of confidence that the economic conditions in Alameda can support new home sales. The success of the Project will strengthen the local economy by generating construction jobs and increasing property values, and is likely to have a positive effect on the viability and timing of redevelopment of the adjacent She[[/Pennzoil property and Chipman Warehouse site, as well as other properties, such as the Del Monte building and Encinal Terminals site. For these reasons, staff recommends modifying the AHA and Master Plan, consistent with the following terms: 1 The total number of affordable housing units will decrease from 10 to six to be consistent with the 2009 CIC Resolution for housing projects in the BWIP area. The project would provide three units affordable to moderate income households, two units affordable to low- income households and one unit affordable to a very low- income household also consistent with the 2009 CIC Resolution. 2. Warmington agrees to complete each of the four phases of the project pursuant to a phasing plan described in the Second Amendment to the AHA. For every phase not completed on time, Warmington will be required to pay an affordable housing in lieu fee of $31,000. The purpose of this provision is Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Honorable Chair and April 20, 2010 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 5 to incentivize Warmington to complete the Project expeditiously. If Warmington maintains the Project construction schedule, they will not pay the in lieu fee. As part of Warmington Homes' request that the City and CIC reduce its inclusionary housing obligation from 25% to 15 Warmington has also agreed to undertake additional landscaping and paving as part of the Project. This enhanced landscaping and paving would be provided as an amendment to the Project's Master Plan. As noted above, any amendments to the Master Plan must be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Board and considered by the City Council following a public hearing. Because these additional Project amenities are being agreed to as part of Warrnington's request to reduce its inclusionary housing obligation, staff is seeking direction this evening to pursue the following proposed amendments to the Master Plan: 1 Prior to presentation of a Master Plan Amendment to City Council, Warmington shall submit a landscaping plan for the street median on Grand street for Public works Department approval. Median must be landscaped and inspected by the Public works Department prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase III. Landscaping in the street median will be irrigated with existing City facilities in median and adjacent control features, but maintenance costs for street median will be borne by the Project. 2. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase III, Warmington shall complete the grinding and overlaying of both sides of Grand street, from the centerline of Fortmann Way to the special concrete paving at the end of Grand Street from curb to curb, in accordance with City standards and the already approved Conditions of Approval for the repaving of the western side of the Grand Street. Final work must be approved by the Public Works Department. 3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase III, Warmington shall extend the Project's landscaping concept into the city`s adjacent existing landscaped areas at the end of Grand Street (Grand Street Boat Ramp Park), repair and replace the irrigation system, as needed, and provide for Soil amendments. Developer shall seek Recreation and Parks Director field approval of the proposed planting and final inspection of work. The City will continue to maintain the landscaped areas. This excludes the street median referenced in paragraph 1 above. Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council Honorable chair and April 20, 2010 Members of the community Improvement Commission Page 5 of 5 If the city council directs staff to incorporate these amendments into the Master Plan, staff will then add them to the Master Plan amendments to be considered by the City Council on June 1, 2010. FINANCIAL I M PACT There is no financial impact to the General Fund from approving the Second Amendment to the AHA to reduce the number of affordable housing units from 10 to six. RECOMMENDATIONS Approve a Second Amendment to the Grand Marina Village Affordable Housing Agreement between the city, Community Improvement commission and Warmington Homes and authorizing the Interim city Manager /interim Executive Director to execute the Amendment. Direct staff to prepare amendments to the Grand Marina village pilaster Plan for a reduction in the inclusionary housing obligation and an enhancement of city landscaping and paving for City council consideration on June `I 2010. Respectfully submitted, Michael T. Pucci, Executive Director City of Alameda Housing Authority Exhibits: 1. April 0, 2010 Letter from Morrison and Foerster on behalf of Warmington Homes 2. Proposed Second Amendment to Affordable Housing Agreement MORRISON April 9, 2010 t FOERSTER Chairperson Beverly Johnson Community Improvement Corn- nission City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 MORRISON FOERSTER LLP NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO, LOS ANGELES, PALO ALTO, SAN DIEGO, WASHINGTON, D,C. NORTHERN VIRGINIA, DENVER, SACRAMENTO, WALNUT CREEK TOKYO, LONDON, BRUSSELS, BEIJING, SHANGHAI, HONG