2006-10-17 PacketTime:
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - OCTOBER 17, 2006 - - - 6:40 P.M.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006, 6:40 p.m.
Place: Cit, Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street
Agenda:
1. Roll Call - City Council
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone wishing to speak on agenda items only, may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency negotiators:
Employee. organizations:
Craig Jory and Human Resources
Director
Alameda City Employees Association,
Executive Management Group,
International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Management and
Confidential Employees Association,
and Police Association Non -Sworn
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: Collins v. City of Alameda
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment - City Council
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)
TUESDAY - - - OCTOBER 17, 2006 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council /Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by the Council /Commission may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject'is before the
Council /Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy
.City Clerk if you wish to speak.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL - City Council, Community Improvement Commission
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council /Commission or a member of the public.
2 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners Meeting and Special Community Improvement
Commission Meeting held on October 3, 2006. (City Clerk)
2 -B. Adoption of Resolution Approving the Report to the City
Council on the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community
Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project, Authorizing Transmittal of Said Report to the City
Council of the City of Alameda, and Consenting to Holding a
Joint Public Hearing with the City Council. [CIC]; and
• Adoption of Resolution Receiving the Report to City Council
Prepared for the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community
Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront
Improvement Project and Consenting to Holding a Joint
Public Hearing with the Community Improvement Commission of
the City of Alameda. (Development Services) [City Council]
3. AGENDA ITEM
3 -A. Public Hearing to consider certification of a supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (EIR), approval of a General Plan
Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement
Amendment, two new Development Agreements, a Disposition and
Development Agreement Amendment and a new Disposition and
Development Agreement to replace 1,300,000 square feet of
approved, but not yet constructed, office and research and
development uses with 400,000 square feet of a Health Club and
up to 300 residential units in the Catellus Mixed Use
Development. (Development Services) [To be continued to
November 21, 2006]
4. ADJOURNMENT - City Council, Community Improvement Commission
Beverly John•. on ,gay
Chair, Commun mp
Commission
r
ovement
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the
podium and state your name; speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - OCTOBER 17, 2006 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City
Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave 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. Agenda Items
6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment)
7. Council Communications (Communications from Council)
8. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address
the City Council.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:40 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7:25 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation extending a warm welcome to Father Adonay and
proclaiming greetings and expressions of friendship and
goodwill to the people of Asuchio. (Development Services)
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public.
4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on October 3, 2006. (City Clerk)
4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance)
4 -C. Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for the
2005 -2006 Fiscal Year. (Finance)
4 -D. Recommendation to approve Contract in the amount of $31,020 to
Sunnyvale Building Maintenance for Cleaning Service for the
Police Administration Building. (Police)
4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Two New
Type -3 Fire Ambulances Using the North County Fire Protection
District's Competitive Bid Award and Approving a Purchase
Agreement with Leader Industries in an Amount Not to Exceed
$268,925.29. (Fire)
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Public Hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment (GP05-
0001) to remove a 4.6 -acre portion from the 10 -acre planned
Estuary Park in the MU -5 (Specified Mixed Use - Northern
Waterfront, Willow Street to Oak Street), and rezoning (R05-
003) for properties located at 2241 and 2243 Clement Street
from M -2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R -4 /PD
Neighborhood Residential /Planned Development Combining
District in order to allow for residential development of up
to 242 dwelling units. The properties are located north of
Clement Street, west of Oak Street, and adjacent to the
Oakland- Alameda Estuary. Applicant: Francis Collins dba:
Boatworks; and
• Introduction of Ordinance Rezoning Portions of Property
Located at 2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue from M -2, General
Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R -4, Neighborhood
Residential and PD, Planned Development Combining District
(R- 4 /PD). (Planning and Building)
5 -B. Adoption of Resolution Declaring the Intent of the City
Council to Rezone the 22 -Acre Beltline Railroad Property
Consistent with Voter - Approved Measure E (Open Space /Park Use)
as Soon as the Property is Acquired by the City of Alameda.
