Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2010-10-19 Packet
CITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY OCTOBER 19, 2010 5.00 P. M' Location: Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street Me 1 Roll Call Cit Council 2. Public Comment on A Items Onl An wishin to address the Council on a items onl ma speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider- 3-A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (54957) Titles: Cit Attorne Cit Clerk and Cit Mana 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if an 5. Adjournment Cit Council 5. E' Authority of the City o f Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue Alameda, California 94501 -2161 TEL: (510) 747 -4300 FAX: (510) 522 -7848 TDD: (510) 522 -8467 i i Tuesday, October 13, 2010, 6:59 PM City Hall, Council Chambers, Room ago, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Dousing Authority of the City of Alameda meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Dousing Authority Executive Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL Board of Commissioners 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public. 2 -A. Minutes of the Regular Board of Commissioners meeting held October 5, 2010. Acceptance is recommended. 2 -B. Resolve to Appoint Fayleen Allen Tenant Member of the Board of Commissioners. Special Meeting of the Board of Commissioners October 19, 2010 Page 2 2 -C. Approve a Restated and Amended Contract with an Amount not to Exceed $65,000 in New Money for an Additional 12 Months to Murray, Montgomery, and O'Donnell to Provide Legislative Consulting Services. I AGENDA None. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non Agenda (Public Comment 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, (Communications from the Commissioners) 6. ADJOURNMENT Note: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board of Commissioners after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the .Housing Authority of the city of Alameda, 701 Atlantic Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501 during normal business hours. Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact carol heaver, Secretary, at 747 -4326 voice or 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. Minutes of the meeting are available in large print. Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request. Please contact Carol Weaver at 747 -4325 voice of 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 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. t v Via; �:-r� .3 `.�`r. 1 ;1.5 'F}- 7c'tt�r5• q(�CCe�'l CITY OF ALAMEDA e CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 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 OCTOBER 19,2010 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 6. Regular Agenda Items 7. Oral Communications, Non Agenda (Public Comment) 8. Council Referrals 9. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 10. Adjournment Public Partici anon 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 MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 6:59 P.M. OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:01 P.M. COl'rl1MISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda ROLL CALL city council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation Declaring October 24th as World Polio Day. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the council or a member of the public 4 -A. Minutes of the Special city council Meeting held on September 25, 2010; the Special City council Meeting, the Special Joint city council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement commission (CIC) Meeting and the Regular city council Meeting Held on October 5, 2010, and the Special Joint city council and CIC Meeting Held on October 6, 2010. (City clerk) 4 -B. Bills for Ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to Accept the Work of Valley Power System North, Inc., for the Provision of Marine Diesel Main Engines for the Bay Breeze. (Public works) 4 -D. Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $530,726, Including Contingencies, to Sun Light Power to Provide Turnkey Design -Build Services for Photovoltaic (Solar) Generation System, No. P.W. 05- 10 -12. (Public Works) 4 -E. Recommendation to Appropriate $30,000 from the Dwelling Unit Tax and Award a contract in the Amount of $102,300, Including contingencies, to Sand Channel Greens, for the Alameda Point Multi -Use Field Upgrades, No. P.W. 04-09-11. (Public Works) 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Award of a contract Pursuant to Section 3- 1 5.2 of the Alameda city charter in the Amount of $223,100, Including Contingencies, to Mountain cascade to Pipeburst Existing 14 -Inch VCP Storm Drain Pipe and Replace with a 16 -Inch HDPE Pipe on Eighth Street, Between Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. [Requires Four Affirmative Votes] (Public Works) 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution opposing Proposition 26, a Proposed constitutional Amendment Related to Local Fees and charges. (City Manager) 4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Supporting Proposition 22, the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Act of 2010. (CityManager) 4 -I. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 23 -8 (Encroachments Upon Public Property Prohibited). (Public Works) 4 -J. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Section 30 -17 (Density Bonus Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Provide Limits on Concessions and /or Incentives for Density Bonus Projects on Sites with a Residential General Plan or Zoning Designation. (Community Development) 4 -K. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., to Rezone Parcels Located at 2229 Through 2235 Clement Avenue, APNS 071 0289 -05 and 071 0290 -01 from M -2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District and R- 2 /PD (Two Family Residence Planned Development District) to Open Space (0) and R -2 /PD (Two Family Residence Planned Development District). (Community Development) 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from City Manager) 6 -A. Address Questions from the September 21, 2010 Regular city council Meeting Regarding Alameda Fire Department's Emergency Medical Service Delivery. 5 -13. Receive a Report on Paramedics Pius Value Added Equipment and Services for Alameda county Advanced Life Support First Responders. 6 -C. Emergency Medical Service District Annexation 6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 6 -A. Adoption of Resolution Appointing Rebecca Holder as a Member of the Social Services Human Relations Board. 6 -B. Recommendation to Accept the Investment Report. (Finance) 6 -C. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Zero Waste Implementation Plan. (Public Works) 7. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda 8. COUNCIL REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilrnernber may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item 8 -A. consider Directing the Interim city Manager to Finalize Negotiations for a Lease of the Mif Albright Golf Course for Senior and Youth Play, with Designated Representatives of the Alameda Junior Golf Association (AJGA) and/or Its Working Subcommittee, Consistent with the Spirit of the Tentative Business Term Sheet Dated June 3, 2010; and AUTHORIZING Reserving $100,000 from the Golf course Enterprise Fund Available cash Balance to Help Secure the $250,000 Grant offered by Wadsworth Golf Charities for capital Improvements to the Mif Albright Golf course. (Vice Mayor deHaan) 9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Councilrnembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended 9 -A. consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Planning Board. 0. ADJOURNMENT city council Materials related to an item on the agenda are available for public inspection in the City clerk's office, city Hall, Room 380, during normal business hours Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 --7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the city clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7533 either prior to, or at, the council Meeting Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available a Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request Please contact the City clerk at 747 -4300 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 iria�r� ;.e e s CITY OF ALAMEDA CALIFORNIA SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC) TUESDAY OCTOBER 19, 2010 7:01 P.M. .Location: Cit Council Chambers, Cit Hall, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak Street Public Pa.rtici An wishin to address the Commission on a items or business Introdu b the Commission ma speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per a item when the sub is before the Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Assistant Cit Clerk if y ou wish to speak. 1. ROLL CALL CIC 2. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 8c ANNOUNCIVIENTS 2-A. Presentation on Five-Year Accomplishments of the Communit Improvement Commission Redevelopment Pro (Economic Development 3. MINUTES 3-A. Minutes of the Special Joint Cit Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopm Authorit and CIC Meetin of October 5, 2010 and the Special Joint Cit council and CIC Meetin of October 6, 2010. (Cit Clerk 4. AGENDA ITEMS None 5. ADJOURNMENT CIC IL everl Jo 6.sWU ha A Housing Authorit of the C =its of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue Alameda, California 94501-2161 TEL: (510 747-4300 FAX: (510) 522-7948 TDD: (51 a} 522-8467 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 201 The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 713 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE oil MAM Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Torrey and Chair Johnson Absent: None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner deHaan moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Matarrese seconded. Motion carried unanimousl Items accepted or adopted are indicated b an asterisk. *2-A. Awarded the Contract to Sun Water Solar for an Amount Not to Exceed $152,900, Includin Contin to Install a Solar Thermal S to Supplement the Existin Domestic Water Heatin S at Anne B. Diament Plaza. 1. Increased the Fiscal Year 2011 CIP ABD4-10 bud b $27,900 for the installation of a thermal s to supplement the existin domestic water heatin s at Anne B. Diament Plaza. 2. Awarded the contract to Sun Water Solar for an amount not to exceed $152,900, includin contin to install a solar thermal s to supplement the existin domestic water heatin s at Anne B. Diament Plaza. 3. Authorized the Executive Director to execute the contract with Sun Water Solar. *2-B. Adopted the Resolution to Approve Revision No. 1 for Housin Authorit Fiscal Year 201 Bud 3. AGENDA None. HABOC Item #2-A CC 10-19-10 Minutes of the Board of Commissioners Re Meetin October 5, 2010 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS None. 6. ADJOURNMENT Pa 2 There bein no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meetin at 7:14 p.m. Attest'. Beverl Johnson, Chair Michael T. Pucci Executive Director Secretary AIL 0 H T A: Authority of t h e of A lameda, 7bl M htcAVendc: -Ad eda, California 945.01- ZZl6,1 Tel (�I.6) •4-7'� -4:30 Fa c: 5'[ }522 -7848 Mt; 510) 5�� 8 •67 To: Honorable Chair and Members'of the Board of Commissioners From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Chief Executive Officer date: October 19, 2010 Re: Resolve to Appoint Fayleen Allen Tenant Member of the. Board of Commissioners •r BACKGROUND The Rules and Procedures of the Dousing Authority state that the Chair nay nominae and the members of the Board of Commissioners will appoint its tenant member. The tenant commissioner, who must be a participant in the section 8 program, is- the sixth member of the Board of Commissioners and may participate in all matters before .the Board. The tenant commissioner also may perform the duties.. of the Housing Commission's tenant commissioner. The tenant commissioner may serve two four -gear terms, although the commissioner may continue to serve until there is an appointed successor. The current tenant commissioner's second terra expired in April. DISCUSSION Recently, Fayleen Allen was appointed as a tenant commissioner to the Housing Commission. she also has been a member of the Resident Advisory Committee. She understands the Housing Authority's programs and is qualified to be a tenant commissioner on the Board. This report recommends that Ms. Allen be appointed for a four year terra on the Board of Commissioners as the tenant member. RECOMMENDATION e z Resolve to appoint Fayleen Allen as the tenant commissioner of the Mousing Authority Board of Commissioners. 3 Respectfully subrnitte Michael T., Pucci Executive Director MTP: ED HABOC Item #2 -B CC 10 -19 -10 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA 9(esoCution No. APPOINTING FAYLEEN ALLEN AS THE TENANT MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA BE IT RESOLVED, b the Board of Commissioners of the Housin Authorit of the Cit of Alameda, pursuant to provisions of the Qualit Housin and Work Responsibilit Act 964-430 and Housin Authorit Resolutions No. 721.6 and 779 that FAYLEEN ALLEN is hereb appointed to the office of Tenant Member of the Board of Commissioners for a term of four y ears commencin on October 20, 2010, and expirin on October 19, 2014, and to serve until her successor is appointed and is q ualified. ATTEST: Michael T. Pucci Executive Director Secretar Beverl Johnson, Chair Board of Commissioners Date Housing Authority of the Cit of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue Alameda, Cal ifarnia 94501 --2161 Tel: (51 0) 747 4300.4 Fax: (51 0)522 -7848 TDD: (5 0) 522 -8467 To: Honorable chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Chief Executive officer Date: October 19, 2010 Re: Approve a Restated and Amended contract with an Amount not to Exceed $65,000 in New Money for an Additional 12 Months to Murray, Montgomery, and O'Donnell to Provide Legislative Consulting Services BACKGROUND Moving to Work (MTW) is a demonstration program that was authorized under the Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996. The program offers housing authorities the opportunity to design and test innovative, locally- designed housing and self sufficiency strategies for low income families. It does this by allowing exemptions from existing tenant -based Housing choice Voucher rules. The program's purposes are to: Reduce cost and achieve greater costs effectiveness in Federal expenditures; Give incentives to families with children where the head of household is working, is seeking work, or is preparing for work by participating in job training, educational programs, or programs that assist people to obtain employment and become economically self sufficient; and 0 Increase housing choices for low- income families. DISCUSSION The Housing Authority has been interested in the MTW program for several years. There are several other housing authorities in California with this designation, including the Oakland, San Mateo and Santa Clara County Housing Authorities. The process to become designated a MTV agency is difficult. Very specific expertise in this area is needed. The firm of Murray, Montgomery and O'Donnell, a professional corporation located in Washington, D.C., has successfully worked with the Santa Clara County and San Bernardino County Housing Authorities to attain this status. The Housing Authority believes that this firm is uniquely qualified to take on the task of achieving this designation for Alameda. HABOC Item #2-C CC 10- 19-10 Honorable Chair and October 19, 2010 Members of the Board of commissioners Page 2 of 2 Under the Housing Authority's Procurement Policy and Procedures a minimum of three proposals would be sought. The proposals then would be evaluated primarily on the ability of the firms to provide the service that best meets the Housing Authority's needs. Price would be a factor among several in determining a firm to select. Because of the nature of this service, it was not possible to locate three firms that specialize in this legislative consulting specific to the MTW program. As such, the Housing Authority's Procurement guidelines state that "Non competitive purchases may be made if the item (i.e., service) is available only from a single source, based on a good faith review of available sources." This process was done last year and a contract was awarded for $6,300 per month (inclusive of expenses) for a total not to exceed $63,600 for a 12 month period, pursuant to the signatory authority of the Executive Director. The consulting firm has been working diligently throughout the past year in getting the appropriate language included in this year's appropriation bill for HUD. Unfortunately, Congress. has not made much progress on this bill, and a continuing resolution eras passed to allow spending to continue until December 3, 2010. Staff. is therefore recommending extending this contract for one more year, for a total cost in new money of $66,000. A Restated and Amended Agreement has been prepared which reflects the original Scope of Work from September 2009 to 2010 (at a cost of $63,500) and the "new" Scope of Work from October 2010 through October 2011, at a not to exceed cost of $66,000. Because the total cost for the two Scopes of Work exceed the purchasing authority of the Housing Commission, this Agreement is now before the Board of Commissioners for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT This contract extension was not an anticipated expense for this fiscal year. Currently, the budget does not contain adequate funding for this contract; however, it is planned to increase the budget in mid -year to accommodate this contract. There are adequate funds coming in to cover this additional expense. RECOMMENDATION Approve the Restated and Amended Agreement with an amount not to exceed $65,000 in new money for an additional 12 months to Murray, Montgomery, and O'Donnell to provide legislative consulting services. MTP:CW p W� EREAS, the Rotary Club of Alameda world Polio Day, October 24, 2010, is a positive initiative to create awareness and educate the residents of Alameda about the vital importance of eradicating polio throughout the world. The Rotary Club of Alameda. is one of 32,000 Rotary clubs located in more than 200 countries and geographical area, that initiate service p roects to address today's challenges, including i llit er a cy, disease, hunge poverty, lack of g p y clean. grater, and environment conc erns; and WV E EA S wh en Rotary. be an :its mis sion to. eradicate polio, more than children were stricken with: polio every.year, and nearl 1,000 peop were y af f ected by the cri di sease ever p day. Since then, olio cases have been reduced b y 9� °�o to fearer thano� cases in009. Today only four y y countries Af ghanistan, India, Ni geria, a P a k istan remain olio- p endemic.. Due to th efforts of Rotar y and its p artners, the world is on the threshold. of end po l io forever making it only the. second disease after smallpox to be eradicated; and WHEREAS th Bi Me linda Gate Foundation has awarded 355 million to Rotary otary Inte.rna.tional in the global effort to eradicate polio, g sti ulatin $x.00 million stipulating as a challenge grant to R ot ary, one of the lar est challenge rants ever g iven g g g g by the Gates Foundation and the largest rece by Rotary n its 10 y ear y y history; and WHEREAS, polio eradication has been Rotary's top p y priority since 1985, with more than $1.2 billion contributed to the effort. Rotary is now nearing the three quarter mark having raised. $140 million of the challenge; and WHEREAS a polio -free world will be Rotary's ultimate gift to children everywhere, and World Polio Day, October 24th, is one small step in helping Rotary achieve its goal NOW, T 13E 1 RESOLVED, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim October 24th as r in the City of Alameda and call on all residents to join me in supporting the Rotary Club in their efforts to eradicate this disease City Council Be oh on ,agenda Item #3- a r I ®_'19_1 0 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUN MEETING SATURDAY- SEPTEMBER 25 2010- -9:00 A.M. Vice Mayor deHaan convened the meeting at 9:04 a.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilrr embers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tara and Mayor Johnson 5. [Note: Mayor Johnson arrived at 9:09 a.m.] Absent: None. AGENDA ITEMS (10 -461) Evaluation of City Assistance to Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) in Order to Offset Some or All of the Costs in Operating the Toddler and Before /After School Program, Presently Operated by AUSD. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to analyze any potential funding and/or operational solutions that the City can offer in order to continue service delivery of one or both of these programs. The Interim City Manager and School Superintendent gave a brief presentation. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether funding for the program is traditionally cut first. The School District Superintendent responded not in the past few years. The Interim City Manager continued the presentation. Mayor Johnson stated the council and School Board Subcommittee is in favor of the recommendation and is bringing the matter forward to allow the rest of the Councilmernbers to give direction. Councilmernber Matarrese stated the School Board has a risk right now because of the requirement to notice layoffs; the Subcommittee wanted to determine how the city could help mitigate the School Board's risk and keep the program going while the city and School work out the long -term future of the program. Board Member Spencer stated the School Board has agreed to a 45 -day extension twice; that she is looking for a shared risk between the School District and the City to protect the N "1141M President Mooney stated the School District would like the City Council to commit to finding approximately $200,000 for [running the program for] three months; the School District has reporting requirements to show the State and county the funding source. Special Meeting Alameda City Council September 25, 2010 The Superintendent stated the School District has to be cautious regarding funding; the District could lose State funds if the City gives money to the District; staff has to work to ensure the money does not end up reducing the District's State funding. The School District Director of Fiscal Services stated there are unknowns about whether the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding would be a transfer, donation or loan; then the District has to determine whether receiving the funds would reduce its [State] funding. The Interim City Manager questioned whether the funding could be a reimbursement; stated CDBC funding has to meet requirements; no one wants the funding to end up being a subsidy for the State; providing the funds would not be a loan. Mayor Johnson stated general direction can be given if a funding solution, without detrimental impacts discussed, can be found; the situation has been created by the State; the State takes money and then ties the City's and School's hands regarding funding sources. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the funding would be a stopgap; inquired whether funding the program has been an on -going problem; stated that he recalls problems 10 years ago. The Superintendent responded past discussions focused on whether the School District should be in the business of pre -K and day care; stated the District has provided subsidies to the program in the past; the District is trying to make the program funded solely by money that comes from the State. Board Member Spencer noted that the District received $50,000 for the program from the County in the past. Board Member Jensen stated the School District could reimburse the City if the State includes [funding for] the program when it adopts the budget. Mayor Johnson stated the funding would be a short -term stopgap measure, and would not be a long terra solution; time has to be taken to determine if the program needs to be modeled into something different. Board Member Jensen stated there are ways to make the program more efficient; inquired whether expenses could be reduced even further and whether State requirements can be met with fewer teachers and staff. The Superintendent responded in the affirmative; stated the District is also reviewing whether the program can be relocated. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 September 25, 2010 Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City is looking at using CDBG funds; further inquired whether the funds were allocated months ago and whether reallocating the money requires noticing. The Interim City Manager responded administrative funds and unused funds are left over; stated staff has reviewed the cash balance; $210,000 is needed for three months; the City is looking at other eligible funds that could be used for the program; CDBG funds for next year would have to be prioritized if the State does not fund the program and there is way around the certificated teacher requirement. Councilmernber Gilmore inquired whether the current program is fee based or fully subsidized by the School District and State; further inquired whether the program would be fee based if the City were to provide the service going forward. The Interim City Manager responded the City's ability to do so would be based on the economics of the children in the program; stated fee based, full cost recovery is not expected The Superintendent stated a family pays from $2 to $16 per day. Mayor Johnson stated right now, the goal is to solve the immediate problem; the State has not adopted its budget, which leaves the program without money; the City is trying to help the program Survive until the State adopts the budget. President Mooney noted that the Governor is proposing taking the funds away. Councilmember L. Tara stated that she appreciates the idea of pooling resources; she is unclear about the urgency; the City has to go through a hearing process to reallocate funds; inquired how the timing fits with the District's need. The Superintendent responded the School Board would take action Tuesday night on whether or not to fund the program; listed options. Vice Mayor del -laan inquired whether the School District would be willing to do another 45- day extension, to which the Superintendent responded that matter is up to the Board. Vice Mayor deHaan Stated the program costs $850,000 annually; inquired how much is the CDBC annual funding, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded $1.4 million. Speakers: Mary Rudge, Alameda; Teresa Lee, Alameda; Caroline Topee, Alameda; William Smith, Renewed Mope lousing Advocates; Gregory Matthews, Alameda; and I -Zelda Moya, Alameda. Board Member McMahon'gave a brief history of the program funding. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 September 25, 2010 Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council could make a motion, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Council member Gilmore acknowledged the difficultly the School District faces putting together its budget; stated the School Board's core mission is providing education from kindergarten to twelfth grade; however, cutting the program would be difficult. Council member Tara moved approval of the staff recommendation. Mice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmernber Matarrese stated the motion should include that the City's contribution should not jeopardize State funding and end up subsidizing the State; said direction applies to every item on the agenda today. Mice Mayor deHaan stated the long -term solution has to come from the School District; the City will be available to help in anyway possible. Board Member Jensen stated a substantial cost of the program is the after school program; the funding addresses both the toddler and after school part of the program. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote 5. The School Board addressed the matter. (10 -462) Recommendation to Support Alameda Unified School District Special Legislation. The Interim City Manager and Superintendent gave a brief presentation. Board Member Jensen inquired whether the legislation would impact the City's ability to provide low- and moderate- income housing. The Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated the opposite would happen if an arrangement that would not jeopardize the School District is worked out; the Citywould have the money that has been taken out of the housing set aside fund for the School District; the City does housing; the question is whether complications for the District regarding the 80% funds would exist. Board Member Jensen inquired whether the City's requirement to provide low- and moderate- income housing would be reduced, to which the City Manager responded in the negative; stated more dollars would be set aside for the City to do housing. Board Member Jensen raised questions about amending the 1991 agreement and the Special Meeting Alameda City Council 4 September 25, 2010 School District General Counsel responded. Board Member Jensen inquired whether a Senator or Assembly Member would carry the bill. The Interim City Manager responded the bill would have go through the Assembly first; stated having the bill cosponsored would be nice. Councilmernber Matarrese stated four points have been repeated at subcommittee meetings: 1) money provided should not penalize AUSD and result in a state take away of money; 2} the City should not be held liable for moving the money out of the Redevelopment Agency, either from the State taking redevelopment money or the City being expected to replenish the money; 3) the core mission of the School District is not to provide housing, which is a core mission of the City; and 4) the City should provide unencumbered money to the school District; further stated the crisis is kind of a good thing because action is occurring on items that have been discussed for two years. Mayor Johnson stated the solution is fairly complex. Councilmember L. Tara stated the draft resolution states the economic crisis is being faced because the federal government ceased funding when the Naval Air Station (NAS) closed; Congressman Stark has explained that students left when the NAS .closed and funding came with the students; inquired how the School District has been restructured to account for losing said students and funding when the NAS closed; further stated the proposal was to have access to the funding earmarked for housing through sale of surplus property when the matter was reviewed two and a half years ago; then, the funds could be used. by the School District in any way without penalties; the concept was that the Dousing Authority would use the land to meet affordable housing requirements; inquired whether something changed and said option is no longer acceptable. The Interim City Manager responded the City has looked at the idea of creating transactions whereby the City contracts and the School District gets money; stated the problem is it does not "clean" the money; staff has looked at numerous options, including contracting back with the Dousing Authority; the money would still be housing dollars; a joint venture, even with a developer, did not pass according to redevelopment attorneys; the proposed legislation is the fastest, easiest solution; the legislature should look favorably on the smatter, which is very unique. The Superintendent stated the problem with the [land sale] idea is that the $3 million [housing set aside] belongs to the School District and the property is owned by the School District; the funds should not come to the District through the sale of School District property. Councilrnember Tam inquired what about the NAS funding. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 5 September 25, 2010 Mayor Johnson responded the State funding formula was set when Alameda still received the Navy subsidy, which is why Alameda's baseline is lower than other communities. President Mooney stated school districts have sued the State; the State legislature will not bring forward equalization to get Alameda close to the amount received by other cities in Alameda County. Mayor Johnson stated the problem is more districts benefit from current formulas, unlike Alameda. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether special legislation allows school districts to use certain money for operations right now. The District Legal Counsel responded there is legislation; stated the sale of real property is usually restricted from being used for operational purposes, but the legislature has suspended the provision. Speakers William Smith, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates; David Howard, Alameda; and Gretchen Lipow, Alameda. Board Member McMahon reviewed the history of. the School District funding. Mice Mayor deHaan stated a question has been raised regarding the impact on the City's requirement to provide low- and moderate- income housing; inquired whether the matter has been flushed out. The Interim City Manager res. ponded going forward, the amount [cu rrent.ly for the District] would be freed up; stated the question is whether or not Council wants to off set the amount [currently for the Districts with a share of the 80% in the future; the City's 20% [housing set aside] would not be reduced. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City Attorney agrees. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the tax sharing agreement is unique; normally, tax sharing agreements are not for 20% money; further stated special legislation reprogramming funds meant to be used for the School District does not impact the rights of the Cuyton Settlement Agreement plaintiffs. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff has gone through the review and feels comfortable, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the amount has grown for 20 years; questioned how the future will be handled. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 0 September 25, 2010 The City Attorney stated the money set aside [for the District] pursuant to the tax sharing agreement could not have been accessed by the Guyton plaintiffs because the amount is for school uses; the City's ability to spend all of the 20% money for housing would increase if the [tax sharing] agreement can be amended so that the School District does not receive part of the 20% funds. President Mooney requested District staff to ensure that the [Guyton Settlement] Agreement referenced by Mr. Smith is not an issue for the School District. The District Legal Counsel stated the District is not a party to the litigation. Mayor Johnson stated the School District had an interest in building affordable housing for teachers in the past; however, it is not practical or possible anymore. Board Member Spencer addressed the agreements being referenced; stated both agreements should have been attached to the staff report for the public; requested the information be provided as soon as possible. Board Member McMahon acknowledged Mr. Howard for his work; stated in addition to the housing fund, the School District has already received $1 million in capital funds as a result of Mr. Howard's pursuit. Board Member Jensen inquired whether the legislation would be a precedent or if other districts have done something similar. The City Attorney responded the legislation is probably unique because the tax sharing agreement is unique; however, there is lots of precedent for getting special legislation to cure unique agency problems. Board Member Jensen inquired whether the District would have received funds if the agreement had not been executed. The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the District would have been a tax sharing entity of the 80% redevelopment money; that she wants language included to make it clear that the State cannot use the funds to subsidize its obligation; statutes need to be referenced. Mice Mayor deHaan inquired whether redevelopment money that goes to the School reduces the amount that comes from the State, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The School Board addressed the matter. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 7 September 25, 2010 Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmernber Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Johnson thanked City and School District staff; stated hopefully the money can go to the School District without subsidizing the State. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote 5. (10 -463) Policy Discussion on Joint Use Agreement, including Capital Improvement to Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) High School Fields. RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to finalize a joint use agreement between City of Alameda and AUSD with respect to joint use of Encinal and /or Thompson athletic fields, including an evaluation and recommendation for installation of artificial turf (all- weather /multi- purpose) fields at these sites. The School District Director of Operations, Maintenance and Facilities and District Legal Counsel provided a handout and gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese stated assurance that the City's contribution of improving the fields on School District property would not have any adverse Impacts on the School District's revenue stream from the State is needed. In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry about the underlay, the Director of Operations, Maintenance and Facilities responded the issue would be addressed as part of the design; stated there are different types. Councilmember Gilmore stated the longevity of the turf depends on the material that is underneath. Councilmember Matarrese stated the Subcommittee has addressed the issue and has recommended that the specifications be for safety first, then longevity and quality. President Mooney stated staff does not know whether or not there is sufficient funding for both fields; inquired whether the matter would be addressed. The Interim City Manager responded $2.1 million is needed for Encinal, including the track, and $1.2 to $1.3 million is needed for Thompson; stated the City has enough to cover Encinal and half of Thompson; one field can be done; fields can be used constantly; maintenance costs will be reduced and funds can be used to maintain grass fields. Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter would come back with the figures; the staff report should address the investment being a savings in the long run. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 8 September 25, 2010 President Mooney stated the process of jointly using facilities is moving forward; issues, such as access to llncinal, will have to be addressed. Mayor Johnson stated there would also be significant water savings. Board Member Jensen inquired how much maintenance funding would be available to be used elsewhere, to which the Director of operations, Maintenance and Facilities responded that he could provide said number. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding City funds that would be used, the Interim city Manager stated the budget includes a special capital improvement discretionary fund; the funds are from an Alameda Municipal Power $1.2 million back payment, an assessment district administrative fee $880,000 back payment, and the sale of the employee parking lot on Lincoln Avenue] for $750,000. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he has concerns about the other places the city could use the funding; further stated the Recreation and Parks Department provided a list of deficiencies; inquired why the city has not been able to use [School] facilitates in the past; stated Thompson and l= ncinal fields have not been available to the city. The superintendent responded staff has made a commitment to review all of the joint uses; stated the swimming pool is another example; these [field] joint uses are step one; step two would be to look at every field. President Mooney stated one issue has been the need to "rest" natural grass; the joint use agreement will create clear guidelines; taxpayers oven the property, which should be put to the best use; lead time is needed in order to have the fields built in the summer. Mayor Johnson stated water and maintenance savings would be economically beneficial and the community would benefit, too. Mice Mayor deHaan stated the matter would come back to council with more detail; further stated Alameda Point fields are other opportunities. Board Member McMahon stated neighbors of Thompson field have opposed lighting the field and Saturday morning use. Mayor Johnson stated the limitations at Thompson field are understood, which is why she prefers [improving] Encinal field. Board Member Spencer stated involving the public is important; discussed the safety of artificial fields. Councilrnember Matarrese stated direction should be given today; that he concurs with the Special Meeting Alameda City Council 9 September 25, 2010 Mayor that the Encinal site is more conducive to continual use; safety data should be presented to the public. Vice Mayor deHaan stated artificial turf is where everything is going; the City leases fields; there are needs in the community; fields should not be leased to outside entities and should be for Alameda residents. Mayor Johnson stated that she is not aware of groups not getting access to fields. Board Member Jensen stated the recently formed athletic consortium, which includes all sports, should be part of the discussion and weigh in on the location. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City could receive $250 forthe Mif Golf Course; that he would like the Golf Course included in the process. Mayor Johnson stated the matter is not on the agenda. The School Board addressed the field issue. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to work with the School District to get the necessary implementation of the agenda item scheduled with the concerns that have been addressed by Council regarding funding. Councilmember Tarn inquired whether the motion includes direction regarding public input, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated having the location issue resolved before the matter returns to Council would be great. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. Board Member Spencer inquired how the public input would work; further inquired whether both agencies would hold community meetings. Mayor Johnson responded the School District should be involved; stated staff would work with the sports groups. The Superintendent stated the agencies would not engage the community separately. 'resident Mooney noted the School District has to send the project to Sacramento. Councilmember Matarrese stated the fields would remain [in the present locations] regardless of the future school configuration. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 10 September 25, 2010 Board Member Spencer stated it sounds like the City will engage the public. The Interim city Manager stated the city would take the lead and orchestrate the public input process; the matter can return to the council and School Board separately unless there are any glitches. The Superintendent stated School District staff would work with the city to ensure all groups, such as booster groups, are engaged. Board Member Spencer requested that the School Board receive notice of any meetings. The School Board briefly addressed additional items. There being no further business, MayorJohnson adjourned the meeting at 12.05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda city Council September 25, 2010 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- OCTOBER 5 -6:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson 5. Absent: Done. The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (10- Conference with Legal Counsel Anticipated Litigation (54956.9(b); Number of Cases: One. o- Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation (54956.9(a blame of Case: Ottaviano v. City of Alameda. Not heard. Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, the City Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel; no action was taken. Ad There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:95 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council October 5, 2010 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- OCTOBER 5 2010- -7:01 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers /Board Members /Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tangy and Mayor Johnson —5. Absent: None. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (10- CC /ARRA/10- CIC) Receive a Report on the Status of America's Cup The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the Alameda Waterfront website is linked to the City's website, to which the Economic Development Director responded in the negative. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated efforts should be made to link the Alameda Waterfront website to the City's website. Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated updates are provided via email. Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner del -laan stated another challenge is to bring a super carrier into Alameda within the next couple of years for Fleet week. Mayor /Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:09 p.m. CONSENT CALENDAR Council member /Commissioner Tarn moved approval of the Consent Calendar. CouncilrnemberfCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October 5, 2010 Council member Tarn left the dais at 11:11 p.m. and returned at 11:13 p.m. *10- CC 0- CIC Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting of September 7, 2010. Approved. *10- CIC) Recommendation to Approve a Settlement Agreement Pertaining to the Redevelopment of Property Located at 2229 Clement Avenue. Accepted. [In conjunction with City Council paragraph no. 10- 1 AGENDA ITEM 10- CC) Resolution No. 14498, "Approving and Authorizing Execution of the Ferry Service operations Transfer Agreement." Adopted; and (ARRA) Resolution No. 51, "Approving and Authorizing Execution of the Ferry Service Operations Transfer Agreement." Adopted. The Public Works Director and Ferry Manager gave a brief presentation. The Deputy City Manager Administrative Services clarified that the sentence on page 2 of the staff report should read "In the event that future TIF revenue is less than $500,000, City shall contribute the maximum amount available of TIF revenues, not to exceed $500,000 stated WETA would only get $400,000 if $400,000 comes in. The Ferry Manager continued the presentation. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated having WETA take over the water side and not the land side is a good strategy; inquired whether Alameda would be required to maintain parking, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmernber /Board Member Matarrese stated the City has been waiting for a long time; the Agreement has been well crafted. Councilrnernber /Board Member Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor /Board Member del -Iaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated getting the bus service back to the [West End] ferry terminal would be good. ADJOURNMENT Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community 2 Improvement Commission October 5, 2010 There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:26 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and 3 Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission October. 5, 201 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- OCTOBER 5, 2010- -7:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES (10- )Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolutions of Appointment [paragraph no. 10- the joint meeting report on the status of America's Cup [paragraph n and the report on the meeting with Supervisor Lai- Bitker [paragraph no. 10- would be addressed first. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM (10- Resolution No. 14492, "Appointing Fayleen Allen as a Member of the Housing Commission (Tenant Seat)." Adopted; and (10- A) Resolution No. 14493, "Appointing Nancy Lewis as a Member of the Library Board." Adopted. Councilrnember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. The city Clerk administered the oath of office to Ms. Lewis. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:13 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:24 p.m. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (10- )Mayor's Report on Meeting with Supervisor Lai Bicker Regarding County EMS Contract. Mayor Johnson stated the meeting was very positive; the process has two tracks: one is the Local Agency Formation commission (LAFCO) process and the other is the city's independent process; the LAFCO process would involve Alameda joining the EMS District; staff has indicated a separate contract issue is very close to being completed; over the years, the city and county have had discussions regarding payments due; the Regular Meeting Alameda city Council October J, 2010 County has made a very reasonable proposal that would not involve transfer of City money to the County; direction needs to be given to proceed with finalizing the contract and going through the LAFCO process for joining the EMS District; Alameda is the only City within the County, including unincorporated areas, that is not part of the EMS District; the County is responsible for providing trauma care. Supervisor Lai Bitker thanked the Mayor and Interim City Manager for spending time to discuss the matter; stated the meeting was very productive and positive; that she hopes the timeframe will be met; she took the liberty to contact LAFCO; there is not enough time for the matter to come before [LAFCO] at the November meeting because an application takes sixty days to file; the .next [LAFCO] meeting is January 13, 2011. Mayor Johnson stated precise details were not discussed; staff can bring the matter back for a public hearing if Council is comfortable With giving direction to move forvvard with the parallel process. Councilmember Gilmore thanked everyone for getting together on the very important issue; moved approval of directing staff to move forward with working on the contract and LAFCO process and come back to Council with an outline of the process, including a timeline of the two tracks. Councilmem'ber Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Tarn inquired whether Council would be directing staff to go forward with the annexation and go through the LAFCO process to become part of the EMS District, finalize the contract, and come back with a timeline at the. next Council meeting. Councilmember Gilmore clarified that the motion is to direct staff to provide a process outline that includes a timeline; stated that she does not know the steps. Councilmember Tam inquired whether requesting an outline and timeline would assume that the City would be going through the process. Councilmember Gilmore responded that Council would be providing staff direction to go down a path to finalize the contract with the County, provide an outline. of the two processes that would need to be completed, and bring the matter back .to Council so that Council can see opportunities for public comment and ensure that the City will .sleet timelines. Councilmember Tam inquired whether meeting the timeline before January 2011 would be a likelihood. Mayor Johnson responded the City cannot get on the LAFCO agenda until January; stated the County's deadline for the City can be met. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 October 5, 2010 Councilmember Matarrese stated direction is to negotiate a contract; public hearings would then occur; the contract could be altered. The Interim city Manager stated the contract has basically been finished; some tweaking might need to be done; appropriation would require council action; that she could come back with a critical path. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether or not the contract would be brought back at the next meeting. The Interim City Manager responded the contract would not come back at the next meeting; stated that she is not sure of the critical path for annexation; information is missing. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the LAFCO processes would inform future financial encumbrances of the contract. The Interim city Manager responded that she assumes council wants to move forward [with the contract] based on expectation that the city would annex into the EMS District, barring any Proposition 218 glitches and that the contract costs would go on the property taxroles; stated the assessment for a single family residential property would be $28.43 per year; a two to five unit residential assessment would be $83.92 per year; a supermarket or restaurant assessment would be $105 per year; a larger shopping center assessment would be $184; the highest assessment would be $392 per year for more than five units; the average assessment would be $42 per year. Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff would carne back with an outline of how the .process would work; more background is needed regarding how the fee would be established. The Interim city Manager stated an Attorney General opinion noted that a vote would not be needed; the issue needs to be researched. Councilmember Tam stated the Hospital Board went through the LAFCO process .to form the Alameda health care District, Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft can help provide information on boundaries. Councilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to know how a tax can be assessed without a vote; the issue needs to be tested against the Proposition 218 measuring stick. The Interim city Manager stated the issue is very important because the city would be assessing and putting on a parcel tax. Vice Mayor del -laan stated escalation would be part of the equation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 October 5, 2010 The Interim City Manager stated escalation would be based on a land use category; the City would pay more as it grows; the individual benefit unit is established every year. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote 6. PROCLAMATIONS SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY &ANNOUNCEMENTS (10- Proclamation Declaring October as Disability Awareness Month. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Commission on Disabity Issues Commissioner Neilsen Tangy. Mr. Tam thanked Council for the proclamation; thanked staff for supporting the Commission on Disability Issues; stated a tree planting ceremony will take place on October 16 th at Lincoln Park. (10- Proclamation Declaring October 6, 2010, as Housing Authority Appreciation Day for Seventy Years of Service to Lower Income Alameda Residents. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Housing Authority Executive Director; Housing Authority Board Commissioner Torrey and Housing Commissioner Arthur Kurrasch. (10- Proclamation Recognizing October 3 through October 9, 2010 as Public Power Week: Alameda Municipal Power Helps our Community in Powerful Ways. Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Public Utilities Board Member Peter Holmes. (10- )Presentation by East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on Crown Beach Sand Replacement. Doug Siden President of the EBRPD Board and Diane Althoff, EBRPD, gave a Power Point presentation. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmerrber Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 6. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*10- Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on September 9, 2010 and the Regular City Council Meeting Held on September 21, 2010. Approved. Regular Meeting Alameda City council 4 October 5, 2010 *10- )Ratified bills in the amount of $3,963,240.25. *10- Recommendation to Adopt Plans and specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids for the Annual Fuel Delivery, No. P.W. 09- 10 -22, and Amend the Contract in the Amount of $200,000, Including Contingencies, with Valley oil Company for the Annual Fuel Delivery Through December 31, 2010. Accepted. *10- )Recommendation to Authorize Administrative Approval of Down Payment Assistance Loans of up to $80,000. Accepted. *10- ordinance No. 3021, "Amending ordinance No. 1 277, N.S. to Rezone Approximately .085 Acres Located at 709 Lincoln Avenue APN 073 041 801 400 from CC- Community Commercial Zoning District, to R -5, General Residential Zoning Designation." Finally passed. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS (10- Presentation on Public Power Week and Energy Awareness Month Activities for October. The Alameda Municipal Power General Manager Customer Resources gave a Power Point presentation. Councilmember Matarrese stated compact fluorescent bulbs cannot go into the trash; inquired whether staff is working on the matter. The Alameda Municipal Power General Manager Customer Resources responded a flyer informs customers how to property dispose compact fluorescent bulbs; stated people can take the bulbs to Encinal Hardware and Pagano's Hardware for disposal. Councilmember Ifl atarrese stated the issue needs to be amped up; hazardous bulbs end up in land fill. The Alameda Municipal Power General Manager Customer Resources stated more customer outreach can be done. Mayor Johnson stated the City should have more drop off locations. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether drop offs can be done at City Hall. Mayor Johnson responded batteries can be dropped off at City Hall. The Alameda Municipal Power General Manager Customer Resources stated the practice is to drop hazardous bulbs at l= ncinal Hardware and Pagono's Hardware. Councilmember Tam inquired whether public outreach could be done in classrooms or Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 October 5, 2010 have students could produce videos. The Alameda Municipal Power General Manager Customer Resources responded said ideas are planned for the Green Awards campaign. (10- Presentation on the City's Affordable Housing Development Pipeline. The Interim City Manager and Housing Department Executive Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the timeframe for the Fleet Industrial Supply Center FISC] site, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded June, 2012. Mayor Johnson stated the problem is that the units are deteriorating. The Housing Department Executive Director continued the presentation. Councilmember Gilmore stated digging has been done at the site 1435 Webster Street]; inquired whether tanks have been taken out. The Housing Department Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated some areas are still contaminated because areas were not accessible; areas need to be re- dug and the soil has to be rernediated; continued the presentation. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired hove many units are at the Coast Guard housing, to which the Housing Department Executive Director responded approximately 250 units. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether moving the Alameda Collaborative to the area would be possible. The Development Services Division Manager responded the 2009 Community Reuse Plan amendment allows for 435 residential units to be developed at north housing; stated 90 homeless units would be a subset of the 435 units. Councilrnember Matarrese inquired what is the progress on obtaining insurance in case contamination is found. The Housing Department Executive Director responded the proposal submitted to the Navy in 2007 includes insurance; stated progress has not been made because the city has not heard back from the Navy. Councilmelmber Tam inquired where the City is in terns of meeting allocation goals. The Housing Department Executive Director responded that he would get back to Council on the matter; stated the City is lacking between 50% to 80% for medium income. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 October 5, 2010 10- The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the workers compensation case, which was settled. Council member Matarrese stated normally, workers compensation issues happen in Closed Session; usually, an agreement is made by the policy board; proposed agreements are brought to Council for a vote; inquired how the case in question is different. The City Attorney responded the case is very unusual; stated the injured employee filed a claim; both sides agreed upon a medical examiner; the medical examiner submitted a disability rating; the employee did not ask for anything else; the disability rating was not disputed; Council has no discretion to refuse to grant the statutory compensation based upon the agreed upon medical examiner's decision; the outcome would not have been any different if the matter did not come to Council. Mayor Johnson stated the 31 [disability rating] is a discretionary number that either side could dispute. The City Attorney stated that she discussed the platter with outside Counsel, Keith Epstein; Mr. Epstein has been the City's workers compensation attorney for almost twenty years; there is case law that if parties use an agreed upon medical examiner, then parties have agreed to accept whatever the agreed upon medical examiner's rating; it is not Mr. Epstein's practice to check the disability rating of the agreed upon medical examiner with Council; that she would discuss changing the process if Council wishes. Mayor Johnson stated that she is sensitive to the statement that there is no discretionary act. The City Attorney stated dulling medical opinions might occur if both sides have their own qualified medical examiner; discussions might take place regarding settlement and an appropriate disability rating. M Jol 11 10% stated eacl I slue Could put fl 1 a pr ovisiO 1 I lot Lo Cy�. r ee Lo accept LI lful recommended disability rating. Councilmember Matarrese stated Council should have a say if financial discretion is being turned over to an agreed upon medical examiner; Council should have agreed to the process of accepting whatever the outcome would be before marching down said road. The City Attorney stated that she understands the confusion; suggested Mr. Epstein be brought to the next Council meeting, or as soon as is practicable, if Council wants to consider changing the process; Mr. Epstein could outline how the statutory workers compensation system works. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 October 5, 2010 Councilmember Gilmore inquired when was the agreed medical examiner agreed upon, to which the City Attorney responded probably within a month of filing the claim. Councilmember Gilmore stated the agreed upon medical examiner was agreed upon before the case came to Council on September 21 Consent Calendar, to which the C ity Atto rn ey co n cu rred Councilmember Gilmore inquired why the matter was scheduled for Council to determine settlement authority if Council had no discretion. The City Attorney responded that neither she nor the Risk Manager had been properly advised by the City's third party administrator that the injured worker had an attorney and that the matter had been scheduled for the judge's order on September 29 the matter was placed before Council because of the third party administrator's recommendation to get Council's settlement authority; the matter is not before Council tonight because the matter has already been dispositively ordered by the workers compensation appeal judge; that she Can provide Council and the community with an Off Agenda report explaining how the workers compensation process works and/or can request Mr. Epstein to make a presentation to Council, including what the process has been for at least twenty years. Councilmember Gilmore state mandatory settlement conferences are set weeks or months in advance in most trial situations; Inquired whether the same is true for workers compensation. The City Attorney responded that she cannot advise when settlement occured; stated information provided by the third party administrator was wrong; no one had the proper Information and she did not discover that the matter was scheduled for the workers compensation appeals judge until last week. Councilmember Gilmore inquired why outside Counsel informed the judge that he had no settlement authority if there was no discretion. The City Attorney responded the proceeding before the Workers Compensation Appeal Board is not like a civil trial in Superior Court; stated once parties have reached a disability rating either through an agreed upon medical examiner or dulling medical examiners, the case goes to the workers compensation appeals judge; at the mandatory settlement conference, the judge typically asks if there is any. settlement authority; Mr. Epstein properly stated that he had no settlement authority; Mr. Epstein could have requested that the matter go to trial, in which case the judge would have set the trial, which is a one -day hearing before the same judge; the judge would have closed discovery at the mandatory settlement Conference, which means that no new information could come in; the parties would be stuck with the agreed medical exam conclusion; the judge would simply reiterate his order because there is no defense; the injured employee would need to wait an extra ninety days to receive the statutory Regular Meeting Alameda City Council S October 5, 2010 required compensation for the injury. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is not concerned about the outcome; she is glad that the employee has been taken care of; she is more concerned about the process, Council discretion, and the appearance of having staff take discretion away from Council; inquired whether there was a conversation between the City Attorney, Risk Manager or any other staff regarding the determination as to whether or not to bring the matter to Council in open or closed session. The City Attorney responded there was discussion on the matter based upon the third party administrator. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there was discussion as to whether or not to bring the matter in closed session; stated most workers compensation issues are brought to Council in closed session and Council likes to ask questions; by putting the matter on the Consent Calendar, she assumes the City Attorney felt that Council would not have any questions. The City Attorney stated all needed information was in the staff report. Councilmember Gilmore stated obviously not because two Councilmernbers raised questions regarding the issue; maybe the process broke down at the very beginning when the decision was made not to bring the matter to Council in closed session. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City Attorney was not aware that a hearing was already scheduled to occur after September 2 1 5t The City Attorney responded that she was not aware that the matter had already gone to litigation and that a mandatory settlement conference through the Workers Compensation Appeals Board was scheduled for September 29 th In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that she and the Risk Manager thought that no attorney was involved and did not know that the matter was scheduled to go before the workers Compensation Appeals Board, which means; there would be no choice but for Council to approve the compensation payment set by statute; if she knew that the matter was going before the workers Compensation Appeals Board judge on September 29th, she would not have bothered to bring the matter to Council in open or closed session because is no discretion. Councilmember Gilmore stated the matter should be reagendized. The City Attorney stated that she could have Mr. Epstein go over the issue in detail, if Council wants the matter reagendized. Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to have the matter resolved tonight. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 October 5, 2010 Vice Mayor deHaan stated the sequence of events would not change; Council would like to understand the process. Councilrnernber Matarrese stated a medical examiner was agreed upon; that he would like to have Council receive briefings on matters when a recommendation is made by the City's experts so that Council understands that it will be giving up its ability to contest the matter and the matter is being kicked to the statutory side; he would. like the process to change if Council has not been given a heads up for the last twenty years; the third party administrator made a mistake; some time in the future, he would like to hear what corrective action has been taken. The City Attorney stated corrective action is being taken; that she would follow up with Council regarding the matter later; she is offering to prepare an off Agenda report to explain hove the workers compensation system works, including how and. when an agreed upon medical examiner might be chosen; Council Can advise staff if the process should be changed; she recommends bringing the City's workers compensation attorney to Council. Councilrnember Gilmore stated the off Agenda report should include ghat Corrective action is being taken vis-a -vis the third party so that the mistake does not happen again. The City Attorney stated the corrective action would be provided to Council; the off Agenda would be separate. Mayor Johnson stated that an off Agenda report should be provided in addition to a presentation on the process. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (10- Public Dearing to Consider Resolution No. 14494, "Certifying the. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Boatworks Residential Project, Adopting Findings and. a Statement of overriding Considerations for the Boatworks Residential Project Reduced Density Alternative." Adopted; (10- A) Resolution No. 14495, "Adopting General Plan Amendments Related to open Space and Residential Development on the Northern Waterfront." Adopted; (10- B) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., to Rezone Parcels Located at 2229 Through 2235 Clement Avenue, APNS 071 0289 -05 and 071- 0290 -01 from M -2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District and R -2 /PD (Two Family Residence Planned Development District) to Open Space (0) and R -2 /PD (Two Family Residence Planned Development District). Introduced; (10- C) Resolution No. Boatworks Residential 0160)." Adopted; and 14496, "Upholding the Planning Board's Decision to Deny the Project Planned Development and Design Review (PLN08- (10- D) Recommendation to Approve a Settlement Agreement Pertaining to the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council .10 October 5, 2010 Redevelopment of Property Located at 2229 Clement Avenue. [In conjunction with Joint paragraph no. 10- CICI The Planning Services Manager and Deputy City Manager Development Services gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) approval is required [for the final map], to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the project has gone to BCDC, to which the Deputy City Manager Development Services responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether BCDC has indicated that approval would be given. The Planning Services Manager responded BCDC does not take any action until Council takes action; stated BCDC is pleased with the amount of open space. Mayor Johnson inquired whether oak Street would be a two -way street, to which the Deputy City Manager Development Services responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether car traffic would be permitted on Blanding Avenue [extension]. The Planning Services Manager responded Blanding Avenue and Elam Street would be automobile extensions; stated there mould be two travel lanes and parking on one side. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager stated each residence would have its own parking; parking would be provided for the park in addition to guest parking for residents. Mayor Johnson inquired whether guest parking includes parking for people using the park, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired hove parking would be designated, to which the Planning Services Manager responded details would be addressed in the tentative neap. Mayor Johnson stated enough parking needs to be provided to make the park accessible to the public not living in the immediate area. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the parking on the northeast corner adjacent to the shopping center is the [project's] property. The Planning Services Manager responded the parking is on the property; stated cross easements would be needed between the two properties. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 5, 2010 Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Dutra property would have the same philosophy of open space, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the property owner would be responsible for contamination cleanup and construction and repairs needed to keep the shoreline from sliding into the water. The Planning Services Manager responded the property owner and future developer would be fully responsible for all cleanup; stated the area would be cleaned to residential standards; the property owner and future developer would be responsible for structural stability of the waterfront park; a strip of land on the northern edge is owned by the Army Corp of Engineers; the intent is add the land to the park. Councilmember Matarrese stated a couple of sunken boats and other things are sliding into the water and need to be removed; storage spaces have contamination coming up through cracks in the concrete. The Planning Services Manager stated the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) has a very expensive cleanup plan. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether it has been made clear that the City would not be liable down the road if things appear. The City Attorney responded the City does not own the property so there is no liability for environmental problems. Councilmember Matarrese stated from a policy standpoint, provisions need to be included to protect future homeowners. The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated the Settlement Agreement has a provision regarding DTSC signing -off before a final map is approved. Councilmember Matarrese stated assurances need to be made to protect the City. Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has a unique opportunity to ensure that adequate bike lanes are provided in addition to waterfront public access. The Planning Services Manager stated staff has been working with the Public Works Department to design streets for all modes. The Deputy City Manager Development Services stated paseos have been designed to create linkages. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Oak Street would continue down to the waterfront. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 October 5, 2010 The Planning Services Manager responded staff is trying to create a better connection for pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars; stated a new, full- scaled road would not be created because there is no room. Councilmember Tarn stated when the City was working with Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP), the environmental insurance was cost prohibitive and made the project financially infeasible; inquired at ghat stage would environmental liability insurance be required; stated that she could not find said requirement in the Settlement Agreement; inquired how assurances would be provided. The Planning Services Manager responded initially, assurances would come. from DISC; stated assurances would be required before housing units are built; the City would not be entering into the chain of title. Councilmember Tam stated significant public contributions would exist even though the City would not be in the chain of title. The City Attorney stated the trigger is property ownership; the City would not need to provide environmental liability insurance. Councilmember Tam stated the City would not be required because the burden of liability would be with the property owner; inquired which street requires a General Plan Amendment for a right -hand turn lane, to which the Planning Services Manager responded the Clement Avenue and oak Street intersection. Mayor Johnson stated ensuring that the waterfront park area is accessible to the public is important. Councilmember Tara left the dais at 9:00 p.m. and returned at 9:08 p.m. Proponents In favor of staff recommendation Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Richard Hausman, Alameda; and Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association. Opponents Not in favor of staff recommendation Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action committee (EPAC); Joseph Woodard, EPAC; and Rebecca Redfield, EPAC. Councilmember Tam inquired why efforts to obtain Proposition 84 funds were not successful. The Planning Services Manager responded the Trust for Public Land evaluates the probability of success; stated the maximum amount the City could ask for was $5 million; funds would need to be used to purchase the land and build and finish the park; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 October 5, 2010 the Trust for Public Land did not believe applying for funds would be worthwhile. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would be getting two acres [for a park]; the project would allow for land cleanup and waterfront stabilization; the solution is good; coming to a compromise has taken nineteen years; the City needs to move forward. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with the provision that the city be very clear in holding standards very high to ensure that future residents would not be impacted by whatever the predecessor activity was on the land; stated the matter should be part of the entitlement process. Mayor Johnson stated having labels on the diagrams would have been helpful; inquired what is the indentation along the landside of the waterfront, to which the Planning Services Manager responded a concept for a set of stairs which would be subject to Design Review. Mayor Johnson reiterated that the public area needs to be accessible to everyone. The Planning Services Manager stated the final map would carne back to the Planning Board and ultimately council for final approval. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the houses on the northern lots are bigger, to. which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff has had discussions. regarding .smaller. houses in order to have a bigger park area, to which the Planning Services. Manager. responded in the affirmative, Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to make the green area as big as possible. Vice Mayor deHaan stated Marina Village has a green area; the only activity is people walking the trail. Councilmember Matarrese stated the lack of activity is because of the small hills. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the build out .schedule, to which the Deputy City Manager Development services responded forty -eight months. vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether funding would ever become available, to which the ..Planning services Manager responded the city has tried to. buy the land for twenty years. Councilmember Matarrese stated Thompson Field is catty corner from the project; the School District and city are working on a joint use agreement for football fields; snaking the area residential snakes sense; maximizing Thompson Field and McKinley Park would cover the "active park" portion; the Dutra property remains open for the future. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 October 5, 2010 Mayor Johnson inquired ghat would be the phasing plan for park construction, to which the Deputy city Manager Development Services responded the park would need to be completed by the 101 [house]. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Tam stated the compromise is good; added a caveat to the motion to maximize a good, safe, public access. On the all for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote 5. 10- Public Fearing to consider Resolution No. 14497 "Approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 9878 Planning Application No. PLN09 -0185 a Parcel Map for the Proposed Subdivision of the Site at 2318 Pacific Avenue into Two Parcels." Adopted. The Planner I gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated the city would not end up with a mega, monster house similar to the house on Briggs Avenue. The Interim city Manager stated the item was continued from the previous council meeting because of the fear of splitting residential lots; the neighborhood is mixed use; the Planning Services Manager has come up with some good ideas for ordinance changes precluding residential lot splits. The Planning Services Manager stated the north Park Street area zoning code would be changed; the city has had a series of proposals for splitting off the back sections of properties; staff wants to bring the issue to the Planning Board and council, to determine whether the splits should be allowed in the future. Mayor Johnson stated the Briggs Avenue house affects surrounding backyards; that she has not heard back on whether the house meets height requirements. The Planning Services Manager stated scales would be addressed. Mayor Johnson stated the Briggs Avenue neighborhood size and scale standards were disregarded. The Interim city Manager stated staff is thinking about creating certain criteria for residential development to preserve residential neighborhoods. Vice Mayor deHaan stated a commercial building on clement Avenue is a disaster. The Planning Services Manager stated the issue would be resolved with a [new] north Park Street code; neighborhoods have a thirty -foot height limit. Regular Meeting Alameda City council 15 October 5, 2010 Vice Mayor del~ -lawn moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the matter is being discussed now since the area is in the north of Lincoln Avenue planning area. The Planning Services Manager stated the City has chosen not to do a moratorium on Park Street; staff has allowed north of Park Street projects to move forward; the project meets all rules and regulations; the City would retain complete control over what goes in. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA 0- Jon Spangler, Alameda, raised questions regarding worker's compensation. D- Luisa Valle os, Alameda, discussed banning smoking. Mayor Johnson stated staff has been working on the issue. Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, provided a handout and discussed Proposition 22. COUNCIL REFERRALS 10- consider Taking Action Regarding Calming Traffic on Residential Streets that Have Become overburdened, Used as "Cut- Throughs" or Experience other Traffic Problems. Councilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated Council has asked about the issue in the past. Councilmember Tara stated a 2003 Transportation Master Plan has a tool box list of solutions, including traffic calming suggestions that the Public works Department and Fire Department worked on; the issue is about funding and implementation, not whether the City has existing policies and tools available. Councilmember Matarrese stated people on Sherman Street have gathered petitions, but no action has been taken. Mayor Johnson stated a report should be brought back; the issue should be reviewed on a Citywide basis. Councilmember Gilmore stated the Transportation Commission's job was to look at the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 October 5, 2010 issue on a Citywide basis; the process has a big hole because the City effectively no longer has a Transportation Commission. Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be brought back. Vice Mayor deHaan stated issues have been on the table for a while; the problem is not whether the City has a Transportation Commission or not. Council r ember Tam stated the wheel should not be reinvented; a more productive direction would be to find funding to execute solutions. Vice Mayor deHaan stated street repair is looking pretty decent throughout the City. Speaker Jon Spangler, Alameda. Councilmernber Matarrese moved approval of bringing the matter back to Council. Vice Mayor deHaan Seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (10- )Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB). Mayor Johnson nominated Rebecca Holder for appointment to the SSHRB. (1g- Councilmember Gilmore stated in March, Council came to the conclusion that performance reviews needed to be done for Charter officers; the agreement was to have performance reviews come back in September; that she asked about the matter at the last meeting; she still has not received a response. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council would like to comment. Councilrrember Gilmore stated that she is not requesting comments from Council, but from staff; Council gave direction to staff; that she is wondering what has happened. 0 N K91IJvo, 11► a aII There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 October a, 2010 The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 October 5, 2010 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING WEDNESDAY- OCTOBER 6,2010- -7:01 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 8:09 p.m. DOLL CALL Present: Councilmembers/ Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tara and Mayor /Chair Johnson 5. Absent: None. CITY MANAGED COMMUNICATIONS (10- CC/ 10- CIC) Update on Alameda Unified School District Assistance: Toddler and After School Child Care (Woodstock Child Development Center) The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired how the State restored the funding and if it was through special legislation. The Deputy City Manager Administrative Services responded the Big Five, which is the Governor and the Leaders of the Assembly and Senate, carne up with a package .of cuts and revenue enhancements, including creative accounting and federal dollars that are not yet secured; as part of that package, the legislature churned over the summer for more than 100 days and the program has been put back in through the Big Fire Conference; the budget conference committee met on October 6th and it is unlikely that the money will be taken back out; the matter will be confirmed after the October 7th vote. Councilmember/ Commissioner Matarrese requested the method of helping remain ready in hopes of being able to restore adult education and recreation programs. The Interim City Manager agreed; stated even though there is a respite this year, future action is uncertain; when Impacts to the School District and City are known, staff will report back to the Council/ Commission. Councilmember/ Commissioner Gilmore inquired if, and hoer much, the deficit was closed. The Deputy City Manager Administrative Services stated the State claims to have closed the approximately $19 billion deficit with creative maneuvers and federal money, which still has to be secured. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission October 6, 2010 In response to vice Mayor/ Commissioner deHaan's inquiry about hoer the City will stay out of the budget, the Interim City Manager stated the budget is strategic and responds to a lot of heavy press criticizing the Legislature; after a new Governor is elected, there will be a surprise package. The Deputy City Manager Administrative Services stated the State is starting to issue IOU's this month. The Interim City Manager stated none of the budget deficit reflects the 2012 13 State hit of PERS costs. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the Government has 35,000 more employees now than 5 years ago, to which staff said information is unknown at this time. Councilmember /Corr missioner Matarrese requested an off Agenda report be posted on the website summarizing the comments of the Deputy City Manager Administrative Services. Councilmember /Commissioner Tam requested clarification on whether the City. has provided some of the CDBG funding; inquired whether the funding would affect the School District's loss in State funding. The Interim City Manager responded the School District can only use the money for certain things; the only way the School District would not get a .dollar- for dollar. take [from the State] is if the City gives a grant, or .eliminates or offsets .a School District General /Fund expense; the funding was a one -time, 90 -day solution and is not a long terra solution for the program. Vice Mayor /Commissioner deHaan stated that he attended a workshop at Lincoln School; the City needs to be at the table during discussions to understand impacts. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated the next Subcommittee meeting needs to be scheduled; that he would not support consolidating grades 7 -1.2 into ore .school; the City should weigh in on all the issues so that the boards can talk about the direction that will be given based on the impacts. Vice Mayor /Commission deHaan concurred; stated decisions cannot be made in a vacuum. Councilmemberf Commissioner Gilmore stated the City definitely needs to work with the School District and raise concerns, but it is ultimately the School District's budget; the School District is the expert regarding its budget and the product. that needs to be delivered; the City should not tell the District how to manage its budget. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community 2 Improvement Commission October 51 20 10 Mayor /Chair Johnson concurred. Councilmemberl Commissioner Tam stated that she grants to convey some businesses comments to the Subcommittee with respect to the school closures; there are some concerns that if Alameda High School becomes a middle school with a closed campus, a lot of stores, restaurants, and businesses that depend upon a non closed campus could have serious revenue impacts. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, CIC The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 3 Community Improvement Commission October 6, 2010 CITY OF ALA EDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Fred Marsh Controller Date: October 14, 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. VE ICL.A IVUI11UG1� Amount 232338 232775 (vendor Checks) $2,738,400.35 V21205 1121 301 (ACH Retiree Medical Benefit Reimbursements) $111 EFT932 EFT936 (Vendor Wire Transfers) r� $309,566.24 Void Checks: 230332 ($16,899.94) 231393 ($920.60) 231403 ($5.9 -00) 232064 {$84.52} 232148 ($84.52) 232149 ($84.52) 232224 ($1 232437 ($182.09) 232584 ($475.00) GRAND TOTAL $3,229,174.50 Respectfully submitted, Controller BILLS #4 Council Warrants 10119110 1011912010 CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: October 19, 2010 Re: Accept the 1l1!'ork of Valley Power System North, Inc., for the Provision of Marine Diesel Main Engines for the Bay Breeze On November 3, 2009, the City Council authorized the Open Market Purchase of two ferry vessel diesel main engines from Valley Power Systems North (Valley) for the Ba y Breeze main engine replacement project. On November 5, 2009, the City entered into a $400,000 agreement with Valley to provide one MTU 16V -2000 M70 Marine Engine Package and provide installation support. DISCUSSION The project has been completed and is acceptable to the Public Works Department. The Bay Breeze returned to service on September 15, 2010. The final project cost is $400,000. FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (Project No. 9.0931 and Fund No. 621.1), with monies allocated from Measure B, Regional Measure 1 -2 and a Carl Moyer Grant. There is no impact to the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Repair of Existing Facilities. City Council Agenda item #4 -C 10 -19 -10 Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council RECOMMENDATION October 19, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Accept the work of Malley Pager System North, Inc. for the provision of marine diesel main engines for the Bay Breeze. Respect f y bruitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, Fred Marsh Controller 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: October 19, 2010 Re: Award a contract in the Amount of $530,726, Including contingencies, to Sun Light Power to Provide Turnkey Design -Build Services for Photovoltaic Solar Generation System P.W. 05 -10 -12 BACKGROUND On July 20, 2010, the city council authorized a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide turnkey design -build services for a photovoltaic (solar) generation system, No. P.W. 05- 10 -12. The RFP is for the planning, design, permitting, installation, connection, and start -up commissioning of a minimum 66- kilowatt photovoltaic (PV) system at the Main Library. The project is expected to provide approximately 19 percent of the building's annual electric load, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 67,999 pounds of carbon dioxide equivalent. The Main Library was originally designed to include a PV system, and the solar roof support infrastructure was installed; however, the installation of panels was removed from the project scope to cover contract cost overages. DISCUSSION To solicit the maximum number of proposals, notification of the Request for Proposal (RFP) was sent to all of the builders exchanges throughout the Bay Area. A notice was also published in the Alameda Journal and on the city's website. The city received three proposals and they were opened on September 8, 2010. The list of proposers includes: Proposer Location Proposal Amount Solex Energies Torrance $364,310 Suns Free Solar Alameda ($413,171 L Sun Light &Power Berkeley $474 City Council Agenda item #4 -D 10 -19 -1a Honorable Mayor and October 19, 2010 Members of the city Council Page 2 of 3 Public Works staff conducted personal interviews with the three firms to evaluate their relevant experience, responsiveness to the information requested through the RI P, and understanding of the specific library facility issues. The individual interviews were held on September 15, 2010. Based on the interviews and a more detailed review of each responder's proposal, staff determined that Solex Energies and Suns Free.Solar did not meet the baseline requirements of the RFP. For example, and as detailed in Exhibit 1 neither firm possesses the required licenses, has the minimum requested experience, or is experienced with federal stimulus grant reporting requirements. Staff proposes to award a contract to Sun Light Power for a total amount of $530,725, including contingencies. Sun Light Power is best qualified for the 'work based on experience, capabilities, understanding of the issues, cost, and staffing availability. Due to the uncertainties inherent in installing solar panels on an existing building. and securing the racking system to the roof, a 12% contingency is proposed. A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk's office. FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (Project No. 90915), with $414,000 allocated from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. In addition, the project qualifies for a solar rebate of $156,728 from Alameda Municipal Power. There is no impact to the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the municipal Code. The project is consistent with the city's Local Action Plan for climate Protection and furthers progress towards the greenhouse gas reduction target contained in the Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.1, Relation to Ministerial Projects. Honorab Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION October 10, 2010 Page 3of3 Award a contract in the amount of $630,726, including contingencies, to sun Light Power to provide turnkey design -build services for photovoltaic (solar) generation system, No. P.W. 06- 10 -12. Approved as to funds and account, Fred Marsh Controller Exhibits: 1. Spreadsheet 2. Contract (on file with the City Clerk's office) RFP Requirements RFP Requirements Met City Council Exhibit to Agenda Item ##4 -13 Sun Free Solar Sun Light Power Solex Energies Does the team possess the required Licenses (i.e. electric C10 and solar C46) No Yes No Has ten or more years experience building solar. No Yes No Do they have commercial experience for installations greater than 25kW. No Yes Yes Have they completed a project 25kW or greater. No Yes Yes Has the team worked together before as a commercial solar provider No Yes No Do they have experience with the ARRA funding documentation process No Yes No Will the bidder provide a 10 year installation warranty. Yes Yes No Data Logger (DAS) Included Yes Yes No Public Info Display Included Yes Yes No Returned Signed Addendum Receipts with RFP. Yes Yes Yes Attended Mandatory Prebid Meeting Yes Yes Yes COST LABOR: Pal Modules Inverter $08 $123,400.00 $50,197.00 Roofing $9 $32,054.00 Not Included MATERIALS: PV Modules Inverter $280,039.00 $295 $314,113.70 DAS $19,158.00 $14,050.00 Not Included Public Info Display $6 $9 Not Included BASE BID $4'13,171.00 $474,286.00 $364,310.70 City Council Exhibit to Agenda Item ##4 -13 CITY O F AL_AM E DA Memorandum To Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: October 19, 2010 Re: Appropriate $30,000 from the Dwelling Unit Tax and Award a contract in the Amount of $102,300, Including contingencies, to sand channel Greens, for the Alameda Point Multi -Use Field Upgrades No. P.W. 04 -09 -11 BACKGROUND On April 0, 2010, the city council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call for bids for the Alameda Point multi use field upgrades, No. P.W. 04 09 11. The proposed project will improve the drainage of the multi use field by installing a sub drainage system. DISCUSSION To solicit the maximum number of bids and most competitive price, plans and specifications were provided to 19 separate builders exchanges throughout the Bay Area. A notice of bid was also published in the Alameda Journal. Three contractors submitted bids, and the bids were opened on June 17, 2010. The list of qualified bidders, from lowest to highest total project cost, is as follows: Bidder Location Base Bid Sand Channel Greens Watsonville 93 Pacheco Brothers Gardening Hayward $109,600 Cleary Brothers Danville $113,845 Public Works staff contacted several references provided by the low bidder and received positive feedback regarding the quality and timeliness of their work. staff proposes to award a contract to Sand channel Greens for a total amount of $1 02,300, including a 10% contingency. FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds for this project are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (08 -10), with monies allocated from the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority funds and the Dwelling Unit Tax (DUT). To award the contract and provide a 10% contingency, an City Council Agenda Item #4 -E r Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council October 19, 2010 Page 2 of 2 additional appropriation of $30,000 is required. There are sufficient funds available in the DUT for this allocation (Project No. 90810, Fund Nos. 858 and 221), due to a recent grant reimbursement received by the City. 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), the Alameda Point multi -use field upgrades project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities. IV: V to]Xl 101i�[� 1 Appropriate $30,000 from the Dwelling Unit Tax and award a contract in the amount of $102,300, including contingencies, to Sand Channel Greens, for the Alameda Point multi- use field upgrades, No. P.W. 04- 09 -11. Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Nacleri Publ Works Director Approved as to funds and account, Fred Marsh Controller BH:RC:gc Exhibit: 1. Contract (on file in the City Clerk's office) CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: October 19, 2010 Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Award of a Contract Pursuant to Section 3- 15.2 of the Alameda City Charter in the Amount of $223,100, Including Contingencies, to Mountain Cascade to Pipeburst Existing 14 -Inch 'Vitrified Clay Pipe Storm Drain Pipe and Replace with 16 -finch High Densit y Polyethylene Pipe on Eighth Street, Between Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue (Requires Four Affirmative Votes) BACKGROUND Recently, a sinkhole developed adjacent to a manhole at the Eighth Street.and .Lincoln Avenue intersection. A section of Polyvinyl Chloride pipe was installed to temporarily p y bridge the deteriorated section of pipe until further engineering analysis could be performed. Prior to videoing the condition of the pipe, staff worked .with a contractor to clean the pipe of debris. However, further deterioration of the pipe was.observed, and.the extent of deterioration is greater than anticipated. Asa result of the imminent rainy season and the extent of damage to the pipe, a potential health and safety emergency exists. The proposed project will pipeburst the existing 14" Vitrified Clay Pipe to. a.1 6" High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), including the testing and Videoing of the new 10" HDP.E storm drain pipe; repairing manholes; and all related paving restoration. DISCUSSION To solicit the maximum number of bids and most competitive price, a Request for Quotation was provided to 19 separate builders exchanges throughout the Ba y .Area. A notice was also published in the Alameda Journal. one contractor.su.b.mitte.d.a quotation, and the quotation was opened on Wednesday, September 29, 2010. The qualified bidder is as follows: Bidder Location Quotation Mountain Cascade Livermore $194 Public Works staff contacted several references provided by the low bidder and received positive feedback on the ability of the company to meet the project requirements and the quality and timeliness of their work. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4 -F 10-19-10 9 0 Honorable Mayor and October 10, 2010 Me mbers of the City Council Page 2 of 2 Due to the emergency nature of the work and in accordance with .section 3-15.2 of the Alameda City Charter, the Interim City Manager authorized commencement of the work and is bringing the contract to the City Council for approval at this tine. Staff ro oses to p p award a contract to Mountain Cascade for a total amount of $223,100, including contingencies. A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk' s office. FINANCIAL IMPACT Funds are available from the Capital Improvement Program Cyclic Storm Drain Rehabilitation (Project No. 90908), with monies allocated from the Urban Runoff Fund. There is no impact to the General Fund. 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), this project is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15269 Emergency Projects. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution authorizing award of a contract pursuant to Section 3 --15.2 of the Alameda City Charter in the amount of $223,100, including contingencies, to Mountain Cascade to pipeburst existing 14 -Inch Vitrified Clay Pipe storm drain pipe and replace with 16-Inch High Density Polyethylene pipe on Eighth Street, between Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue (Requires Pour Affirmative Votes). Respe fully .s bmitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director BH.RC:gc Approved as to funds and account, Fred Marsh Controller Exhibit: 1. Contract (on file in the City Clerk's office) CITE' OF AL.AMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING AWARD OF A CONTRACT PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 -15.2 OF THE ALAMEDA CITY CHARTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $223,100, INCLUDING CONTINGENCIES, TO MOUNTAIN CASCADE TO PIPEBURST EXISTING 14 INCH VCP STORM DRAIN PIPE AND REPLACE WITH 16 INCH HDPE PIPE ON EIGHTH STREET BETWEEN PACIFIC AVENUE 3 AND M. LINCOLN AVENUE (REQUIRES FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES) WHEREAS, a sinkhole has developed adjacent to the manhole on Eighth Street at Lincoln Avenue; and WHEREAS, attempts to clean out the pipe for videoing resulted in more soil entering the pipe and cracks were observed in other sections of pipe nearby; and WHEREAS, soil has fallen into the pipe in at least two locations and one location was in the middle of a very busy intersection; and WH EREAS, the pavement on top of two sections of pipe is still in place but of questionable support; and WHEREAS, PW staff is unable to ascertain the extent of the damage because every time we try to put in a video to determine the extent of the damage there is more soil loss; and WHEREAS, the city experienced heavy rains last October, which could result in even more soil loss and potentially localized failure of pavement.this year; and WHEREAS, as a result of the imminent rainy season and the fact that the more Public Works staff explored the area on Eighth street, the more serious the problem appears, and the time to construct the repairs is greater than earlier anticipated due to the greater extent of damage, as City Engineer, I consider this a health and safety emergency; and a WHEREAS, section 3 -15.2 of the city charter provides that the city Council, by four affirmative votes, in the event of a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services, the city Manager or designee may exceed the sum provided by general law and forego competitive bid, subject to ratification by council as soon as practicable. Resolution #4 -F cc 10 -19 -10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the city Council of the city of Alameda, pursuant to Section 3 -15.2 of the City Charter, and by four affirmative votes, the interim city Manager is hereby authorized to award a contract in the amount of $223,100, including contingencies, to Mountain Cascade to pipeburst existing 14 -Inch VCP storm drain pipe and replace with 15 -Inch HDPE pipe on Eighth Street, between Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the council of the city of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 10th day of October 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 20th day of October 2010. Lara Weisiger, city Clerk City of Alameda CITY of ALA EDA Memorandum To: honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City manager Date: October 19, 2010 Re: Adopt a Resolution in Opposition to Proposition 26, a Proposed Constitutional Amendment Related to State and Local Fees and Charges BACKGROUND Proposition 26, which has been sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Taxpayers' Association, would recategorize a host of state and local.fees as taxes, imposing superrnajorty approval requirements for what .are now regulatory and impact fees that can be adopted by simple majorities of the State Legislature, city councils, and boards of supervisors. DISCUSSION If passed by the voters on November 2, Proposition 26 would redefine many currently levied State and local fees as "taxes." Such state "taxes" would be .required to meet a new "superrnajority" threshold of a two- thirds majority vote of both the State Assembly and Senate, while local "taxes', which are currently adopted by majority vote of the Cit Council, would also require a two thirds voter approval. According to the Legislative Analyst's office (LAO), Proposition 26 would broaden the definition of a State or local tax to include many payments currently considered to. be fees or charges. As a result, the measure would have the effect. of increasing the number of revenue proposals subject to the higher approval requirements. Generally, the types of fees that would become taxes under the measure are ones. imposed to address health, environmental, or other societal or economic concerns. The LAO provides examples of some of the regulatory fees that could be considered taxes, in part, or in whole if Proposition 26 passes. These include the oil recycling .fee, hazardous material fee, and locally imposed fees on alcohol retailers. According to the LAO, certain other fees and charges also could be considered to be taxes under the measure. For example, some business assessments could be considered to be takes because government uses the assessment revenues to improve shopping districts (such as providing parking, street lighting, increased security, and marketing), rather than providing a direct and distinct service to the business owner. City Council Repeat ate: Agend2 item #4 -G 1® -19 -10 Honorable Mayor and October 10, 2010 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 In addition, most other fees or charges in existence at the time of the November 2, 2010 election would not be affected unless: The state or local government later increases or extends the fees or charges. (In this case, the state or local government would have to comply with the approval requirements of Proposition 26.) The fees or charges were created or increased by a state law— passed between January 1, 2010 and November 2, 1010 —that conflicts with Proposition 26 (discussed further below). Both the LAO and the State Department of Finance conclude that .the measure would potentially cause a major decrease in State and local revenues and spending, depending upon future actions of the Legislature, local governing bodies, and. local voters. Proposition 26 is broadly written so that unless an exception applies, fees and charges imposed by local governments are taxes requiring two- thirds vote approval. The LAO's analysis focuses on regulatory fees that benefit the public generally and states that under Proposition 26, these mould be considered to be taxes. However, as the scope of Proposition 25 is very broad, there may be other types of fees that would categorized as taxes requiring two- thirds voter approval. The League of California Cities has taken an oppose position on this proposition, with League staff concluding that if this measure is approved by the voters, "the true interpretation of hove it will apply will likely take years of litigation. Local agencies .will need to individually examine local fees charged to determine hoer the specific definitions used in this measure may affect an existing fee." FINANCIAL IMPACT While there is no financial impact from adopting this Resolution, approval of Proposition 26 could have a dramatic negative effect on the City's revenues. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution in opposition to Proposition 26, a proposed constitutional amendment related to state and local fees and charges. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Goldman Deputy City Manager CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 0 IL 0 0 0 g OPPOSING PROPOSITION 20, A PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RELATED TO STATE AND LOCAL FEES AND CHARGES WHEREAS, Proposition 20, has been sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Taxpayers' Association; and WHEREAS, Proposition 25 would re-categorize a host of state and local p g fees as taxes, imposing superrnajority approval requirements for what are now regulatory and impact fees that can be adopted by simple majorities of the state Legislature, city councils, and boards of supervisors; and WHEREAS, Proposition 20 would broaden the definition of a state or local tax to include many payments currently considered to be fees or charges, and as a result, the measure would have the effect of increasing the number of revenue proposals subject to the higher approval requirements; and WHEREAS, the regulatory fees that could be considered taxes, in part, or in whole if Proposition 25 passes include the oil recycling fee, the hazardous material fee, and locally imposed fees on alcohol retailers; and WHEREAS, most other fees or charges in existence at the time of the November 2, 2010, election would not be affected unless the state or local government later increases or extends the fees or charges; and WHEREAS, both the Legislative Analyst's office and the state Department of Finance conclude that the measure would potentially cause a major decrease in State and local revenues and spending, depending upon future actions of the Legislature, local governing bodies, and local voters; and WHEREAS, the League of California cities opposes Proposition 26 and has concluded that if approved, local agencies are likely to incur legal costs because "the true interpretation of how it will apply will likely take years of litigation NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the city council of the city of Alameda opposes Proposition 20, a proposed constitutional amendment related to state and local fees and charges, Resolution #4 -G CC 10 -19 -10 I, the undersi hereb certif that the fore Resolution was dul and re adopted and passed b the Council of the Cit of Alameda in a re meetin assembled on the 1 9t da of October, 2010, b the followin vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m hand and affixed the seal of said Cit this 20th da of October, 2010. Lara Weisi Cit Clerk Cit of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager Date: October 19, 2010 Re: Adopt a Resolution in Support of Proposition 22, the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010 BACKGROUND In January, the city council adopted a resolution in support of a League of California Cities sponsored initiative constitutional amendment that would proh.ibit the State from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting the use of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government services, community redevelopment projects, dr transportation projects and services. That measure secured the requisite number of signatures. for placement on the November ballot as Proposition 22. DISCUSSION California's voters have repeatedly passed separate ballot measures .to .stop State. raids of local government funds, and to dedicate the taxes on gasoline to. fund.local and state transportation improvement projects. With the State facing deficits.inthe tens of billions of dollars each year, however, the Legislature has increasingly. turned to local governments to balance its budget. In passing its FY.09 -10 budget, the. Legislature declared a fiscal emergency and took $1.9 billion in local government property taxes and $2.05 billion in redevelopment funds. It also shifted funds away from public transit and proposed the takeaway of funds used to maintain local transportation infrastructure. Although no additional local government takeaways were included in the State's FY10- 11 budget, local government funds remain vulnerable. As a result of these ongoing raids .on local funds, the League of California cities, the California Redevelopment Association, the California Transit Association, and the California Alliance for Jobs sponsored the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010. If passed by the voters in November 2010, the measure would: Prohibit the State from taking, borrowing or redirecting local taxpayer funds dedicated to public safety, emergency response and other vital local government services. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4-H 10-19-10 Honorable Mayor and October 19, 2010 Members of the city Council Page 2 of 2 Protect dedicated transportation and public transit funds, such as the sales tax on gasoline (Prop. 42 funds) and the Highway User Tax on gasoline, from state raids. Prevent the state from redirecting or taking public transit funds. Prevent the Legislature from taking or directing how locally imposed taxes such as parcel tax, utility users, transient occupancy, and sales taxes may be spent. FINANCIAL IMPACT While there is no financial impact from adopting this Resolution., passage of Proposition 22 would protect the city's coffers from future State raids. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution in support of the Proposition 22, the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 201 O. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Goldman Deputy City Manager CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 0 U. 0 s SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 22', THE LOCAL TAXPAYER, PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSPORTATION PROTECTION ACT OF 2010 WHEREAS, California voters have repeatedly and overwhelmingly gy passed separate ballot measures to stop State raids of local government funds, and to dedicate the taxes on gasoline to fund local and state transportation. improvement projects; and p p 1 WHEREAS, these local government funds are critical to provide the police and fire, emergency response, parks, libraries, and other vital local services that residents rely upon every day, and gas tax funds. are vital to maintain and improve local streets and roads, to make road safety improvements, relieve traffic congestion, and provide mass transit; and WHEREAS, despite the fact that voters have repeatedly passed measures to prevent the State from taking these revenues dedicated to funding local government services and transportation improvement projects, the State Legislature has seized and borrowed billions of dollars in local government and transportation funds in the past few years; and WHEREAS, last year's borrowing and raids of local government, redevelopment, and transit funds, as well as previous, ongoing raids of local government and transportation funds have led to severe consequences, such as layoffs of police, fire, and paramedic first responders, fire station closures, stalled economic development, healthcare cutbacks, delays in road safety improvements, public transit fare increases, and cutbacks in public transit services; and WHEREAS, State politicians in Sacramento have continued to ignore the will of the voters, and current law provides no penalties when politicians take or borrow these locally dedicated funds; and WHEREAS, a coalition of local government, transportation and transit advocates sponsored the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010, which appears as Proposition 22 on the November 2010 ballot; and WHEREAS, approval of this ballot initiative would close loopholes and change the constitution to further prevent State politicians in Sacramento from seizing, diverting, shifting, borrowing, transferring, suspending or otherwise taking or interfering with tax revenues dedicated to funding local government services, including redevelopment, or dedicated to transportation improvement projects and mass transit. Resolution #4 -H cc 10 -19 -10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Alameda endorses Proposition 22, the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 19th day of October, 2010, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOBS: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this loth day of October, 2010. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALARM E DA Memorandum To: honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: October 19, 2010 Re: Introduce an ordinance to Amend the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 23-8, Encroachments Upon Public Property Prohibited BACKGROUND In 2008, the City Manager received a letter from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) advising that certain areas of the City's shoreline, within the BCDC sphere of influence, required maintenance and removal of private encroachments. Furthermore, these encroachments were within City property, and the City had not granted approval for the encroachments. DISCUSSION As staff began working with the private property owners to remove the encroachments within City property, it became apparent that the current abatement provisions in the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) did not provide sufficient authority to require the necessary abatement. The current AMC provisions primarily address public rights -of -way and do not provide abatement for other types of publicly owned property. The proposed ordinance would amend and expand the public nuisance abatement procedures within the AMC to provide the City with explicit authorization to remove, dispose, and recover enforcement action costs for private property encroachments within any City -owned property. FINANCIAL IMPACT .Approval of the ordinance will enable the City to fully recover enforcement costs associated with abated encroachment within City -owned property. There is no impact to the General Fund. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item x#44 10-19-10 Honorable Mayor and October 19, 2010 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This ordinance would add Subsection 23.8 to Chapter 23 of the Alameda Municipal Code, RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance to amend the AMC by adding Subsection 23 -8, encroachments upon public property prohibited. Respectfully submitted, F' Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, Fred Marsh Controller MAM:gc CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SUBSECTION 23-8 (ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY PROHIBITED) BE IT ORDAINED b the Council of the Cit of Alameda that: E Sm Section 1 The Alameda Municip Code is hereb amended 'b addin section 23-8 (Encroachments on Public Propert Prohibite to C hapter 9 XXIII (Parks, Recreation Areas and Public Propert thereof to read as follows- QQ 23-8 Encroachments on Public Propert Prohibited. 23-8.1 Authorit This ordinance is enacted pursuant to sections 38771 and 38775.of the California Government Code. 23-8.2 Definitions. Encroachment shall mean an soli material, or structure, to include without limitation, an human directed alteration of the land and the pla ntin 91 cultivation o r maintenance of an ve located on public prope h rt wit out an encroachment permit. Owner-shal.l. mean the le owner of real propert abutt in �pu blic propert in the Cit of Alameda or his or her successor in interest. Owner shallin I c ude an individual, firm, partnerships of an t j oint venture, association corporation, estate, t receiver, s o a re y other g roup or r combination actin as a unit, and the lessees, trustees, a emp.lo. servants and representatives of same, and the plural as Drell as th e sin number. Public Propert shall mean an Cit propert Public Works. Director. shall mean the Public Works Director of the Cit of Alameda or his.or herdesi 23-8.3 Encroachments on Public Propert Prohibit ed/Decla.r.ation of Nuisance. Encroachments constructed, placed, maintained or t o herwise located on public propert without an Encroachment Permit shall be deemed ill and are hereb declared to be a public nu*s i a.nce and ma be abated in conformance with the provisions of this section. Introduction of Ordinance #4.1 CC 10-19-10 In addition to other remedies provided b law, all direct. and. indirect costs, includin le expenses, incurred b the C it y of.Alameda in abatin such nuisance shall become a lien on the abuttin propertyand.a. personal. obli of the owner thereof or his or her successors) -in-int and shall be a special assessment a said propert to be collected. as ordinar municipal taxes, pursuant to the procedure set forth in subsection 23-8.7. 23-8.4 Exceptions. The provisions of this Chapter shall not appl to: 1. Encroachments that have been constructed, installed or ma intained with the receipt of an Encroachment Permit and which are in c thereto; 2. Cit emplo en in Cit activities or 3. Public utilities operatin under a valid franchise. a provided all re imposed throu the franchise agreem applicable state law or re have been comp.lied with .and provided. the Pu blic Utilit has notified and g ained prior authorization from th e Cit y 's Pu Works Director. 23-8.5 Remov of Encroachment Upon .the di o f Zn encroachment located on public propert the .Publ,ic.Works.D.irector.or his or her desi sh all notif the owner of the abuttin pri ..p .of. his/her responsibilit to imm ediatel y remo the encroachment and to. repair an dama resultin th r f e e rom to he satisfaction of the .P.ublic.Works.D i rector. If there :is no ��res pon.se.:b or owners within thirty o o cation th :C it y a Un..tifi. e Y will have the to remove the ille encroachm at the. o expense. 23-8.6 Appeal Procedure--Administrative Hearin The owner ma appeal the nuisance -determirati to th Cit b filin an appeal within 15 calendar da of the date of ma iling .of..the notice to abate. The appeal shall identif the p ropert y and state the objections to der with all material facts in support thereof. 23-8.7 Service of Notice of Hearin A. In the event the o the.nui I sance determination lJhe C it y shall schedule an administrative hearin before a hearin ce offi r desi b the Cit B. Notice of. heari shall be served persona.11 b first c lass mail posta prepaid. The notice.. shall specif the time and .place when and where the desi hearin officer. will hear and .decide upon the ob ons raised b the owner. Such notice shall be served not less than five da exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, prior to the time set for the hearing. service shall be deemed complete at the time notice is personally served or deposited in the mail. 23 -8.8 Waiver of Dearing. Failure of the owner to appear at the hearing after notice has been served shall be deemed a waiver of the hearing and an admission by said owner of the nuisance charge. In the event of such failure to appear, the City p p y may order that the nuisance be abated immediately thereafter. 23 -8.9 Hearing on objections. The hearing officer shall hear and rule on objections to abatement of the nuisance. The owner may appear at the bearing by counsel. The formal rules of evidence shall not apply. All witnesses shall be sworn and .each party shall..have the right to cross examine adverse witnesses. The heari g may be continued from time to time. The ruling shall either allow or overrule the objections, or make such other determinations as are consistent with this chapter and shall be final. 23-8.10 Notice of Decision. The hearing officer shall notify the owner of his or her determination in writing, and may direct the owner to abate .the nuisance at his or her expense within a specified time period to the extent the nuisance has been found to exist. 23 -8.11 city to Perform Abatement After blearing Decision. If the nuisance is not abated within the .time specified in the notice of decision, the city shall have the power to abate such nuisance without further notice, including the power to condemn, destroy, or demolish an property y p p y constituting the nuisance if the nuisance cannot feasibly be abat+ d without destruction of such property. 23 -8.12 cost of Abatement; Recovery of costs. a. cost of Abatement. 1. if City work crews or city contractors perform the abatement, the Public Works Director shall .kee.p .an .account of. the costs and expenses of aoatin g such nuisance and shall render a statement of such.costs to the owner. The owner shall be individually liable to the. City for any and all .costs .and expenses to the City involved in abating t 2. Costs and expense s.as referred to in this section shall include, but are not limited to, any and.all direct costs.related to personnel salaries and .benefits operational overhead, rent, interest, fees for experts, consultants .or contractors legal costs or expenses including attorney's fees, claims against the.cit arising g as a consequence of the nuisance or violation, and procedures associated with collecting moneys due hereunder. b. Deport of costs Transmitted to council; blearing. 1. The Public Works Director shall present to the city Council for consideration a report of .costs for abating the nuisance. The Council shall fix a time, date and place for hearing the ere report, and an protests or objections p �p thereto. The City Clerk shall cause notice. of hearing to be served on the owner and on any mortgagee or beneficiary under an y deed of trust in the same manner as set forth in subsection 23- 8.7(t3�. Sucn notices shall be iven at least g ten (10) days prior to .the date .set for hearing aid .sh spec the day hour and place when the City Council will hear. and pass upon the report of the Public Works Director containing the proposed cha for abatement, and any objections or protests which may have been filed by any person interested .in or affected thereby. 2. The cost and expenses of abatement of an y action taken hereunder shall be assessed against the subject property upon which the buildin g or structure is located as a lien, special. assessment or made. a .personal obligation 0f the owner; except, that in the .event .the courts shall decide the action taken under this article was improper, no recovery of costs .shall be allo wed. C. Recovery of costs and Exper ses .of abatemer t Costs b y Special ecial Assessme 1. If the City Council orders .that the abatement costs shall be charged against the property, the City Manager, or his or her designee, shall prepare a Notice of Special assessment. 2. The City Manager, or his or. her designee, shall deliver. the .Notice of Special assessment to the. Cou nty Auditor who. shall lace it on the Court p y Assessment roll pursuant to..cal fornia Covernment Code section 3 8773.5. 8. The Notice of special Assessment shat! include a ce of tie Council's py confirmation of costs.and shall sur marize the abatement action. The City Manager may record :a copy. of this special Assessment notice to inform an y subsequent purchasers or owners ab out the abaternen action and costs. 4. The city Manager, or ns or ber.desi g nee, shall file a ritlldraal of this Notice with .the.C.ou.nty Recorder when either: (1): ow er pa sin fu ll the. y abatement costs; or. (2 County Auditor or Tax Collector posts a lien on the property pursuant to California Oovernment code section 38773.5. d. Collection of ass essment; Penalties and Foreclosure. pursuant to the provisions of California. overn ent code.sebtion:38778:5 the Count y .Tax Collector may collect the amount of. the assessment at the sane time and in the same manner as ordinary rr un cipal taxes and impose the same enalties and p. procedures, including the sale. of the property, in the case of delirquenc as y provided for ordinary municipal taxes. all laws applicable to the le, collection and enforcement of property taxes shall be applicable to the s p ebial assessment. Section 2. Severab ice. Should -any provision of this ordinance yp or i ts application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to an other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force a nd effect from and after the expiration of thirt (30) da from the date of its final passa Presidin Officer of the Cit Council Attest: Lara Weisi Cit Clerk Cit of Alameda 1, the undersi hereb certif that .t h fore Ordinance w as d u l y and re adopted and passed b the coun of the cit Alamedaln a re meetin assembled on the da of 1 2010 b y the fo Ilowin vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have here set m hand and affixed the official seal of said Cit this da of 2010. Lara Weisi Cit Clerk Cit of Alameda CITY of ALA ECG Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the city council Prom: Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager Date: October 19, 2010 Re: Adopt an ordinance Amending Municipal code section 30 -17 (Density Bonus regulations) of chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Provide Limits on concessions and /or Incentives for Density Bonus Projects on Sites with a residential General Plan or Zoning Designation jWMAMORM: I l 7 On September 21, 2010, the City council introduced amendments to the Density Bonus ordinance that are designed to limit concessions and /or incentives for certain projects in established residential neighborhoods. At the meeting, the city Council request ed a number of minor changes to the ordinance that would act to further protect established neighborhoods. Per the city council's direction, staff deleted the provisions that p ertain to reduced minimum setbacks and increased lot coverage. Staff also adjusted the parking provision regarding parking to more closely reflect state lair. DISCUSSION The requested changes will improve and clarify the process for density .bo.nus.proects in Alameda and minimize opportunities for adverse impacts in existing residential neighborhoods. 1 The proposed amendments are consistent with the General Plan. The amendments are consistent with General Plan policies regarding public health and safety of the Alameda's residential neighborhoods and promote a variety of housing opportunities for all income levels in the community. 2. The proposed amendments will benefit the general welfare of the. community. The proposed amendments provide more housing opportunities while at the same time providing protections for the unique character of Alameda's residential neighborhoods. 3. The proposal is equitable because the amendments balance the interests of the existing community with the needs for affordable housing. City Council Report Fie: Agenda item #4 -J Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FINANCIAL IMPACT October 19, 2010 Page 2of2 The funds for this p roject have been budgeted in the Community Development Fund in the Advanced Planning Program, Fund and Program Number 209 481006. The Community Development Department expects to recover expenditures incurred from applicants for the processing of density bonus applications. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed ordinance amends Section 30 -17 in Article I of Chapter XXX, Development Regulations of the Alameda Municipal code. It specifically modifies subsections 30-17.9 and 30-17. 10, and is consistent with other sections of the Alameda Municipal code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act "CEQA pursuant to 16060 (c )(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and the "common sense exemption under 15061(b )(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because the. City Council hereby determines and finds that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, rather these amendments are regulations intended to mitigate the potential for significant effects on the environment. RECOMMENDATION Adopt an ordinance amending the City of Alameda Municipal code to provide limits. on concessions and /or incentives for density bonus projects on sites with a residential general plan or zoning designation. Approved as to funds and account, Fred Marsh Controller CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series f AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SUBSECTIONS 30 -17.9 (REQUESTS. FOR INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS FOR SITES WITH A COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE ZONING DESIGNATION AND 30 -17.10 INCENTIVES OR CONCESSIONS DEFINED) OF SECTION 30 -17. (DENSITY BONUS ORDINANCE OF CHAPTER xx DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARTICLE 1. ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS THAT ALLOWS CAPS OR LIMITS ON CONCESSIONS AND INCENTIVES FOR DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS ON SITES WITH A RESIDENTIAL GENERAL PLAN OR ZONING DESIGNATION WHEREAS, in 1979 the State of California adopted legislation that provided incentives to encourage private developers to include "affordable units" in their market -rate residential projects; and WHEREAS, with certain exceptions, California Government Code Section 05915 requires that a City provide for a density bonus and other incentives or concessions if a developer, among other things, agrees to construct specified numbers of affordable housing units; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the City of Alameda General Plan, adopted in May 2003, includes an objective calling for the adoption of a density bonus ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City w..ishes to maintain an economically balanced community with housing available to households of all income. levels. and this Council seeks to provide incentives for the creation of affordable housing units; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted density bonus regulations on December 1, 2009; and WHEREAS, at the time the density bonus regulations were adopted the City Council expressed concern that without caps or limits on co.ncess.ions or incentives, density bonus projects occurring in residential neighborhoods would have the potential for significant adverse impacts on the quality of residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, In an effort to mitigate the potential for these significant adverse impacts to residential neighborhoods, the City Council directed that staff develop an amendment to the density bonus regulations that provides for caps or limits on concessions and incentives for density bonus projects on sites with a residential general plan and Zoning designation; and Final Passage of ordinance #4-J CC 19 -19 -19 WHEREAS, amendments to the density bonus regulations incorporating the changes identified above have been developed and a draft ordinance made available for public review; and WHEREAS, the Alameda Planning Board has held public hearings at which public comment was received and considered and has recommended adoption of the attached amendments to the density bonus ordinance to the city Council. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITE' OF ALAMEDA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1 ordinance Adoption. Subsections 30- -17.9, and 30 17.10 are amended, to read as follows: 30 -17.9 Requests for Incentives or Concessions a. when an Applicant proposes a Development Project for any C�nmr"prpinf pr specified housing unit type on a site 10.1i nn� cz i C1 inat m other than a senior citizen housing development or mobile home park pursuant to subsection 30- 17.7.4, the city shall provide the Applicant with incentives or concessions as defined by subsection 30- 17.10, subject to the caps or limits on concessions and incentives identified in subsecti 30 17.10b for sites with a residential zoninq or qeneral plan desig nation. The Applicant must submit a Density Bonus Application, as described in. subsection 30- 17.14, identifying the specific incentives or concessions that the Applicant requests. The City shall grant the concession or incentive requested by the Applicant unless the City makes any of the following written findings, based upon substantial evidence: 1. The concession or incentive is not required to provide for Affordable Housing costs as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code or for Affordable Rents for the targeted units; 2. The concession or incentive would have a specific adverse impact as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or designated a City of Alameda Historical Monument or included in the City of Alameda's Historical Building Study List and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to Low- and Moderate Income households; 2 3. The request is to modify the minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code. 4. The request is for direct financial incentives for the Development, including the provision of publicly owned land or the waiver of fees or dedication requirements. 5. The concession or incentive would be contrary to State or federal law. 30-17.10 incentives or Concessions Definer Density Bonus projects should complement existing residential neighborhoods and reflect or improve their characteristics. Well designed Density Bonus projects are critical fora community seeking to provide a wide range of housing opportunities. A project that fits well, within its physical context will not cause undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties. a. New construction on sites with a residential general plan or zoning designation shall complement the development pattern of the area and respect the rhythm of height, massing, and setbacks of the neighborhood in which it is located. To the extent permitted by law, caps or limits on incentives or concessions can be implemented in order to promote compatibilit between new and existing development and compel consistency with any design guideline or standard adopted b the City of Alameda. For the purposes of this section, concession or incentive means: b. a—. A reduction in site Development Standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards approved by the California Building standards Commission as provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 19901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety code, resulting in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. "concession or incentive" may include but is not limited to any of the following: 1. Reduced minimum lot sizes and /or dimensions, except that projects on sites with a residential general plan or zoning designation that requires a 5,000 square foot lot with a 50 foot width shall have a lot area of no less than 3,000 square feet and a lot width of no less than 30' 3 r� rr w rr w M W w r INAI Ago i► i A ■r wr r� w ar ■r wr r r r 3. Reduced on -site open -space requirements, except that projects on sites with a residential general plan or zoning desig shall have at least 100 square feet of open space per unit. i ib s isial Elbil*= i i i i III: Ift Aft a i rrt r r�r �wi�� +in���w�� i rr r r rrr i 1w. .It 5. Increased floor area ratio. 6. Reduced parking requirements, but not less than one and a half standard parking spaces per unit on sites with a residential qeneral lan or zoning designation. 7. Modification of the zoning code to permit nixed use development in conjunction with the Development if non residential uses will reduce the development cost of the residential portion of the Development and if the non- residential uses are compatible with the Development and with existing or planned development in the area as set forth in the Alameda General Plan. C. For large Development Projects, defined as projects on sites with at least one acre of land area, an Applicant may be granted exceptions to the caps and limits set forth in subsection 30- 17.10b through the Density Bonus Application process if it can be shown such exceptions are needed to allow more flexibility that promotes superior site design and architectural excellence. d. la Nothing in this section shah be construed to require the provision of direct financial incentives for a Development, including the provision of publicly owned land by the city or other waiver of fees or dedication requirements. Moreover, concessins or incentives shall not include any exceptions, waivers or departures from health and safety standards of building and fire codes or from solid waste and recycling standards established by the State of California and the City of Alameda. Section 2. Severability clause. It is the declared intent of the city council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provision of this ordinance. Section 3. All former ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or. inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance hereby adopted, to the extent of such conflict only, are hereby repealed. Section 4. This ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions, requirements, orders, and natters 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. Section 5. CEQA. This ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act "CEQA pursuant to 15060 (c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and the "common sense" exemption under 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because the City Council hereby determines and finds that there is no possibility that the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, rather these amendments are regulations intended to mitigate the potential for significant effects on the environment. A Negative Declaration was adopted for the Density Bonus regulations this ordinance amends. Presiding officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of 2010 by the following vote to merit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of 201 -g. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 12773 N.S. TO REZONE PARCELS LOCATED AT 2229 THROUGH 2235 CLEMENT AVENUE, APNS 071-0289-05 AND 071-0290-01 FROM M-2 E I GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (MANUFACTURING DISTRICT AND R- 21PD (TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT) TO OPEN SPACE (0) AND R-21PD TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT BE IT ORDAINED b the Cit Council of the Cit of Alameda that: Section 1: Section 11-116 of Ordinance No. 1277 N.S. is hereb amended b reclassif all the real propert situated within the Cit of Alameda, Count of Alameda, State of California, consistin of 9.48 acres and located at 2229 t 2235 Clement Avenue, APN# 071-0289-05 AND 071- 0290 -01, as shown on the attached Exhibit A. Section 2: The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to as Rezonin Amendment No. 212 to Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. Section 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirt 30 da from the date of its final passa Attest: Presidin Officer of the Cit Council Lara Weisi Cit Clerk Cit of Alameda Final Passa of Ordinance #4.K CC 10-19-10 Exhibit A. 9 q Zoning 1, the undersigned, hereby Certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of 2010, by the following vote to wit: AWES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of 2O 1 O. 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: October 19, 2010 Re: Receive a Report on .the Alameda Fire Department's Emergency Medical Services in Response to Questions from the City council Meeting of September 21, 2010 BACKGROUND At the September 21, 2010 city Council meeting,. Councilrnember Gilmore posed several questions to the. Interim City Manager and the.. Acting Fire chief regarding various aspects of the Advanced Life Support. .(ALS) Program in the Alameda. Fire Department. The purpose of this report is to. respond. to Councilnmember. Gilmore's questions. What is the status of response time reporting? Alex Briscoe, Director of the Alarrieda:C.ounty Health Care Services A gen.cy stated that as of Monday, September 20, 2010, one response time report from. the second quarter, due August 1, 2010, was not submitted. Wh Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Authority (EMS.A) representatives responsible for data collection :.were contacted by Fire Department. staff,...EMSA staff confirmed the report had been submitted the week of July. 19 2010.. To ensure. here is no.. confusion about the. timely receipt of required reports in the future, Fire Departmentstaff will .work closely`with one point of contact at the E MSA to ensure all city data is received .and acknowledged in a timely manner. What is the current collection rate? The collection rate is 86% for transport and 88% for non- transport .Emergen.cy Medical Services (EMS) calls.... This percentage is a reflection of net reve.n.ue collected. after accounting for accepted write -offs such as Medicare. and Med.i -Cal. The total-amount billed cannot be collected from Medi -Cal. o.r Medicare patients. The City accepts. an assigned payment amount in order to. bill these two sources. What percentage of calls are ALS? For the period of July 2009. through June 2010, there were 4,254 EMS. calls; 29% or 1,190 of these calls were. ALS calls. The Medical Priority Dispatch Systems (MPDS) classifies ALS calls as either Echo, Delta or Charlie. See chart below for more details. City Council CM Communications Agenda Item ##5-A Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council October 19, 2010 .Page 2of3 Echo lion- breathing or non effective breathing Delta chest pain non alert; abdfl'inal:pain- non alert Charlie Diabetic seizure, headache w ith ch ange. in behavior Bravo Fall with unknown status, .heat exposure with fl skin Alpha sunburn, non recent back pain During this period 2,123 .E IS. calls d.id not have an .MPDS code since the dispatcher did not have direct contact with the patient. How would staffing char e if you did not provide ALS transport services? Staffing would be reduced by .19 positions: 18 FirefightersErnergency Medical Technician I or Paramedics) and one EMITS Education Coordinator. This number is based on six firefighter /EMT- Paramedics per shift, staffing three arribulances. In addition, the EIS. Education Coordinator focuses her /his tune an certification and continuing education for. both Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) and Paramedics. To ensure the remaining EIVITs have continued support, the EMS Education Coordinator functions could be accomplished by a part -time contractor. What would the cost be fora private ambulance company to services? Should the City of Alameda no longer. provide ALS ambulance service, the EMSA is responsible for. contracting the ese services. Therefore, the EMSA must respond to this question. What are the ambulance response time standards set by the EMSA? The ambulance must arrive in the following time frames 90% of the time: Alameda Fire. Department 1 0:00 rains. American Medical Response 10:30 m ins. Effective November 1, 2011, Paramedics Plus, under contract with the. EMSA, will comply with the following standards based on the ll PDS: Echo 08:30 m ins. Delta 10:30. tin ins. Charlie .15:00 mins. Bravo 15:00.mins. Alpha 30..00 ruins What is the percentage of response time compliance? For the period. of. June..2009 through July 20'10, an Alameda Fire Department ALS ambulance arrived within 10. minutes 96% of the time. For the same period a First Responder ALS unit, which is a Paramedic staffed engine or truck company, arrived within 8 minutes 97% of the time. Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council RECOMMENDATION October 19, 2010 Pa 3 of 3 Receive a report on the Alameda Fire Department's Emer Medical Services in response to q uestions from the Cit Council at the Cit Council meetin of September 21, 2010 CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: October 19, 2010 Re: Receive a Report on Paramedics Plus Value.Adde.d Equipment and services for Alameda County Advanced Life Support First Res onders BACKGROUND At its September 21, 2010 meeting, the City Council.. requested a list .of value .added equipment and services .that Paramedics Plus is .required by contract to provide to all Advanced Life support (ALS) first responder agencies that are. in contract with the Alameda County Local Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Agency. DISCUSSION Below is the quantity and value of the equipment the Alameda. Fire Department will receive from Paramedics Plus should it contract with the County EMS Agency: 4 Life Pak 15 -12 Lead Defibrillators $100,000 4 Lucas CPR Devices 60,000 4 Panasonic Tablet PC's 16 9 Zoll ePCR software Licenses with IT Support 80,000 Includes all Maintenance and support Costs Total: 250,000 Paramedics Plus is offering an EMS resupply service, and supplies can be purchased from them at their cost They. will manage the City's inventory and provide resupply services at each fire station for the duration of their contract .wit.h Alameda County EMS.. Attached is Exhibit M of the Paramedics Plus EMS Transport Provider Agreement that provides additional detail on other services Paramedics Plus will be providing. al k Ift There is no financial impact from receiving this report. City Council CM Communications Agenda Item #5 -I3 10 -19 -10 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council October .19, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Receive a report on Paramedics Plus value added equipment and services for Alameda County ALS first responders. Respectfully submitted, Michael Fisher Acting Fire Chief Exhibit: 1. Exhibit M of the Paramedics Plus EMS Transport Provider Agreement EMS Ambulance Transport Provider Agreement EXHI BIT FIRST RES P R PPOR In addition to m r pr fir first responder support Contractor shall pro s� `ect t mu ua agrees t i F irst owin e (Or er the f oil s end a arena operating with ontys Responder Aaene es) for each First e p �p including Contracting Cities i Zq as well as f Co ntractor's Cllr i al Fie d. Super�ri er Opera tional d 0 Vehicles. and Opera p Hers aid re or the S'C'R sy for each First 1.1 Rugged mobile persnal eo p i� dates when r for rnain�tenance of Responder unit apparatus, i�cl g cornpatibiolity thrt u the �M system. 1.2 IT sup�rt for first Responder computers: n #1 above. s i�ci� a z i der 'el it r) for Ninety .L FE AK 15 Mon ar�+d l r flat r g trasMssior� bf 12 -lea .ECG fir each r: t, as well as a S�:�� dab. plan that can a.ccor modate and s�.Pp fi�tS process tr tr s� �e� r erve additional m oniter -�.e bril at.�rs to be de t it ut r as n e d at Contractor b e discretion so ressi� System LUGS devices. Cor tra ct k Ninet 3 l� Control Chest Co p shall hold .n. rese e add itional d evice to be distributed AS needed at 10 C traitor s discretion, contractor shall r i n �f and e res respons for maintenance ofthe above listed equipment. ducation far a 1 lam ella Count First C ntra ter sea l also pro°�ide cent n rig Res onse agencies regar in cl u sion in the E. Reegr izirg the ireret�Its p in sending Frstspensegee erscnel ttraetc's location, contix��rdatt� a �eles h C nt 'aetgrS. four ch.. Shall be made available at Fi rst Res ponse g l� a collaboration nth First Responder education coordinators. For new fire emp idi n on Ar �u antes and o rk" ng with Agencies shall also include field r�te�rnships, r g i :f Contractors. fi training dffierse Tim ti a sew traing P -ap F. -2.4 of 26 City Council Exhibit to CM Communications Agenda Item #5 -E3 10- 19 -'10 CITY ®F ,AL.AM E DA Memorandum To: Prom: Date: Re: The purpose information on District. Back Honorable Mayor and Members of the city Council Ann Marie Gallant Interim city Manager October 19, 2010 Eme[gency Medical service District Annexation of this memorandum is to respond to the city council's request for the process for annexation to the county's Emergency Medical service CSA EM- 1983 -1, generally referred to as the county's "Emergency Medical services District," was formed in 1933 under the county service Area Law.' The CSA is, in many respects, a special district that is legally distinct from the County. The county Board of p p g supervisors serves as the "governing authority" of the CSA; however the County's relationship to the CSA is similar to the city's relationship to its Community Improvement commission. The ur ose of the CSA is to fund emergency medical services. The majority of the p p CSA's budget funds services provided by the County and by other public agencies, including p hos ital -based trauma services, emergency dispatch services, and first responder services. since 1997, the CSA's largest source of funds has .be.en a special tax collected annually on the property tax roll. Although this tax is often referred to as an "assessment', it was approved by the CSA's voters through the passage of a tax me asure Measure C b a two thirds vote. consequently, it is both the city's legal and y administrative opinion that this special tax is subject to the state Constitution's p rovisions ap to special taxes, not those applicable to benefit assessments. The CSA's other major source of funds is payment from the Paramedic Plus ambulance service under an "Ambulance Service Provider Agreement." At resent, the CSA includes all incorporated and unincorporated territory in Alameda p count y other than the territory of the city of Alameda. The CSA includes incorporated territory because each of the cities in the county (aside from the city of Alameda) Gov't Code Sec. 25210 et seq. 2 Gov't Code Sec. 56036. City Council cm communications Agenda Item #5 -C Honorable Mayor and October 19, 2010 Members of the city Council Page 2 of 5 consented to inclusion. Incorporated territory cannot be added to a CSA without such consent. Annexing to the CSA would provide the county, via the CSA, with a vehicle for levying the special tax within the City. The county has indicated that it can, upon annexation, apply the tax without the submission of a ballot measure. Alternatively, the annexation may be conditioned on the approval of the special tax by a two thirds vote of the voters within the annexed area (i.e. the city's electorate). PrncPdurP. Annexation to the CSA is governed by the Cortese -Knox- Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. Annexation is a multi -step process, largely controlled by the Alameda county Local Agency Formation Commission "LAFCO At best, this process will require six months, and possibly longer should more than 25% of the Alameda electorate protest to the notice to annex into this district. Step 1. Application To initiate annexation proceedings, the LAFCO must approve a "Resolution of Application" and the city council must approve a resolution consenting to the annexation. The Resolution of Application must contain information required by statute regarding the proposed annexation and must include a "plan for providing services" to the annexed territory (i.e. the city). The Resolution of Application includes proposed "terms and. conditions" for the annexation. By statute, terms and conditions can include: "the approval by the voters of general or special taxes" and /or "the exten or continuation of any previously authorized ...tax by the local agency... in the affected territory. The application must then be submitted to the LAFCO Executive officer, along with a filing fee. Step 2. certificate of Filing Unless the County gave notice to interested and affected agencies (likely including the Alameda Hospital District) at least 21 days prior to adopting the Resolution of Gov't Code Sec. 25210.7(c). 4 Gov't Code Sec. 57330 provides that "Any territory annexed to a district shall be subject to the levying or fixing and collection of any previously authorized taxes, benefit assessments, fees, or charges of the district." 5 Gov't Code 56886(s). A two thirds vote is required, rather than a majority, by Cal.Const. Art. XlllC, Sec. z(d). 6 Gov't Code Sec. 56000 et seq. This Act applies by virtue of Gov't Code Sec. 25210.7(e). 'Gov't Code Secs. 56654 and 25210.7(c). Gov't Code Secs. 56654(d), 56653, 56700. 9 Gov't Code Sec. 56700(a)(4). 10 Gov't Code Secs. 56886(s) and 56886(t). Honorable Mayor and October 19, 2010 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 5 Application, the Executive officer, upon receipt of the application, must notice interested agencies that the application has been submitted." The Executive officer then has 30 days to determine if the application is complete, and, if so, must issue a Certificate of Filing. 12 The Executive officer cannot issue a Certificate of Filing sooner than 20 days after mailing notice to interested agencies. 13 Once the Certificate of Filing is issued, a LAFCO hearing must be scheduled for a date within 90 days. 14 Step 3. Notice of Hearing The Executive officer then gives published, posted and mailed notice of the hearing. Mailed notice must be sent to: (a) Each affected local agency; {b} Each person who has filed a written request for special notice with the Executive officer; (c) Each city within three miles of the exterior boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed, detached, or formed into a new district; (d) All landowners within the City; (e) All registered voters within the City. Publication, posting and mailing must occur at least 21 days prior to the hearing. 16 The statutes do not specify exactly what information LAFCO must include in their notices. Based on a quick survey of recent on -line notices, the Alameda County LAFCO's practice appears to include a one or two sentence explanation of the proposal, along with information about the date, time and location of the LAFCO hearing. Step 4. Hearing Resolution of Determination At least five days prior to the hearin y the Executive officer must issue a report with a recommendations on the application. 7 Not more than 35 days after the conclusion of the hearing, LAFCO must adopt a "resolution making determinations approving or disapproving the [annexation] proposal, with or without conditions. 08 Gov't Code Sec. 56658(b)(1). Gov't Code Secs. 56658(d) and 56658(g). 13 Gov't Code Sec. 56658(e). 14 Gov't Code Sec. 56658(i). 15 Gov't Code Sec. 56661. 16 Gov't Code Sec. 56150 et Seq. 17 Gov't Code Sec. 56665. 18 Gov't Code Sec. 56850. Honorable Mayor and October 19, 2010 Members of the city council Page 4 of 5 Step 5. Notice of Protest hearing Within 35 days following the adoption of the resolution raking determinations, the Executive officer of the commission must set a date and time for a protest hearing. The date of the protest must not be less than 21 days, or more than 60 days, after the date the notice is given. Notice must be mailed, published and posted in the same manner discussed in Step 3. This notice must include all of the following: (a) "A statement of the distinctive short form designation assigned by the commission to the proposal." (b) "A statement of the manner in which, and by whom, proceedings were initiated." (c) "A description of the exterior boundaries of the subject territory." (d) "A description of the particular change or changes of organization proposed..., and any terms and conditions to be applicable. The description may include a reference to the commission's resolution making determinations for a full and complete description of the change of organization or reorganization, and the terms and conditions." (e) "A statement of the reason or reasons for the change of organization or reorganization as set forth in the proposal submitted to the commission." {f} "A statement of the time, date, and place of the protest hearing on the proposed change of organization or reorganization." (g) "A statement that any owner of land within the territory, or any registered voter residing within the territory, may file a written protest against the proposal with the executive officer of the commission at any time prior to the conclusion of the hearing by the commission on the proposal. Step 6. Protest hearing At the noticed time and place, LAFCO must hold a protest hearing and determine the "value" of any written protests against the annexation. Within thirty days of the hearing, LAFCO must act on the proposed annexation. It may order the annexation without an election if "written protests have been filed and not withdrawn by less than 25 percent of the registered voters [and] less than 25 percent of the number of owners of land owning less than 25 percent of the assessed value of land within the affected territory. ,23 Otherwise, the annexation must be either submitted to the voters or the proceedings must be terminated. 19 Gov't Code Sec. 57002(x). zo Ibid. "Gov't Code Sec. 57026. 22 Gov't Code Sec. 57052. 23 Gov't Code Sec. Honorable Ma and Members of the Cit Council RECOMMENDATION October 19, 2010 Pa 5 of 5 Receive and file this information, provided to the Cit Council as re Respectfull submitted, Ann M r e Gallant Interim it Mana AMG.-cb Exhibits: 1 Flowchart on the Annexation Process into a District Considered b LAFCO to be Inhabited, Defined as >12 Re Voters Livin in the Proposed Annexation Area. 2. General Proposal Polices from Alameda LAFCO's Guidelines, Polices Procedures Manual. 3. Special District Annexation Polices and Procedures Information from Alameda LAFCO's Guidelines, Polices Procedures Manual. 4. Proposal Processin Procedures. 5. Public Notice Published with Alameda LAFCO for Consideration of the Annexation of the Cities of Fremont and Emer into the Vector Control CSA. 6. Public Notice Published for the Protest Hearin Related to Vector Control Annexation. 7. Map and Le Description Used for the Vector Control Annexation. r Initiation (GC §55650, §58653 §56654, §56864) tj !S I General Policies 1.1. All proposals for consideration by the Commission are to be submitted on LAFCo application forms (See Section Appendix B, Application Forms)( §56652). 1.2. Applications shall be processed in an efficient and orderly manner that reduces hardship upon the applicant while ensuring compliance with the CKH Act.. To that end, the applicant or applicant's representative may be required to attend a pre application meeting to receive direction and advice regarding the processing needs and requirements of the specific action to be considered. 1.3. Applicants shall provide information adequate to permit LAFCo to fully consider all factors required by law including, but not limited to, mandated factors to be considered §56668, §56668.3, §56720, §56749, §56750, §56856, §56375, §56375.3, §56375.5). 1.4. No application shall be deemed filed until certified resolutions providing for an agreement for redistribution of property tax, when applicable, are received. Once property tax exchange negotiations have been initiated by transmittal of the schedules prepared by the County's Auditor /Controller, six months will be allowed for completion of negotiations (Revenue and Taxation Code §99(b)(6), §56810 1.5. No application will be deemed filed for processing purposes until the Executive Officer makes an environmental determination .pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and environmental documentation has been completed that adequately addresses the requirements of CEQA and Alameda LAFCo's CEQA procedures (see section 2). 1.6. No application will be deemed f led for processing purposes until reaps and geographic descriptions that meet the criteria set forth by the State Board of Equalization and by the Alameda county Surveyor are received. 1.7. No application will be deemed filed until .a Plan for Providing Municipal Services is received and accepted as complete by the Executive Officer. All service providers must document their ability to provide service to proposed service_ areas. An evaluation of a local agency's plan of service is necessary for proper consideration of any change of organization or reorganization §56375) that expands or diminishes a service provider's responsibilities. The intent of plans of service evaluations is to ensure that the capacity, cost and adequacy of services within the district or city are not adversely impacted by the proposed LAFCo action §56668, §56653). 1 .8. LAFCo encourages consolidated applications where related changes of organizations. are expected for adjacent territories. Petitioners are. strongly encouraged to include that territory and combine applications where possible. Volume 1, Part Ill. GENERAL PROPOSAL POLICIES a. If applicants choose to proceed with separate proposals, the applicant will provide a neap, which indicates the location, size and boundaries of adjacent applications. b. LAFCo shall consider related applications at the same hearing where feasible, and may modify boundaries, including the addition of adjacent parcels, to encourage the orderly formation and development of local agencies based upon local conditions and circumstances §56001, §56300, §56301). 1.9. No application to annex to a special district or city shall be deemed complete until the annexing special district or city provides a written statement that (1).the annexing agency will, or will not, be capable of providing adequate services when such services are projected to be needed within the area being annexed; and (2) the provision of adequate services when such services are needed within the area being annexed will, or will not, not result in a significant negative fiscal, service level or other impact (cost and adequacy of service) in areas within the special district or city then receiving such services §56668). 1.10. LAFCo actions shall be consistent with adopted procedures §56375 1.11. LAFCo shall request that Alameda County send copies of any proposals for County approval of extensions of service to unincorporated areas to the Executive Officer. LAFCo shall review such proposals and provide comments to the County where appropriate §56434). 1.12. LAFCo shall request that Alameda. County send copies of any proposed development project, which may need LAFCo approval or significantly affect regional growth issues or service provision to the Executive Officer. LAFCo shall review such proposals and provide comments to the County where appropriate. 1.13. LAFCo shall favor service provision by the entity capable of providing the highest quality services in the most cost efficient and inclusive manner as defined in the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act §56001). 1.14. If anew single purpose agency is proposed. and may be needed, LAFCo shall. consider reorganization with other single purpose agencies that provide related services or make a determination that no such agencies are available §56301). 1.15. LAFCo shall not approve proposals involving agencies with SOIs that are more than five years old until a service review has been conducted unless the proposals impacts are insignificant as determined by the LAFCo. 1.16. LAFCo actions shall seek to further service review recommendations including initiation of recommended government structure changes. M Volume 1, Part Ill. GENERAL PROPOSAL POLICIES 1.17. LAFCo shall recognize the programs and studies of regional agencies when evaluating proposals and interpreting LAFCo policies. The objectives are to achieve consistency, to the extent appropriate and feasible, between LAFCo actions and analyses and regional agencies' planning strategies, growth forecasts, and study recommendations. 1.18. LAFCo shall view unfavorably any proposals that are inconsistent with General, Community or Specific or other adopted plans for the project area. 1.19. LAFCo shall approve, or conditionally approve, a reorganization initiated by substantially similar resolutions of agencies proposing that any part of the districts be reorganized into a single local agency. If the reorganization is approved, LAFCo may adopt terms and conditions for approval. However, LAFCo will not make material changes without notifying the affected districts. LAFCO may not add or delete districts without the applicants' approvals §56853). 1.20. The Commission shall initiate and make studies of existing governmental_ agencies as needed §56378) to assist the logical and reasonable development of an area and an agency's ability to provide for an area's present and future needs §56301). In conducting special studies, the Commission may ask for information, from cities, counties, districts including school districts, community college districts, regional agencies, and state agencies and departments and such agencies shall furnish information to LAFCo. n (§56378).. Private service providers will be encouraged to do so. The Commission may apply for or accept grants or funding when offered to cover the reasonable costs of any study §56378). 2. CEQA Compliance' As a public agency, Alameda LAFCo roust comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires public agencies to assess .and disclose potential negative consequences of their actions. LAFCo .is responsible for complying with CEQA when it considers an action that constitutes a project as defined by CEQA. These projects typically involve jurisdictional changes, such as district and city annexations, incorporations, and the adoption of, .or amendments to, Sols. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, Alameda LAFCo .has adopted detailed .0 QA.Procedures, which are published separately. copies may be obtained at the. LAFCo. office. 2.1. LAFCo shall comply with the requirements of Public Resources Code (PRC.) Code Sections 20000 et sequitur, the .California Environmental Quality Act (§56658).. No application shall be deemed filed for processing purposes until CEQA documentation has been completed which adequately addresses the requirements of CEQA and Alameda LAFCo's CEQA procedures. I A Handbook with CEQA basics as they apply to LAFCo can be obtained at the LAFCo office. LAFCo specific CEQA Procedures have also been published and are available for purchase or review. 15 Volume 1, Part lll. GENERAL PROPOSAL POLICIES 2.2. LAFCo shall adopt its own policies and procedures for processing and administering CEQA (PRC. §21082, §15022). LAFCo intends through the appropriate use of such procedures to assist with the provision and maintenance of a high quality environment in Alameda (PRC §21000, §21001), and ensure ongoing CEQA compliance by initiating revisions to reflect amendments to CEQA within 120 days of the effective date of new legislation (PRC §15022 (c)). 2.3. The Executive officer shall serve as the Environmental coordinator and have the authority to prepare or cause to be prepared the appropriate environmental documentation. The Environmental Coordinator shall be responsible for making an environmental determination pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. 2.4. LAFCo shall be guided by state policy when considering projects. Those policies that should be furthered within the confines of LAFCo' specific mission and as stated in PRC §21001 of the Government Code are: Develop and maintain a high quality environment now and in the future, and take all actions necessary to protect, rehabilitate, and enhance the .environmental quality of the state; Take all actions necessary to provide the people of California with clean air and grater, enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic, and historic environmental qualities, and freedom from excessive noise; Prevent the elimination. of fish and wildlife species. due to human activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self. perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and wildlife communities and examples of major periods of California. history; Ensure that the long term protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment, shall be the .guiding criterion when making decisions whether to approve or disapprove a proposed project; Create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the social and economic requirerr e.nts of existing and future generations; Develop standards and procedures necessary to protect environmental quality; and Consider qualitative factors as well .as economic and technical factors, long term benefits and .costs, short terra benefits and costs and less harmful alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment. we i 2.5. LAFCo shall implement CEQA effectively and efficiently, maximizing public participation and disclosures using the following strategies (PRC §21003): Meet with applicants early in the process to facilitate processing and encourage proposa...o anges before submittal hat.. rnay..e.lirnin ate o.r..avo.id potential environmental damage; Integrate environmental review and other processes to the maximum extent feasible so that such processes run concurrently; Prepare documents that are organized, readable and concise; omit unnecessary information and only consider feasible mitigation measures and project alternatives, Provide new technical data gathered in the CEQA process to local, state and federal agency with pertinent data bases; Coordinate with other agencies possessing discretionary authority over any portion of a proposed project to conserve resources with the objective of applying savings toward any project related costs. 2.6. LAFCo shall not act upon any change of organization or reorganization until environmental documentation has been approved that adequately addresses all potential areas of environmental concern (CEQA §21000 et sequitur). 2.7. Applications for city annexations shall not be deemed filed until LAFCo receives: (1) verification of an approved prezone from the annexing city (§563.7-5); and (2) verification of a completed CEQA (and NEPA if applicable) process in which LAFCo assumed the Responsible Agency role (PRC §15042, §15050, §15051 §15096 2.8. Criteria for determining the Lead Agency role are contained in PRC §15051. LAFCo will typically act as Lead Agency in reviewing: Changes of organization or reorganizations initiated by LAFCo pursuant to §56375 of the .CKH Act; Spheres of Influence Plans and Amendments; Incorporations; Consolidations, Detachments, Dissolutions and District Formations; Service Reviews Annexations which are not a part of a larger project for which a city or county acted as Lead Agency, or for which LAFCo is the first.to. act; and When the Lead Agency is unable to undertake, or has failed to undertake, required CEQA responsibilities pursuant to PRC §15052. M lo LAFCo shall assume the Responsible Agency role for annexations that include a prezone unless the Lead Agency did not consult with LAFCo pursuant to PRC §15051 (c) and PRC §15052 (a)(3), and the environmental document failed to describe, or adequately disclose, the impacts of LAFCo's actions. 2.9. Because LAFCo projects in Alameda County are generally initiated by a land use authority with annexations required as conditions of land use approvals, or processed with prezones, LAFCo is expected to assume the Responsible Agency role for most annexation proposals. In cases where LAFCo and another public agency qualify for Lead Agency status, the agency with the greatest responsibility for carrying out the project should assume the Lead Agency role. 2.10. LAFCo shall assume a Lead Agency role for a project on which it previously was a Responsible Agency if the Lead Agency failed to conduct an environmental review, a previously prepared environmental review is outdated or substantive new technical data or new information is available, or the Lead Agency failed to consult with LAFCo when it prepared its review (PRC §15052). 2.11. When acting as Responsible Agency, LAFCo's Environmental Coordinator shall encourage the Lead Agency to consult with LAFCo early in the environmental review process in order to facilitate and coordinate the evaluation of impacts related to future LAFCo actions. LAFCo will review and respond to Notices of Preparation as appropriate. LAFCo shall respond to requests for consultations and other reasonable information requests as soon as feasible (PRC.