KONG Writer's Direct Contact 925.295.3310 DGold@mofo.com R.e Warmington Grand Marina: Request to Conform AI-JA to Current Inclusionary Requirements Dear Chairperson Johnson and members of the Community Improvement Commission: This letter is provided to you on behalf of our client, warmington Residential California ("Warmington"), regarding its approved 40 unit Grand Marina residential project ("Grand Marina proposed to be constructed along the estuary. Following creeks of very constructive discussions with your staff, warrnington is requesting that the Conzrnunity Improvement Commission( "CIC approve an amendment to Warmington's Affordable Housing Agreement dated October 30, 200$., as amended (the "A-IA $pecif tally, warrnington seeks relief from the CIC's former 25% inclusionary housing requirement policy, which as you may know, the Commission reduced to 15% for redevelopment project areas on November 17, 2009, when it approved Resolution No, 09- 163 As part of this recent action, the CIC determined in its findings that "the CIC desires that the inclusionary housing requirement be the same for all areas of the City of Alameda Consistent with the CIC's recent action, we want to briefly highlight a number of the justifications for you to grant this request. First, as a relatively small residential project, Grand Marina requests that it be put on a level playing field with other proposed or pending projects in Alameda. we understand that if the former 25% inclusionary requirement was strictly applied to this project, Grand Marina would be the only project in Alameda, without any CIC or City financial subsidy or participation, subject to this requirement. We urge the CIC to apply its current standard to Grand Marina for fairness and equitable reasons. Secondly, as you are well aware, these are extremely difficult economic times presenting unique challenges for residential applicants to secure financing, commence construction and we-143449 101 YGN ACID VALLEY ROAD SUITE 450 WALNUT CREEK CALIFORNIA 94596 -8130 TELEPHONE: 925.295.3300 FACSIMILE: 925.946,9912 WLax!.IvIQFO.CC.7M Exhibit I to Agenda. Item #2mB MORRISON I FOERSTER Chairperson Beverly Johnson April 9, 2010 Page Two build out to completion on a timely basis. Warmington has prepared the site for construction and submitted its improvement plans and building permit applications to the City in order that it can commence with Phase I of the overall Project. Granting this request to conform with your current requirements will improve the financial viability of the Project and create the right financial incentives enabling Warmington to move forward with the phased development of the Project. Economic circumstances have changed dramatically since 2006 when the Grand Marina Master Plan was adopted. we appreciate that cities and counties such as Alameda are working cooperatively and creatively with applicants, when possible, to improve the feasibility of redevelopment projects and create jobs. Your approval of this request will help bring more jobs to Alameda, increase property values and strengthen the local economy. We believe the Grand Marina project can be a bright spot along your estuary waterfront, demonstrating redevelopment progress during this economic downturn. Your support of this request will not only level the playing field with other projects, but will help to bring the project in line with current market realities. Warmington and its construction lenders were carefully monitoring the CIC's actions leading up to your decision on November 17, 2009 to apply a 15% inclusionary housing requirement on a uniform citywide basis. Warmington has indicated that the ClU s positive action was clearly taken into consideration by its construction lender when it reached terms on its construction loan for Grand Marina. By providing a critical economic impetus for Warmington to build out the .Grand Marina project, the City and CIC will be implementing the vision of the Northern waterfront General Plan Amendment, and at the same time building momenturrt far subsequent projects in the vicinity. we urge you to support these pragmatic redevelopment efforts. This site is highly visible and will provide parks and landscaping along the waterfront. The sooner residential sales activity occurs and this neighborhood is built out the more likely the adjacent City owned sites can be successfully redeveloped. As the {current owner of Grand Marina and a longstanding developer in Alameda, Warmington is highly motivated to work with the CIC to explore mutually beneficial efforts to "complete the neighborhood." Warmington has worked hard with your staff to craft a recommended. gram of incentives with "carrots and sticks" designed to advance these mutual goals. Subject to your approval, we have agreed to additional project amenities and construction schedule incentives, as outlined in your Staff Deport. Landscaping enhancements and paving obligations have been added to the project. As more particularly described in your Staff Report, realistic progress benchmarks have been identified aimed at providing financial incentives for Warmington (and its lender) to move forward with the project during these uncertain tunes. The requested amendment to the AHA. and its attachments provide a revised phasing schedule for the f inclusionary units (15%) and the mix of inclusionary units (3 moderate, 2 low and I very wc- 43449