(Recreation and Parks)
5 -C. Recommendation to approve Request for Proposals for purchase
of five all- electric vehicles for the City fleet. (Public
Works)
5 -D. Recommendation to appropriate $100,000 in Measure B funds to
update the City's Traffic Model, authorize preparation of a
General Plan Amendment (GPA) to the Transportation Element,
and direct staff to include the proposed transportation
policies recommended by the Transportation Commission in the
GPA. (Public Works)
6. 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.
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended.
8. ADJOURNMENT - City Council
The November 7, 2006 Regular City Council Meeting will be
adjourned to Tuesday, November 14, 2006 due to the November 7,
2006 General Municipal Election.
* **
• For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a
written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk
at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please
contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at
least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter
• Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use.
For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD
number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including
those using wheelchairs, is available
• Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print
• Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request
• Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda
materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy
the benefits of the meeting
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC), AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - OCTOBER 3, 2006- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Commissioner Torrey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present: Councilmember /Commissioners /Board Members
Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Commisioner Torrey, and Mayor /Chair
Johnson - 6.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Board Member, Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Board Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 6.
(HABOC) Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioner meeting held
August 15, 2006. Approved.
(HABOC) Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioner meeting held
September 5, 2006. Approved.
(HABOC) Budget Review. Approved the proposed budget revision; and
Resolution No. 786, "Revising the Budget for the Conventional Low -
Rent Housing Program No. CA -062 (Esperanza)." Adopted.
AGENDA
(06- CIC) Recommendation to authorize conveyance by Quitclaim Deed
of 2.51 acres at the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC)
site for construction of 39 units of affordable rental housing to
the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda;
(HABOC) Recommendation to accept a 2.51 -acre site at the former
FISC Site for 39 units of affordable rental housing via a Quitclaim
Deed from the Community Improvement Commission;
(HABOC) Recommendation to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to
execute a 75 -Year Ground Lease with Resources for Community
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
October 3, 2006
1
Development (RCD) for construction and management of 39 units of
affordable rental housing on 2.51 acres at the former FISC site and
negotiate an Owner Participation Agreement and other related
documents between the Housing Authority, CIC and RCD;
(06- CICA) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
negotiate an Owner Participation Agreement and other related
documents with Resources for Community Development and the Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda;
(06- CC) Recommendation to approve the use of up to $1.41 million
of City HOME Funds and $100,000 of Affordable Housing Unit Fees
(AHUF) to pay a portion of the costs of development of 39 units of
Affordable Rental Housing within the former FISC site and authorize
the City Manager to executed related documents; and
(06- CICB) Resolution No. 06 -145, "Approving the Use of Housing
Funds to Pay a Portion of the Costs of Development of a 39 Unit
Affordable Rental Project within the FISC /East Housing Area."
Adopted.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager gave a
Power Point presentation.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan requested an
explanation on the cleanup requirements; inquired who would pay for
clean up.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
a benzene plume underlies the 39 unit site; stated the Navy is
responsible for plume remediation, which will begin in
approximately 12 months; the City has been working with the
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) on a remediation
measure that would allow the construction of residential units
prior to the Navy's remediation; the remedial action workplan was
signed by DTSC in Sacramento today; DTSC approved the installation
of a sub -slab depressurization system; a multi -layer vapor barrier
system underlies the buildings.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan inquired how open
space would be controlled.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
potential indoor air gases are the only risks identified by DTSC;
stated non - enclosed areas produce no human health and safety risks.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan inquired whether
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community 2
Improvement Commission and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
October 3, 2006
soil disruption has a depth limitation.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
the property has other land use controls, such as not allowing
digging below four feet; stated restrictions exist across the site
and would remain in place.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan inquired whether the
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) would have the same
restrictions, to which The Base Reuse and Community Development
Division Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan inquired whether
remediation is not required when digging four feet.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
the sub -slab depressurization system is the only mediation measure
required by DTSC.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan inquired about the
ground water.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
there is no drinking water at the FISC site.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan inquired whether the
plume extends past Tinker Avenue.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
in the affirmative; stated nothing is constructed over the plume;
Bayport units are within the buffer zone and single family homes
have vapor barriers.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the Navy would still retain
the responsibility for clean up with the remediation, to which The
Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan inquired whether
pumping was being done and air was being circulated.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
the system is passive; stated piping sucks in the air and vents the
air out.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member deHaan inquired who is
responsible for monitoring the remediation requirements, to which
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community 3
Improvement Commission and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
October 3, 2006
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
the property owners.