§l 5103 §15082 (b), §15096 (b)). 2.12. LAFCo will comment, consistent with its legislated mandate and adopted mission, upon Notices of Preparation for Environmental Impact Reports for projects that may cause the conversion of important prime agricultural or open space and resource lands, not scheduled for development within five years of project approval, to urban uses (PRC §58300, §58301). 2.13. When determining the significance of a potential environmental impact, LAFCo shall consult with Responsible and .Trustee Agencies and may consult with any agencies that might .provide guidance in determining the extent a.nd nature of impacts (PRC §1 5082, Where feasible, LAFCo. shall use. thresholds of significance established by the state, Alameda Count, the local air quality manageme..nt district, Association .e f Bay Area Governments, County Agricultural Co missioner, or other local agency .possessing the technical expertise and statutory authority to .determine levels of significance. 2.14. When evaluating environmental impacts discovered during the Initial Study process, LAFCo will identify such impacts as potentially significant and adverse if: Buildout of the proposed project may cause service levels to decline. below established standards, costs of service provision to rise substantially to the M i Volume I, Part [la. GENERAL PROPOSAL POLICIES detriment of service levels, or cause those currently receiving service to receive reduced or inadequate services when such change may cause adverse health and safety or other physical impacts, Buildout of the proposed project may cause the infrastructure capacity of a service provider to exceed planned and safe limits when such change may cause adverse health and safety or other physical impacts; The proposed project includes or plans for Infrastructure capacity, especially grater and surer lines, that exceed the needs of the proposed project and may be used to serve areas not planned for development, or subject to previous and adequate CEQA review, especially those containing prime agricultural land, mineral, sensitive plant and wildlife or other important natural resources; The proposed plan could cause health and safety or other physical impacts because a service provider is incapable of providing service, the proposal is illogical, or elements needed to provide service (rater supply, treatment facilities, equipment, energy) are not available, or stressed beyond capacity. The proposed project may result in substantial loss of prime agricultural and open space land as defined in Part VI, or other important open space. or resource land as identified in local, regional, state or federal inventories, plans or programs; The proposed project may cause premature, ill planned, illogical, or inefficient conversion of prime agricultural, open space, mineral resource or other important resource areas not planned for development in the next five years especially when such land is not located within the SO[ of a proposed service provider and there is alternative sufficient vacant land available for development, The proposed project is substantially inconsistent with applicable SOI Plans, including any service plan or service review recommendations, phased land use plans of any city or county, or resource conservation plans of the state .or federal government providing that: a. In the case of public agency land use or resource plans, the affected agency provides specific information regarding the nature and substance of the project's potential impacts upon its plans or programs, b. In the case of SOI plans and service reviews, the Environmental Coordinator reviews the appropriate plans and determines whether the level of significance warrants additional review', The proposed project may induce substantial growth on important agricultural and open space lands because it would im a. Permit the extension of, or require, infrastructure such as flood control levees or water diversions, electrical, water or sewer lines, especially trunk lines, roadways or other public facilities that would permit new development in a substantial area currently constrained from development; b. Encourage or foster development by permitting uses that adversely impact adjacent agricultural operations, significantly increase property values of adjacent or proximate resource land, or remove natural or man made buffers between urban and agricultural, reining or other conservation uses. c. Be adversely and substantially inconsistent with the agricultural, open space, resource conservation or preservation, growth management, trip reduction, air quality improvement or other plans, policies or Ordinances of the General, Community, Specific or other Plan of the land use jurisdiction responsible for the project site or vicinity. d. The proposed project, when considered in conjunction with other recent, present and reasonably foreseeable projects, may cause significant adverse cumulative impacts; e. The project would result in substantial noncontiguous urban development which, in turn, results in adverse physical impacts; f. There is no need for service and the proposed project adversely affects important public resources or the public health and safety; Any other impacts identified when completing the Initial Study checklist adopted as Exhibit A of LAFCo's CEQA procedures. 2.15. LAFCo shall not charge public agencies for reproducing a copy of an environmental document if they have jurisdiction by law with respect. to .the project, or individuals or organizations possess special expertise and the Environmental Coordinator desires their comments on an environmental analysis. 2.16. Consultants may prepare Initial Studies only if hired and supervised directly by LAFCo. In the event that a consultant, acting on behalf of LAFCo, is. unable to produce an adequate environmental document, the Environmental .Coordinator shall assume .control of document preparation to ensure that CEQA issues are adequately addressed and processing timelines met (PRC §21 082.1). If consultants are used to prepare an EIR, the Environmental Coordinator shall ensure that: Environmental documentation is consistent with a phased plan developed by the Environmental Coordinator and within the timelines established by CEQA; W Volume 1, Part Ill. GENERAL PROPOSAL POLICIES Contains required environmental analysis and disclosures of issues identified in the Initial Study; e Reflects the independent judgment of the Lead Agency; and Is adequate and complete as required by CEQA (PRC §21082.1). 2.17. LAFCo may assume the Lead Agency role at the request of another public agency that provides services within Alameda County for the purpose of providing environmental review for projects initiated by those governmental agencies if the Lead Agency cannot or does not desire to assume the Lead Agency role. A written agreement will be required should LAFCo agree to assume such role. 2.18. LAFCo may use its authority, pursuant to §56375, §56375.1, §56375.5, §56376, §56377, §56886, §56886.3, §56886.5, §56887.5, §56889, §56890, and §57302, and /or Chapter 5 of the CKH Act, to make a project self mitigating (PRC §15040 2.19. Consistent with PRC §21002 of CEQA, it shall be the policy of Alameda LAFCo that no projects should be approved as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects. 2.20. LAFCo shall conduct a hearing on a Negative Declaration (ND) and Draft EIR. 2.21. A Notice of Intent to adopt or consider a ND or Mitigated ND shall be provided to the public not less than twenty (20) days in advance of the hearing. 3. Boundary Lines 3.1. LAFCo discourages boundaries that are inconsistent with other agency boundaries, overlap, or possess other characteristics that cause higher service costs to the taxpayer or confusion regarding service area boundaries. 3.2. Determinations made by the Commission shall be consistent with the SOIs of local agencies affected by that determination §56375.5). 3.3. LAFCo shall modify, condition or disapprove proposals creating boundaries that are not definite and certain or do not conform to lines of assessment or ownership §56668). 3.4. Lands to be annexed that are within an adopted Sol, shall be physically contiguous to present agency boundaries unless one of the following conditions exists: 21 Volume i Para lll. GENERAL PROPOSAL POLICIES a. Existing developed areas where it can be clearly found that interests of public health, safety, and welfare would best be served by the addition of the service, or which present clear or present health or safety hazards that could be mitigated by the requested change of organization; b. Existing developed areas where agency facilities are present and sufficient for service and where the commission determines that the annexation does not represent a growth- inducing factor for the area; or c. Lands that are owned by the city and are being used for municipal purposes at the time Commission proceedings are initiated, and do not exceed 300 acres in area. If the city sells noncontiguous territory or leases it for development of shopping, hotel, motel or other lodging purposes, noncontiguous territory shall be automatically detached §56375(d), §56742). 3.5. Islands, peninsulas, flags, pinpoint contiguity, cherry stems and other irregular boundary lines are inconsistent with the formation of orderly and logical boundaries and shall be disapproved or strongly discouraged (§56741, §56742, 3.6. Strip annexations and leapfrog annexations are generally prohibited. 3.7. Resulting boundary lines should not be irregular, such as the centerline of a road of irregular width or a line drawn parallel to the center of a creel. 3.8. Resulting boundary lines should not divide jurisdiction or responsibility for maintenance within a road right -of -way. 3.9. Resulting boundary configurations should not produce areas that are difficult to serve §56668, §56001). 3.10. The Commission may order the inclusion of additional territory to any proposal to correct an otherwise unacceptable boundary and to accomplish its goal of creating orderly boundaries §56668, §56001). 4. Agriculture and open Space. Preserving open space and prime agricultural lands while facilitating orderly growth and development is an important LAFCo goal §56301). 4.1. LAFCo's decisions will reflect its legislated responsibility to work to maximize the retention of prime agricultural and important open space land while facilitating the logical and orderly expansion of urban areas §56001). 2 Additional policies affecting agriculture and open space lands are located in reorganization and Sphere of Influence sections. Volume Part Ill. GENERAL PROPOSAL POLICIES 4.2. Agricultural land shall be determined to be prime based on soil characteristics, potential for prime agricultural land designation if irrigated, or productivity §56064). 4.3. LAFCo shall discourage proposals that encourage or support urbanization outside of cities unless adverse public health and safety impacts would occur, and there is no feasible proposal alternative. 4.4. LAFCo shall discourage city annexations of prime agricultural or important open space areas if such areas are not needed for urbanization within five years. 4.5. LAFCo shall discourage Alameda County from extending urban services to areas (1) not designated or needed for urban development within five years or (2) designated for long term agricultural and open space uses in regional or city planning documents §56434). 4.6. LAFCo will work to preserve agricultural and open space land resources by considering the proposal's effect on important open space and agricultural lands and by guiding development toward vacant urban land and away from agricultural and open space areas not planned or needed for development §56377, §56001, §56301). 4.7. Development or use of land for other than open space uses shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural lands in open space use toward areas containing non prime agricultural lands unless that action undermines adopted county or city land use plans that include open space and agricultural land conservation policies and plans §56377). 4.8. Urbanization or nonagricultural use of existing vacant lots or prime agricultural land areas within the jurisdiction or SOI of a local agency shall be encouraged before any proposal is approved which would allow for, or lead to, the development of prime agricultural or open space lands outside the jurisdiction or SOI of any local agency §56377, §56668). 4.9. LAFCo shall require that applications with prezones or SOI proposals identify areas set aside for agricultural or open space preserves and planned development and include protections for adjacent agricultural land. 4.10. To ensure that LAFCo actions do not adversely affect the viability of open space or agricultural land uses, LAFCo may condition an annexation approval to .avoid potential impacts including setting a lower service charge rate for rural, open space, or agricultural land requested for exclusion but nevertheless included within the boundaries of a service provider. Reasons for setting different service charge rates include, but are not limited to, existence of dwellings or other structures, anticipated service frequency or probability, reductions in affordable housing stock, premature inducement of higher housing costs in an area 23 Volume 1, Part III. GENERAL PROPOSAL POLICIES providing affordable housing, history of previous service provision, justifications provided by the proposed service provider, and justifications provided by the person or entity requesting exclusion. 4.11. LAFCo shall adopt appropriate terms or conditions retaining previous conditions of approval, such as Use Permit conditions, or other mechanisms adopted by an entity losing jurisdiction over a territory when those conditions were adopted to conserve important agricultural, open space or natural resources, and cannot otherwise be ensured. 0 Volume 1, Part V. SPECIFIC PROPOSAL POLICIES 2.21. If territory proposed to be annexed to a city consists of non contiguous areas and two or more distinct communities with a commonly recognized designation (General Plan, census, post office, official association, signage, etc.), and any community possesses more than 250 registered voters, protests shall be counted separately except for certain island annexations §57078.5, §56375.3). 3. Specific Special District Annexation Policies and Procedures Policies: 3.1. The annexation must provide for the most efficient delivery of services. The most efficient services are those provided at the lowest cost and highest service level. In the case of similar providers with the same level of service, the one.that delivers the same service. at the lowest cost will be considered to be most efficient. 3.2. The annexation shall be modified, conditioned or disapproved if it permits the more efficient delivery of one or more services to the detriment of other services. 3.3. The annexing agency must demonstrate that no parcel located within the district's service boundaries will be deprived of its right to receive services if the annexation is approved §56668). 3.4. The annexing agency must demonstrate that levels of service for existing and potential customers within its service boundaries will not be lowered, or costs of service increased, if the annexation is approved §56668). If any adverse impacts may occur, the applicant or annexing agency must provide, for.LAFCo consideration, a written justification for project approval despite the negative impacts. 3.5. Proceedings for annexation to a special district may be initiated by petition or resolution of the governing body of any affected county, city, or district §56650, 56654 see �P`��`ml py required contents. 3.6. A petition for annexation to a special district shall be signed by §56864): Registered voter district: Not less than 25% of the registered voters residing within the territory proposed to be annexed; or Not less than 25% of the n umber of owners of land within the territory proposed to be annexed who also own 25% of the assessed value of land within the territory. Volume 1, Part V. SPECIFIC PROPOSAL POLICIES Land owner -voter district (a district whose principal act provides that owners of land within the district are entitled to vote): Not less than 25% of the number of landowners who own not less than 25% of the assessed value of land. 37. Pre hearings are required for any proposal not filed by the annexing districts, or accompanied by an adopted resolution of support from each special district to which annexation is proposed. LAFCo shall transmit a copy of the annexation proposal to the special d istrictls to which annexation is proposed at least 21 days before the pre hearing. The special d istrict/s to which annexation is proposed have 60 days to adopt and transmit a resolution requesting termination of the proceedings. LAFCo will terminate such proposals upon receipt of such resolution §56857). 3.8. If the territory to be annexed is inhabited and the assessed value of the land equals Y2 or more of the assessed value of land within the district, or the number of registered voters residing within the territory equals 1 /2 or more of the registered voters residing in the district, LAFCO may condition the proposal for district wide confirmation §58877). 4. Specific Special District Detachment Policies and Procedures Policies-- 4.1. The project proponent shall demonstrate that there is no longer a need for service(s) provided by the affected district/agency, and that detachment is the best alternative. 4.2. LAFCo will not approve a detachment proposal if it is an attempt by the petitioner to avoid paying district revenues while still receiving district service. 4.3. If a detachment is proposed principally to allow for some other means of providing the same service, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposal will result in an improved level of service §55558). 4.4. Detachments shall not be approved if resultant boundaries are inconsistent with affected agencies' SOIs or adopted service review recommendations unless special circumstances exist. 4.5. SOI amendments and service reviews for districts from which land will be detached will be processed prior to, or concurrent Frith, any LAFCo approval of the detachment where possible. 43 1. Application Preparation and Submittal This section lists steps and requirements for all types of proposals. Additional application requirements, if any, are listed in this document under the specific type of proposal. The applicant is expected to facilitate processing of their application by reviewing and implementing the required steps. 1.1 Applicants are required to meet with LAECo staff prior to submitting an application. Presubmittal meetings substantially reduce processing time and potential frustrations by facilitating preparation of application packages that are. complete and consistent with legal requirements. Applicants should contact Alameda.LAl =Co staff to schedule the meeting. 1.2 Compile the following information and materials, and bring therm to presubmittal meeting' Assessor's parcel number for individual lots or project map for complex proposals. General Plan, Specific Plan, if applicable, and zoning land use designations for the project vicinity. Approved or proposed development plans and related staff reports and CEQA documents if applicable. (Approved plans generally indicate ghat land uses are planned, the level of services required, how services will be .provided, the conditions under which service will be extended, and the impact on adjacent areas.) 0 A project vicinity map. 1.3 Provide one original and seven copies of the completed and signed LA1=Co Application. 1.4 Provide one original and two copies of a certified resolution of application OR one original and four copies of a petition of land owners /registered Voters (See Appendix E, Exhibit D). A resolution (See Appendix E, Exhibit E) must. contain the same information as a petition except signatures §50700, §50054). The resolution or petition shall include all of the following: State that proposal is made pursuant to the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000; State nature of the proposal and list all proposed changes. of organization; s: IMUIL nil, Set forth a metes and bounds description of the boundaries of the affected territory accompanied by a reap showing the boundaries; 0 Set forth any proposed terms and conditions; State project justifications; 0 State whether petition is signed by registered voters or owners of the land; Designate a maximum of three persons as chief petitioners, setting forth their names, mailing addresses and phone numbers; 0 State whether proposal is consistent with Sols for each affected city or district; and Request proceedings pursuant to appropriate sections of the CKH Act. 1.5 Submit the following items to the LAFCo office: Eight copies of a vicinity neap (8 1/2 x 11) of the subject property (see Appendix E, Exhibit J). 15 letter -sized copies (8Y2x 11) and 1 display -sized copy (2'x3'.) of easily readable reaps of the project sites with the relationship among the project site and district or city service and Sol boundaries, and if applicable Measure D or urban growth boundaries clearly indicated and color coded (see Appendix E, Exhibit K). Eight copies of preliminary proposal map pre approved by the County Surveyor and associated legal description in metes and bounds (see Appendix C). Two large -scale topographical map of the project site (may use USGS quadrangle map for larger sites). one legible copy of any deeds cited on project reaps. For city annexations, provide one certified .original and .two copies of the adopted City Council Resolution prezoning the property pursuant to §56375. 0 For city or special .district annexations involving property fax revenues exchanges, one .certified and two copies of Resolutions from affected cities, districts and Alameda county indicating that affected jurisdictions have reached agreement on are exchange of property tax revenues pursuant to Revenue and Taxation code §99. 26 Ane rM IT-11 MM I Will? M-1 For out -of -Area Service Agreements, two copies of agreement or contract, and two copies of documentation of public health or safety emergency, if applicable. 15 copies of any CEQA documents approved for any portion of the proposal, such as Environmental Impact Reports (EIR), Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations, EIR appendices, negative declarations, or mitigated negative declarations (contact LAFCo staff about submitting these documents electronically). One original and one copy of applicant and property owner financial disclosure Statement(s) pursuant to the requirements of the Fair Political Practices Commission and LAFCo Policies, One copy of Notice of Determination or Notice of Exemption, and refundable State Fish Game Department CEQA review fees, or copy of receipt of payment of these fees, if applicable. Non refundable LAFCo application processing fees (see Appendix A). other items, as applicable, listed in the Application checklist (see Appendix 131) 1.5. Applicants must submit a plan to provide municipal services. Plan of Service submittals are required to contain, but are not limited to, the following information: An enumeration and description of the service to be extended to the affected territory; 0 The level and range of those services; The estimated time frame for service delivery; A statement of any capital improvements, or other conditions, which the local agency would impose or require within the affected territory if the requested action is approved §55553). A capacity analysis which states: (1) number of service units available (units can be described as parcels, meters, equivalent dwelling units or other.. project specific units of measure as approved by the Executive officer (2).the number of service units currently allocated; (3) the total .number of service units within agency boundaries, including assessment d isricts .which may cross district boundaries, that are anticipating future service; (4) the number of service units proposed to be added as a result of the annexation; (5) the total number of service units entitled to receive services as a result of the proposed project. In the event that the applicant or annexing agency finds that there are not enough 27 Omrr service units available to provide for number 5, the applicant shall provide a plan for obtaining the capacity necessary to provide service pursuant to 1.7; A description of the size, location and capacity of existing infrastructure; A statement from the annexing agency disclosing its .disposition regarding responsibility to reserve capacity for unse.rved property within agency boundaries and current estimates of unserved property within its current boundaries; A list of the conditions that the applicant must meet in .order to receive services from the annexing agency, such as.annexation costs, facility plan .report, fire flow requirements, on and off site construction requirements, or. easements and a statement explaining who is responsible for funding required items; and Annexing agency's statement of intent to provide services, including a description of the applicant's requirements to fund infrastructure so that areas within the district can be served., or will continue to. be served, at the same or higher.level of service, and proposed service areas will be accommodated at the same or a higher level of.service...If the annexing agency cannot provide the latter guarantees, then the applicant or annexing agency shall provide a. written justification for project approval despite .anticipated negative impacts. 1.7. If a service cannot be provided without expanding service capacity or constructing infrastructure (other than at parcel connections to. service), then the following information must also be included in.a plan of service: A description ot.any required facility or infrastructure expansions or other necessary capital improvements; The likely schedule for completion of the expanded capacity project, the viability of the needed project, and the relation of the subject project to the.overall project and project time line; A list of required .administrative .and legislated processes, such as CEQA review or state Water Reso.urces.Board allocation permits, including assessment of likelihood of approval of any permits and existence of pending or threatened legal or administrative challenges if known; The planned total additional capacity; The size and location of needed capital improvements; The proposed project cost, financing plan and financing mechanisms including a description of the persons or properties who w i l l be expected to bear project costs; and MR i V 0 111 i Ua01:11 i I C(NMM Any proposed alternative projects if the preferred project cannot be completed (include information listed above for each proposed alternative). 2.1. The Executive officer will render a decision on the completeness of the submittal within 30 days of receipt by determining whether the application is sufficient and complete as required by law including required additional copies and fees §55552). 2.2. The Executive officer will determine the status of CEQA review consistent with adopted policies and procedures.2 This includes the determination of LAFCo Lead or Responsible Agency role if not .yet esta All environmental review is conducted consistent with LAFCo's.adopted CEQA procedures. 2.3. The Executive officer will give mailed. notice of application receipt to each interested and subject agency, all affected counties, the. county committee /s on school district reorganization, and .each school superintendent whose school district overlies the area §55558). If an. application for the formation, consolidation or dissolution of a park district. formed pursuant to. Recreation and Park District law, or a reorganization including any.of these actions., is received the Executive officer shall provide notice. to.the Director of.the State Department of Parks and Recreation (55131.7). The Director shall. be permitted 50 days to respond and the Commission shall consider all comments received. 2.4. If the application is complete, the Executive officer will .issue. a Certificate of Filing and schedule a Commission hearing within the folio i.r .g 90 dais: 2.5. A Certificate of Filing shall not be filed until at least 21 days following notice provided in 2.3. 2.5. If the application is incomplete, the Executive officer will inform the applicant in writing of the additional information or supplemental documentation that is needed §55558). 2.7. After the application is deemed complete, the Executive officer gill solicit comments from affected .Alameda County departments, and .other affected counties, agencies, entities, persons and parties requesting notice, and any affected LAFCos §55558). 2.8. Notice and opportunity to request a public hearing shall be given to agencies whose boundaries are affected §56558). 2 CEQA implementation procedures have been published separately. A copy may be obtained from the LAFCo office. 29 s: iii iij 2.9. Depending on nature and type of proposal, or if requested by any party, project applicants and /or LAFCo may conduct a meeting Frith.. affected residents or landowners to present the proposal and receive comments. 2.10. The Executive officer shall review the application, other pertinent information and any comments received from the public or other entities. 