Councilmember /Commissioner /Board Member Matarrese inquired what is
the Navy's plume remediation timetable.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
the Navy hopes to be underway with the active remediation within a
year and completely done by 2016.
Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff
recommendations and adoption of resolution.
Commissioner Torrey seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 6.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
October 3, 2006
4
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 17, 2006
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Re: Resolution Adopting Report to City Council, Authorizing Transmittal of Report
to the City Council and Consenting to Joint Public Hearing
BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2006, the Economic Development Commission endorsed a proposed
sixth amendment to the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) Community
Improvement Plan (CIP) that would update the Plan's land use designations to conform to
the City's General Plan as it currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time.
The BWIP CIP was adopted in 1991 and has been amended previously a total of five
times. On October 3, 2006, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) adopted a
resolution referring the proposed amendment to the Planning Board and authorizing its
transmittal to the affected taxing entities and other interested parties. The Planning Board
received the proposed amendment on October 9, 2006. Staff has prepared a Report to the
City Council to assist the City Council in its consideration of the proposed sixth
amendment. This report is one of the legally required documents leading to the adoption
of the sixth amendment. The CIC adoption of the Report to the City Council, transmittal of
the Report and proposed amendment to the City Council, and consent of the CIC to hold a
joint public hearing on the proposed amendment are the next steps in the amendment
process.
DISCUSSION
The BWIP CIP was adopted in 1991. At that time, the BWIP land use designations were
found to be consistent with General Plan land use designations. Currently, there are seven
areas within the BWIP with land use designations that are different from the General Plan
land use designations. The proposed sixth amendment (on file with the City Clerk) brings
all BWIP land uses into conformance with the existing General Plan. The amendment
amends the current specific land use references in the BWIP CIP to refer to the City of
Alameda General Plan as it currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time.
The amendment serves two purposes: 1) eliminating discrepancies that exist between the
CIP and General Plan land uses; and 2) streamlining future development projects by
Agenda Item #2 -B
CIC Resolution
10 -17 -06 CC /CIC
Honorable Chair and October 17, 2006
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 4
eliminating the need to process a separate BWIP plan amendment for each development
project that requires a General Plan amendment.
In order to amend the BWIP CIP, California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL)
provides that there be a joint public hearing of the City Council and the CIC in order to
consult with and obtain the advice of property owners, business owners, tenants,
community organizations and any other interested groups and citizens. The joint public
hearing on the proposed sixth amendment has been scheduled for November 21, 2006.
Section 33452 of the CRL requires that the joint public hearing be widely noticed in a
newspaper of general circulation, at least once a week for at least three weeks, and that
notices be mailed to all property and business owners, tenants and residents in the Project
Area. The notices and publication will also serve to invite interested parties to a community
information meeting, which will be held prior to the joint public hearing.
Section 33457.1 of the CRL requires the CIC to prepare a Report to the City Council that
provides information, documentation and evidence to assist the Council in its consideration
of the proposed sixth amendment and in making the various and necessary findings
associated with the adoption of the amendment. The Report to the City Council for the
proposed sixth amendment to the CIP for the BWIP is on file at the City Clerk's office.
The non -major plan amendment process consists of: (Dates are tentative)
• Resolution of CIC referring amendment to the Planning Board and authorizing
transmittal to affected taxing entities — October 3, 2006;
• Resolution finding and determining that a Project Area Committee need not be
formed in connection with the proposed Sixth Amendment — October 3, 2006;
• Transmittal of amendment to Planning Board — October 9, 2006;
• CIC adoption of Report to Council and consent to joint hearing — October 17,
2006;
• City Council acceptance of Report to Council and consent to joint hearing —
October 17, 2006;
• Planning Board review and submission of recommendation — October 23, 2006;
• Community Information Meeting— October 30, 2006;
• Public Hearing is noticed:
o Four successive weeks of advertising — October 24 and 31,
November 7 and 14
o Notices mailed to all property owners, residents and businesses by
first class mail, and governing bodies of taxing entities by certified
mail — October 19, 2006
Honorable Chair and October 17, 2006
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 4
• Public Hearing and introduction of Ordinance adopting proposed Amendment for
first reading — November 21, 2006;
• Second reading and approval of Ordinance adopting Amendment — December
5, 2006
• Ordinance effective date — January 4, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Sixth Amendment is technical in nature and assures continued conformance
with the City's General Plan. The proposed Sixth Amendment is exempt from CEQA
pursuant to CEQA Section 15061.b.3 which states that CEQA only applies to projects that
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The land use
designations described in the existing Community Improvement Plan provide for a greater
range of uses than the current General Plan; therefore, there are no significant effects on
the environmental because the greater range of uses allowed by the Community
Improvement Plan would not be allowed without a future General Plan amendment and
related environmental review. Thus, revising the land use designations within the
Community Improvement Plan to reflect the General Plan would not result in any
environmental effects. As a result, a Notice of Exemption will also be prepared. The one
exception to CEQA exemption is the pending General Plan amendment to the Grand
Marina Village area. Since the environmental impacts of the Grand Marina Village project
had not been previously analyzed or anticipated by prior General Plan amendments, an
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Grand Marina Village
project and will be approved and adopted prior to the adoption of the proposed Sixth
Amendment.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the General Fund. Tax increment funds were approved in the FY
2006 -07 budget for the CIP amendment. The CIP amendment is expected to cost
approximately $41,000.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This amendment will change the BWIP CIP so that BWIP land use designations are always
consistent with the General Plan, as it currently exists and as it may be amended in the
future.
Honorable Chair and
October 17, 2006
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution adopting the Report to City Council, authorizing transmittal of the
Report to the City Council and consenting to a Joint Public Hearing.
Respectfully s
mitted,
Leslie • Litt e
Development Services Director
By: Dorene Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
By: Rachel Silver
Development Manager, Housing
LAL /RS:
On file in the City Clerk's Office:
1) Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project
2) Report to the City Council for the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community
Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project
Approved as to Form
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED SIXTH
AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE BUSINESS
AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF
SAID REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND
CONSENTING TO HOLDING A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL
WHEREAS, on June 18, 1991, by Ordinance No. 2559, the City Council of the
City of Alameda ( "City Council ") approved and adopted the Community Improvement
Plan ( "Plan ") for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "Project" or
"Project Area "); and
WHEREAS, the Plan has been amended a total of five (5) times (as amended,
the "Existing Plan "), the First Amendment established time limits in compliance with
Assembly Bill 1290 (Stats. 1993, Chap. 942), the Second, Third and Fourth
Amendments amended certain land uses, and the Fifth Amendment merged the
Project Area with the West End Community Improvement Plan, extended eminent
domain except over residential uses and added territory; and
WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda
( "Commission ") is vested with the responsibility to carry out the Existing Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Commission desires to amend the Existing Plan ( "Sixth
Amendment ") to update the land use provisions to conform to the City's General Plan
as it currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has caused to be prepared a Report to the City
Council on the proposed Sixth Amendment pursuant to Section 33457.1 of the
Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code
Section 33000 et seq.; "CRL "); and
WHEREAS, the Report to the City Council has been submitted to and reviewed
by the members of the governing board of the Commission; and
WHEREAS, Section 33458 of the CRL authorizes a joint public hearing on the
proposed Sixth Amendment with the consent of the Commission and the City Council
of the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has prepared the required notice of joint public
hearing for transmittal pursuant to CRL Section 33452.