2.11. The Executive Officer shall prepare a staff report, which contains: (1) an analysis of the proposal's consistency. .with pertinent LAFCo factors and policies, SOls, general and specific plans, other pertinent plans or programs, and LAFCo's policies and procedures §56668, §5.6668.3 (2) recommendations of appropriate. Commission actions; and (3) appropriate terms and conditions §56885 §56890) if any. 2.12. At least five days prior to hearing, the Executive Officer shall mail the staff report to each LAFCo Commissioner, each person designated in the application, each affected.local agency requesting a report, each .agency.hose.boundaries or SCSI will be changed, each individual who has indicated .an interest in the action, and the Executive Officer of the LAFCo of any other affected county §56665). 3. Public Hearings. 3.1. The Executive Officer shall set the hearing date, and provide notice in accordance with applicable law. 3.2. LAFCo shall consider the proposal on the .noticed date and shall receive all oral and written testimony. LAFCo may continue a hearing for up to 70 days. 3.3. some LAFCo determinations can be made with out. nQtice and .hearing if determined de rnin.1mis, with written consent of all landowners or other conditions (§56662 3.4. At the same hearing, or within, 35 days of approving a proposal, LAFCo shall adopt a Resolution of Determination that will: Determine if the territory is inhabited.or uninhabited (inhabited territory means territory within which 1 or more registered voters reside); Approve or deny with or without terms, conditions or modifications to the proposal; Initiate conducting authority processes and protest proceedings unless state law authorizes another agency to assume that role 3 Conducting authority proceedings are not required for Out of Area Service Agreement proposals. NX For annexations, detachments and county service area formations, authorize proceedings without notice, hearing, or an election, if there is 100% consent §56662, §56663); and Specify in the terms and conditions for each proposal requiring a protest hearing, and the window of time (21 --5o days) allowed for the collection and filing of protest. The number of days required shall be based upon the need to expedite the process and the level of controversy or interest surrounding the proposal. 3.5. Protest proceedings for uninhabited areas may be waived if all of the following conditions apply 56663 0 The subject area is uninhabited; All of the owners of land within the affected territory have given their written consent to the change of organization or reorganization; 0 All subject agencies have consented in writing to a waiver of protest proceedings; The commission has provided written notice of commission proceedings to all property owners and registered voters within the subject territory and no opposition is received prior to or during the commission meeting; A satisfactory and verified property tax exchange agreement has been completed; and Affected SOIs are up -to -date §56425) and service reviews have been conducted and were available for use during proposal evaluation §56430). 3.6. The Commission may waive protest proceedings for inhabited areas entirely if the following conditions apply §56663 The commission has provided a written notice of commission proceedings to all registered voters and landowners within the affected territory and no opposition from registered owners or landowner within the affected territory is received prior to or during the comrnissio.n .meeting. The written notice .shall disclose to the registered voters and landowners that unless opposition is expressed regarding the proposal or the commission's intention to waive protest proceedings, that there will be no subsequent protest an election proceedings; and a All subject agencies have consented in writing to a waiver of protest proceedings. Affected SOIs are up -to -date §56425) and service reviews have been conducted and were available for use during proposal evaluation §56430). 31 TIM ah!WZY, 1k sw 3.7. The Executive officer will mail a copy of the Resolution of Determination to proponents, chief petitioners if any, and each affected local agency whose boundaries will be changed §56882 3.8. If a proposal is denied, no new proposal can be made for one year unless waived by LAFCo. If the proposal includes an incorporation or city consolidation, no new proposal can be made for two years unless waived by LAFCo §56880, §56884, §57090). 4. Reconsideration 4.1. Any person, agency or other entity may fife a written request frith the Executive Officer seeking reconsideration of any portion of a .resolution .adopted by the Commission §56895). The request shall state ghat new or different facts that could not have been presented previously are claimed to warrant reconsideration. Requests for reconsideration of a •commission resolution are to be submitted in writing and accompanied by the reconsideration.request fee §56383). 4.2. Reconsideration requests shall be filed within 30 days of a resolution making determinations §56895(b)). If the 30th day falls on .a weekend or holiday, the filing deadline will be extended to the next business day at 5:00 P.M. 4.3. At the hearing, the Commission may approve, disapprove, amend, modify or continue the matter for no more than .35 days. lf.the reconsideration request is granted, the Commission shall adopt a resolution, which supersedes the previous resolution §56895(g clerical errors or mistakes in any action .or resolution adopted pursuant to a reconsideration action may be corrected §56854, §56895(l)). 4.4. Any commissioner or alternate seated at a given meeting can vote on reconsideration of an action taken at a prior meeting if they revie.rneeting reports, tapes and minutes prior to the meeting at which they vote. 4.5. The Commission's determination is final. No person shall make any further request for the same .change or substantially similar change as determined by the Commission §56895(h)). 5. Conducting Authority Proceedings After approval of a change of organization or reorganization, LAFCo generally assumes the rr ihisterial role of conducting authority unless another .conducting authority is specified in the lair §56029). The basic purpose of the conducting authority process is to provide a process for registered voters and property owners to formally voice their approval or disapproval for the particular change of organization. Proceedings for district formations are conducted as authorized in the principal act of the district proposed to be formed 32 MW M_ 17113MMOR 4. 19JT0 0 unless that procedure is inconsistent with the CKH Act or a formation is part of a reorganization §56100, §56859, §57007). Section 5 contains procedures that apply to most proposals. Part III contains procedures that apply to specific types of proposals. Readers need to review policies and procedures for specific types of proposals before proceeding with conducting authority processes. 5.1. The Executive Officer is designated conducting authority and shall assume conducting authority responsibilities on behalf of the Commission §57000(c)) unless otherwise directed by the Commission. 5.2. Unless requirements for hearing are waived §56837), the conducting authority shall conduct a protest hearing to receive any oral or written protests §57050). Protest forms (see Appendix E, Exhibit B) are available at the LAFCo office. 5.3. Within 35 days following adoption of the resolution making determinations and requiring a protest hearing, and following the reconsideration period specified in §50895(b), the Executive officer shall set the proposal for hearing and give notice. The hearing shall not be .less than 21.or more than 6.0 days after. the notice is given §57002) with the exception of subsidiary districts.in which case. the hearing shall be not less than 90 or more than 135 days following the notice. For incorporations, the hearing must be scheduled within .15 days of adopting determinations, and for the nest regularly scheduled meeting for which proper notice can be given. 5.4. The Commission shall not accept for.filing, or act upon, any other proposal. affecting the territory until the proceedings are completed or terminated §57003). 5.5. Notice of the protest hearing shall be provided pursuant to applicable state law (§56153 5.5. The protest hearing shall be held in the affected territory if the hearing is a proposal initiated by the Commission pursuant to §56375(a) for a district consolidation, dissolution, or merger, or the establishment of a subsidiary district. 5.7. At the protest hearing, the conducting authority shall summarize the Commission's resolution and hear and receive any oral or written protests, objections, or evidence. Written protests may be withdrawn during the hearing. 5.8. written protests may be filed by any affected landowner or registered voter §57050, §57051) after notice of the hearing is published and prior to, or at, the protest hearing. 5.9. The conducting authority may continue the protest hearing from time to time, but not more than 80 days from the date specified in the notice, or 35 days if an incorporation is the subject of the protest hearing §57050). 33 5.1 o. Upon conclusion of the protest hearing: If no written protests have been filed the conducting authority shall adopt a form of resolution ordering the change of organization or reorganization without an election; or If written protests have been filed, the conducting authority shall, within thirty days after the conclusion of the hearing, Hulce determinations on the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn §5 To determine the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn, the conducting authority shall cause the names of the signers on the protests to be compared with the voters' register in the office of the Registrar of Voters pursuant to §50707 and /or the names .of the owners of land on the most recent assessment roll pursuant to §557'03 and §56710. 5.11. Upon determination of the value of written protests filed and not withdrawn, the conducting authority shall tale one of the following. actions, depending on the nature of the change of organization or reorganization. 0 Issue certificate of Termination terminating proceedings; Adopt a resolution making determinations and ordering the change of organization or reorganization without an election; or Adopt a resolution malting determinations and .grdering the. change organization or reorganization subject to confirmation by the voters 5.12. A resolution ordering the change of organization. or reorganization shall .describe the exterior boundaries of territory annexed r detached, and shall contain all terms and conditions imposed upon such change of organization or reorganization §57100). 5.13. The conducting authority's actions shall be based on the following statutory requirements: For inhabited territory: Terminate proceedings if a majority protest exists in accordance with §57075. Order the change of organization or reorganization. without an election when protests are less than 25% of registered voters in the territory and less than 25% of the land owners owning less than 25% of the assessed value of land in the territory 57075 34 0 order an election by voters within the territory when 25% or more (but less than 50 of the voters or landowners who own 25% of the assessed value protest §57075). For city annexations, any required election shall be held in both the annexation area and the city when the assessed value of land within .the annexation area equals one -half, or more, of that within the city; or the number of registered voters within the annexation area equals one -half or more of that within the city §5575g For uninhabited to rrito Terminate proceedings if a majority protest exists in accordance with §57073. Order the change of organization or reorganization if property owners with less than 50% of the total assessed value of land within the affected territory protest §57075). 5.14. If an election is required, the Executive officer, pursuant to §57000(d), shall inform the Board of supervisors or city Council of the .affected agency of LAFCO's determination and request the legislature body to direct the elections' official to conduct the election. 5.15. The county elections officers will conduct the election in accordance with .state election laws and the CKH Act. 5.16. The conducting authority shall execute a certificate of completion (CO.C) confirming the order of the change of organization. or reorganization if a majority of the votes cast are in favor in any of the following circumstances §55176 0 At an election called in the affected territory; At an election called within the affected territory and within the territory of the affected agency; or At both an election called within the territory ordered to be organized or reorganized and an election called within the territory of an affected city, when required by the commission pursuant to §55750 5.17. The conducting authority shall execute a certificate of Termination of Proceedings if the majority of votes were against the proposal. 35 6. Final Actions, Filings and Notifications 6.1. After the conducting authority proceedings are completed, the project proponent shall submit to the LAFCo Office: Fees for the State Board of Equalization; Final flaps (2 Mylar originals for LAFCo and one Mylar original for any affected city of special district) and a legal description approved for form and accuracy by the Alameda county Surveyor's Office; and 0 Proof of compliance with all terms and conditions of LAFCo's Resolution. 6.2. Within 30 days of receipt of maps .and fees, and verification of compliance with terms and conditions by the Executive officer, a COC. will be issued and. recorded with the county Recorder. The .COC must .be recorded in one year. or.the proceedings will be abandoned unless LAFCo grants a waiver (§57001). 6.3. If no effective date is specified in the Commission resolution, the recordation date is the effective date §56102). 6.4. A statement of boundary change or creation will be issued by the Executive Officer and filed with the State Board of Equalization and county Assessor.. if it is a city change, a notice will be provided. to the Secretary of State. Prop erty.tax resolutions, if any, are forwarded to the County Auditor to enable property tax transfer. 6.6. The Executive officer shall provide a notice of completion and effective date to agencies whose boundaries are affected and affected county departments. Any other agencies, utilities and other affected parties will be also notified as appropriate §57201, §67203, §67204). 6.6. After receiving notice, affected agencies are required to recognize completion of the jurisdictional change and implement any amended processes such .as redistribution of property tax. 36 IL a t4w TICS OF PUBLIC HEARING ALAMEDA LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 9, 2008, at 3:00 p.m. at the Alameda County Administration Building located at 1221 Oak Street, 2 ,11 Floor, Room 255 in Oakland, California. The hearing will be conducted by the Commission's Executive Officer who has been delegated the authority to conduct this public hearing. At the hearing, LAFCo will receive protests filed against the following item: Alameda County Vector Control Services District (County Service Area VC 1984 -1) Annexation of the Cities of Emeryville and Fremont Alameda County initiated this proposal via Resolution 412008 -70 to annex the Cities of Emeryville and Fremont in order to control insects, rodents and other vectors; thus preventing human disease, injury and discomfort to the residents of these cities. The annexation is conditioned upon the approval of a benefit assessment to fund elector Control Services in the annexation area in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218. For a full and complete description of the change of organization and all applicable terms and conditions, please refer to Alameda LAFCo's Resolution 2008 -04, How to File a Protest: The hearing on September 9, 2008 will be open to the public. To be considered valid, a protest must be written and filed by either a landowner or a registered gofer, within the area included within the reorganization. Protests may either be mailed to the Alameda LAFCo at 1221 Oak Street, Room 555 Oakland, CA 94012 or delivered to the LAFCo Executive Officer at the protest hearing. Each protest must be signed and dated, must state whether it is made by a landowner or a registered voter, and must include the name and address of the protestor and a street or parcel number identifying the location of the land. A registered voter's protest must shove the name and address appearing an the affidavit of registration, Disclosures related to expenditures made for political purposes related to the subject change organization must comply with the Political Reform Act (California Government Code Section 81000 .et. seq.). Only written protests that are received prior to the end of the hearing on September 9 will be accepted as timely. For additional information please contact the LAFCo office at (510) 271 -5142. MONA PALACIOS EXECUTIVE OFFICER The Argus, #2895328 August I3, 2008 The Alameda Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) will hold a hearing on Thursday, July 10, 2008 at 4:30 pm in the Dublin San Ramon Services District Board Room at 7051 Dublin Boulevard, Dublin, California on the proposed annexation of the city of Fremont and the city of Emeryville into the Alameda County Vector Control Services District in order to control insects, rodents and other vectors; thus preventing human disease, injury and discomfort to the residents of these cities. Information regarding this proposal may be obtained from Alameda LAFCo, 1221 Oak Street, Room 555, Oakland, CA, (510) 271 -5142 or LAFC,0L& acgov, org V: \LAF \CSAs\Vector Control -Annex Fremont ErneryvilleTublic Notice CSA 6 H ft d ds 10.49.40. EXHIBIT I Description of the proposed Annexation Annexing Fremont and Emeryville The Alameda County 'hector Control Services District is annexing into its existing boundary all g Y cities not already part of the District. The two cities not part of the district are Fremont and Emeryville. The annexation of these two cities (Fremont and Emeryville, will result in making all of the County of Alameda part of the Alameda County Vector Control Services District. Annexing Fremont The Alameda County vector Control Services District is annexing nto its existing boundary g g all of the City of Fremont which 'is currently not part of the District. Annexing Emeryville The Alameda County Vector Control Services District is annexing into its existing boundar y all of the City of Emeryville which is currently not part of the District. CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING REBECCA HOLDER AS A MEMBER OF THE SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of Article X of the Charter of the City of Alameda, and upon nomination by the Mayor, REBECCA HOLDER is hereby appointed to the office of ain im member of the Social Service Human Relations Board of the City of Alameda, to fill the unexpired terra of Jonathan Soglin, commencing October 19, 2010, and expiring on June 30, 2013, and to.serve until her successor is appointed and qualified. 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 adjourned regular meeting assembled on the 19th day of October, 2010, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WH EREOF, I have hereunto set ray hand and affixed the official seal of said city this to day of October, 2010. Lara Weisiger, city clerk City of Alameda Resolution #6.A 10 -19 -10 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim City Manager Date: October 19, 2010 Re: Accept the Annual Investment Report for Fiscal Year 2009 -10 WMIM In June 2002, the City Council.contracted with Public Financial Management, Inc. (PFM) and Chandler Asset Management, Inc., for portfolio management services fo investment of the City's funds. Annually, the City Council adopts or reaffirms the City Investment Policy. This policy establishes the objectives of safety of principal, liquidity, and yield. Additionally, the policy limits investment in companies that produce or manufacture cigarettes, alcohol, or gambling products. DISCUSSION This agenda item reports on the results of the eighth year of the City's managed portfolio by PFM and Chandler Asset Management. PFM, per contract, prepares this year -end consolidated report for both managed portfolios. (Exhibit 1) The investment policy objectives, which were achieved during this reporting period, are as follows: 0 Safety of Principal: o Excellent credit quality was maintained for each investment. o Maturity distribution was structured to protect the portfolio, ensuring against a volatile investment environment. 30KOMM o Portfolio diversification was enhanced to capitalize on the investment sectors and issuers offering the greatest value in the market. 0 Yield: o Exceeded the industry standard benchmarks to provide a solid return. City Council Agenda Item ##6 -13 10 -19 -10 Honorable Mayor and October 19, 2010 Members of the city Council Page 2 of 2 During FY09 -1 0, the portfolio maintained Its investment position in U.S. Treasury notes and Federal Agency Notes and increased its position in corporate Notes. With these changes, credit quality was maintained, as evidenced by the fact that the portfolio's average credit quality is AAA.. Approximately 75% of the portfolio remains in the one to three year maturity, which is the point of best relative value in the present market. For FY09 -10, the yield to maturity for the portfolio at cost was 2.22%, significantly higher than the .61 rate of return on tiro -year U.S. treasuries as of June 30, 2010. The overall return for the managed composite portfolio since inception of the program was 4.22%. This compares favorably to the Merrill Lynch benchmark earnings of 3.88 a difference of 0.34 or approximately $274,000 on average annually since inception of the program. FINANCIAL IMPACT The value added by employing outside investment managers is the ability to evaluate and focus on those maturities and sectors that may offer the best relative value. The managed portfolio earned a significantly higher rate of return than the current yields on U.S. treasuries, demonstrating the benefit of this approach. In addition to earning returns that exceed the benchmark, staff time is available to perform other functions, thereby increasing department productivity. RECOMMENDATION Accept the Annual Investment Report for Fiscal Year 2009-1 Res "ectfu y sub fitted evin Kenned City Treasurer KKIFM:dl Exhibits: 1 PFMIChandler Managed Account Detail of Securities Held 2 PFM /Portfolio Review cc: Chandler Asset Management w/o attachments PFM Asset Management w/o attachments LPL 0 mi 0 N.. 0 Q Ck W M E CA LL. 0 6 CI} 1 Council hibit I to terms -B 10 -19 -1® CJ Ll V-4 N co LA L� Q C1 U) M QQ �t R a N Ln tLn r4l C? Ll9 N Lh R m M Q OD Lf i m I! M L -i N o Liz m 00 00 V 00 LA 1 i V [i 1 C +-d U[3 Ln Cb st' Chi 3• Q W 00 00 i� R LLJ CV CGi u? �,p c0 r v R Ln co m .We LG tv W 00 in CT trl ryi f'4 (n u7 tts E'er tt� R m Q'+ %0 CG r% C3 00 i1 12; in R C3 v-4 ANA N Q CV sg- •7 0 C w N C G7 T� M fl C7k p W N C7 C; k6 CD ww 1 f L L. 't r~t xD 4 d1 (D cn R C 4" �7 fn CD t#' r4 to +4 %D h. to itil CT CO M �r W 7 ti CO i V P4 4 Rr 9- un 0 R 00 to c; R cx� W a 0% r� C a, Ca m %D CD r tC� V) rl Q 0 ry tt ni CD Ln L LO It m i� C7 Ln ka rte: tip Ln r'' cv m w co 0 co C) 00 IT N L') �e Liz co y �C> CA m rl% Q 7 E co y 00 R s? 00 a1 C► C7 O I1 00 co .0 n C7 vti �a 00 N M R Lit 0 M 6..7 0 o 7-+ r 1-4 0 0 o v 1 41m` r_} n to 00 ON v v v C) .-t r. v co rt 00 r r�*1 O Ln Ln kD F H F F- H N F H d1 0 0 C) D c C� t �7 p Q v v 6 o M6 c�a 0 Q Q o C> v 0 CD v 10 a 0 Ln g o v L C LPL 0 mi 0 N.. 0 Q Ck W M E CA LL. 0 6 CI} 1 Council hibit I to terms -B 10 -19 -1® rn %D N Ir-4 r• M co rn Ln I-i v-4 M: co 00 �D C6 r- co LA CL a) IN CL va rq CD U*l 0 F", r% k-ft r a CD (m LLB un CD V) u -3 LU r%. LO N co C) r-4 to CD 00 CD z N cq 0 N fa r-4 CD N m 0 N (7% Ln Ln M M ."4 C% N co 4c Ln C� P-- tri tD V U- 0 r4 m �1- U- lie N N r4 Rr (kJ cn� W C3 e 0 01 z Ln Root c P4 C.2 Ln co 00 V-4 a 00 Z in U r-4 .p Ln kO Ln 4N "4 a C> CL m c C) m cl cr% Ln Ln Ln <D C> N LA co Co M. a) CD tn CD z CD C) C) CD rwa m C) 1-4 m o Ln LO rq z CD 0 Oc Ln w LU C) 7 C3 d C; 4-4 LA Q C) 0 ui LA IA 4D al r• C) Ch 4 CL z LIE C) C) Q CD 0 fu C) AD C; M rn co Am -61 0 Ul LA Q. %D tai W CI CO ti Vw4 A S CD C7 ter► 160 Ln N %D N Ir-4 r• M co rn Ln I-i v-4 V-4 Ln R in in to Ln CL a) IN CL va rq CD U*l �4 0 F", r% k-ft r a CD (m LLB un CD V) u -3 LU r%. LO N co C) r-4 to CD 00 CD z N cq 0 N fa r-4 CD uj v-4 C-4 N C) M 0 M M co Am -61 0 Ul LA Q. %D tai W CI CO ti Vw4 A S CD C7 ter► 160 Ln N C� CD LO %D N Ir-4 r• M co rn Ln I-i 9-4 tN Ln R in in to Ln Ln a) IN C6 LO rq CD U*l "4 cn in Vl%l Ln F", r% m C4 a% LO N co C) r-4 00 N C) z N cq 0 N fa Ln CD to C-4 N C) N Ln cn AD N co C> C) Ln C� C) U-) C> C) 4= 00 0) P-- tri tD V Y-4 0 r4 m �1- U- ka N r4 Rr (kJ cn� crt C3 e 0 01 z Ln <5 cm P4 C.2 Ln co 00 V-4 a 00 Z in U r-4 .p Ln 4N "4 a C> CL m c C) m ct cl cr% LL r u 00 <D C> 00 C) co Co co 0 a) CD CD z CD C) C) CD a r 4 m C> C> LO rq z LL, C) -18 w 10 cm 4=� r4 U- W4 u© Ln w LU C) 7 C3 d C; Q C) 0 ui LA cri: 4D al r• C) C� CD LO %D N Ir-4 r• C6 I-i 9-4 V) Ln R Lr) to co m Ln 7-4 r%j G CrL 06 C6 LO rq CD U*l "4 cn in Vl%l Ln F", cD m eq rn C� M LO a N r-4 00 N C) z N cq V-4 CD CNI r4 C) C5 Ln R r4 Cl co m Ln 7-4 00 C) P r y 4C) P Ln CN ON AD 1-4 CD v v m eq rn C5 CD w go N CD z N cq 0 N CD C4 CD to C-4 N N Cl l C) C> C) C) Q CD Q C� C) U-) C> C) 4= 00 0) P-- tri tD V ry a 0 0 LL 0 Lu ca x 0 u I dc .0 LL. 0 7d, CCS Lf) U) 0— m w N N z N z N 0 N r4 w F-4 C-4 N N Ln C) j N boo Y-4 0 r4 m �1- U- ka 2 N (kJ .j T-4 0 0 Ln C3 e 0 01 z Ln <5 Q C5 U- LL g o, C.2 V-4 a 00 Z in U r-4 .p Ln 4N "4 a C> CL m c C) m e a) LL r u 00 00 C) co Co co 0 a) CD CD z CD C) C) CD a m LL LO rq z LL, C) -18 w 0 (N LL u r4 U- W4 u© Ln w LU C) 7 ry a 0 0 LL 0 Lu ca x 0 u I dc .0 LL. 0 7d, CCS Lf) U) 0— 1 a W L tt 1 M CD cV p La L1 t r+�"1 r�� ti y �i M co co I "V t tQ rol Q d Ln tD xt Ln M v fq W t 7: m ti M M tip ry D C4 c in 4 �t tQ H J Q..� N N LO (N C N f+ ,tee N Cn 06 ON /yam 3 4-J W �i. Ln in d Ln L►. n M i 41 C) Co t'i 0 r. C+] trr to [V Ca Lr) ca M o iN N ax ice. Q m M Ln N 140 00 i.L. .N r7 Q tf7 W M Ct1 'rf" C M N L!} N CRI 7 LT7 Lei O M1 CA Ln t0 N rz CD Vi UD 0 rq N w M Lr) U3 Chi j CC Q M n' 1 LCl tp t[3 00 4z t� LD am �D v t l M L C d� g� V} d co Ca rl r�i a a �i Ca CD CD CD (A Ch AS CD 0 Q 1'`•f T-4 Q Ch C) M cn Q iJ1 M d Ca LJ► C! G N Ln Cj Q T-4 r4 rq 4 06 'C 1 r CD �y C C7 Q G C7 Cal 1� C) L) N Ln q 0 Ca L1i C7 tti Q Lh C� +s C cn Co CD c a te- r 3 L [w N to Ln Ln M V) LLJ _C co 0 4114 C3 C7 C3 CN Ca Ca r4 CM7 p C5 —j 0 OL Ln ;51 Co G1. CL 0 w Q a C3 p o C9 o C Q w co 0 to n G. �1►A Ln ri W LL Ci i!'i C� L� C7 p X1..1 F Q C) G p •..j Q clq Z i.17 o a C) co Z G r[,4 a C7� al Ch 6, C Z C3 C7 LLI U err M N G3 C L�1 L19 ELI) t ED r4 Q Q1 M N Qz U9 r4 ul) CC4 w r t^ C4 Q kD Q LLt d LU a� t3Q Q o m 0�� ��C> Q U- U- LL Ll U- t3 1.L Il. LL L� S� 0 U LU O ,ate tT m M t CN C crt m tr) 6 tai N t 4 cl 4 C; 40 N r� m to ai t ti[ ST tai e� t�q C7 7 d� C) Ln C16 N v L W Ln v VA n r !nf c a^� �o a n ca try cn C i �1 C [ti! i3w M tr1 M LD t� r e v i r r c�r' v t to r pp +4 W 0 Lt1 1w"} to rrt W 00 100 GQ Ln rat Q fYi ��V s.. e cl LU .0 Ch s c o cr V, s� n 1Ln Q C� w lost U r-4 tD rn r tD �r t� ri co sv G trr co C; cxt w C3 r� vs ri m u3 .-t tv W C� 03 co N n ci d N a3 J4 U. H C6 d' CF r►i rry r 1 'L3 r- N C m m D r4 qr 4 QC 70 d CXJ {may G3 N d CJ t!] cr n D to G ry Ch L n 00 m Ln Cn nt•. C 7 o Qi Q �r t m m r� o er to N VA rl .a o V W4 W4 10 v a C> m v ON r-i ,-a w4 +�I r^s m Q G O La' C7 d C7 C3 C7 C? C? C3 C� d m CO G 0 0 rq cr, C;) CO C7 C7ti C C2i 4 tT te"y ll3 Q C� C7 t�1 d %10 0 Ln d Ln a ht d #"-4 l L7 N C7 00 M ld W C: N m i tv C) 0 c CD 0 D C Q 0 c 0 CD CD G• Q c3 C 0 C C> v U CD Q a 0 CQ CD C3 CD O Q U) G C7 7 CP r 4 LU 0 4 0 -4 ,-t m ,•a IT V, 4 u r to a 3 �i C? C Z CO r14 d am, (14 ri 9. rat 45 m C) C l Z� �Q rN U Z N CV °m i.i .4 m V-0 C) �3 C 6 ca tr) CD N v N v M C7 A U Ln uj r e7 Z C) e Z Q O C� f9 d C i7 z Cl Q Q z M Ct 0 z c O n O tr> ca G p V v Q G U a c� Q to ...e to cv rs T Ca C) w t C uy tr, t� m LO a tn u rat c� v p v !4 m w q- ct* CO w 't= t� CO 0 V%4 rn s•v Z Cl w I- rr; C37 r�^► (7, fn t M Ch t ti C5 v ca C� CD N G3. Cl C4 Z N Z N N e eq 4 CD N tFl t!3 CN ti E!] L[] C� 'Z-� M Z M O M D i+3 fl M 1— Z a N LL! rq W ED .-4 �w C pC L1 C O z to m C) d a Q N C D Z en C7 Z C7 CD Z d cn C:? Ln C v LU v to Q G u L7 2 C L'7.3 t C1 I 0 t EM x •jl ,1 %.....::I :•.wwc x: x t ..a i i F :•.k r •:•i x:•:•:• 1'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'• 1'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. x.•.•.•.•.•.• x.•.•.•.•. I. :s F M1.•.. x ...................M1 1 1 •,cxxx. x.•.•.•.•.•.• x: x •t 1 1 :•A. i 1. is "t :i 1 .•.••I •:•i :•:i i•:•:•:•:•:• 1 ;X. x. i 1 1 11 1 f F i ::i i" :I i 1.... 1 :•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•:•i .'.'l 1 I '1 :i•:•: I:::::::':':':':':':': 1. .'t x.'.'. i.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' ��yy J� .'4'••••••••••• x. R.'. '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'�C R.'.'.'.'.'.'.... �x.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.' x crv-lm Re.-Obw abom M M E mi .1 go r� P r• .71 7 7 d X.: WW 1:. r pq plip, 41m*p WW f: i x. x:: x. ...t x. x x c. c.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.• �wee.:.:;: c.•.•.•.•.•.•. i.rr:•:•: x:::: x.•.• x.•.• c x• c :::t x.•.• ,fix x• x.•.• c::;: x {yam x.•.• c x x.•.• x x.. x x:•:•:•: tx:.;.;. x.•.•.•.• c x.•:•.. x: x.•. ��yly� x x x x x x: x c:•:•:•:• x• x• x:...::::::::.':. x....:•: xx x