Resolution #2 -B (1)
Joint CC & CIC Meeting
10 -17 -06
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Commission approves and adopts the Report to the City
Council prepared for the proposed Sixth Amendment.
Section 2. The Executive Director of the Commission is hereby authorized and
directed to transmit the Report approved in Section 1 of this Resolution to the City
Council of the City of Alameda.
Section 3. The Commission consents to and requests the convening of a joint
public hearing with the City Council on November 21, 2006, at 7:25 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as possible, in the City Council Chambers (3rd Floor), located at City Hall,
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, for the purpose of considering the
proposed Sixth Amendment and other related matters.
Section 4. The Commission hereby approves the notice of joint public hearing
as written and attached to this resolution.
Section 5. Pursuant to CRL Section 33452, Commission staff is hereby
directed to work with the City Clerk and Commission advisors in the mailing of a copy
of the aforesaid notice attached herewith to the last known assessee of each parcel of
land within the Project Area as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of
Alameda County. The notice shall also be sent to all residents and businesses within
the Project Area if addresses therefore are obtainable at a reasonable cost, and to the
governing body of each of the taxing entities that receives a portion of the ad valorem
taxes levied on properties within the Project Area.
Section 6. Pursuant to CRL Section 33452, Commission staff is hereby
directed to work with the City Clerk and Commission advisors in the publishing of the
aforesaid notice in a newspaper of general circulation for a period not less than once a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks prior to the date of the joint public hearing. The
notice shall be published in the Alameda Journal on October 24 and 31, and November
7 and 14, 2006, to satisfy this requirement.
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FOR THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") and the
Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") will hold a joint public
hearing on November 21, 2006, at 7:25 p.m., in the City Council Chambers (3`d Floor), located at City
Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, to consider and act upon the proposed Sixth
Amendment ( "Sixth Amendment ") to the Community Improvement Plan ( "Community Improvement
Plan ") for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "Project" or "Project Area "), and to
consider all, evidence and testimony for or against the approval and adoption of the proposed Sixth
Amendment. At any time not later than the hour set forth above for the hearing of objections to the
proposed Sixth Amendment, any person may file in writing with the City Clerk of the City of Alameda a
statement of objections to the proposed Sixth Amendment. At the day, hour and place of the hearing,
any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Sixth Amendment, or the regularity of any of
the prior proceedings, may appear before the City Council and the Commission and show cause why the
proposed Sixth Amendment should not be adopted. At the hour set forth above for the hearing of
objections, the City Council and the Commission shall proceed to hear all written and oral objections to
the proposed Sixth Amendment.
The purpose of the proposed Sixth Amendment is to amend specific land use references within
the existing Community Improvement Plan to refer to the City of Alameda's General Plan, as it
currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time, for all permitted land uses. No amendment
is proposed to the boundaries of the Project Area or the fiscal or time limits governing the Agency's
activities under the Community Improvement Plan. The fiscal and time limits stated in the existing
Community Improvement Plan, as amended, for the Project Area shall remain in force as adopted.
A map of the Project Area is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. The legal
description of the boundaries of the Project Area is described in Instrument #2003220741, of the Official
Records of Alameda County, California. A copy of the legal description of the boundaries of the Project
Area is available, free of charge, at the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue,
Alameda, California. Interested persons may inspect and, upon the payment of the costs of
reproduction, obtain copies of the proposed Sixth Amendment, the existing Community Improvement
Plan, the Report of the Commission to the City Council on the proposed Sixth Amendment, and any
other information pertaining thereto at the offices of the Community Improvement Commission of the
City of Alameda and the City Clerk located at City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California.
Should you wish to challenge in court the approval and adoption of the proposed Sixth
Amendment or any related action or document, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the joint public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the joint public hearing.
A Public Workshop regarding the proposed Sixth Amendment will also be held on Monday,
October 30, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers (3rd Floor), located at City Hall, 2263 Santa
Clara Avenue, Alameda, California.
Dated: October 2006
City Clerk, City of Alameda
Publish: October 24, 2006;
October 31, 2006;
November 7, 2006; and
November 14, 2006
EXHIBIT A
Proposed Redevelopment Plan Map
City of Alameda
r'j Law 0:407ReoLdendot
Madam Deadly twtdemw
bulehbockioa eu.Mou
DregemltyCaleameld
v� F
Fluidram Mk
krraonad Mixed uo
® l'e
- rdiAlegrrthe lm:: shoal
® Caeramueadlescxealer
• �aeasetai,tltexe�lla.
E N Decided NaeWda
NE PfulxPWik eggs siwg
?i todle9: Xtyierleiritne Auoelalr,1n
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City
of Alameda in a Special Community Improvement Commission meeting assembled on
the day of , 2006 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 Commission this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Community Improvement Commission
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 17, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Resolution Receiving the Report to City Council and Consenting to Joint
Public Hearing
BACKGROUND
On September 21, 2006, the Economic Development Commission endorsed a proposed
sixth amendment to the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) Community
Improvement Plan (CIP) that would update the Plan's land use designations to conform to
the City's General Plan as it currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time.
The Community Improvement Commission (CIC) has authorized the transmittal of the
Report to the City Council for the proposed sixth amendment to the Community
Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and has
consented to and requested that the City Council approve a joint public hearing of the City
Council and CIC to consider and act upon the proposed amendment.
DISCUSSION
In order to amend the BWIP CIP, California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL)
provides that there be a joint public hearing of the City Council and the CIC in order to
consult with and obtain the advice of property owners, business owners, tenants,
community organizations and any other interested groups and citizens. The joint public
hearing on the proposed sixth amendment has been scheduled for November 21, 2006.
Section 33452 of the CRL requires that the joint public hearing be widely noticed in a
newspaper of general circulation, at least once a week for at least three weeks, and that
notices be mailed to all property and business owners, tenants and residents in the Project
Area. The notices and publication will also serve to invite interested parties to a community
information meeting, which will be held prior to the joint public hearing.
Section 33457.1 of the CRL requires the CIC to prepare a Report to the City Council that
provides information, documentation and evidence to assist the Council in its consideration
of the proposed sixth amendment and in making the various and necessary findings
associated with the adoption of the amendment. The CIC has approved and adopted the
Report to the City Council and authorized its transmittal to the City Council.
Agenda Item #2 -B
CC Resolution
10 -17 -06 CC /CIC
Honorable Chair and October 17, 2006
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3
The non -major plan amendment process consists of: (Dates are tentative)
• Resolution of CIC referring amendment to the Planning Board and authorizing
transmittal to affected taxing entities — October 3, 2006;
• Resolution finding and determining that a Project Area Committee need not be
formed in connection with the proposed Sixth Amendment — October 3, 2006;
• Transmittal of amendment to Planning Board — October 9, 2006;
• CIC adoption of Report to Council and request for joint hearing — October 17, 2006;
• City Council acceptance of Report to Council and call for joint hearing — October 17,
2006;
• Planning Board review and submission of recommendation — October 23, 2006;
• Community Information Meeting— October 30, 2006;
• Public Hearing is noticed:
o Four successive weeks of advertising — October 24 and 31, November 7
and 14
o Notices mailed to all property owners, residents and businesses by first
class mail, and governing bodies of taxing entities by certified mail —
October 19, 2006
• Public Hearing and introduction of Ordinance adopting proposed Amendment for
first reading — November 21, 2006;
• Second reading and approval of Ordinance adopting Amendment — December 5,
2006
• Ordinance effective date — January 4, 2007
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed Sixth Amendment is technical in nature and assures continued conformance
with the City's General Plan. The proposed Sixth Amendment is exempt from CEQA
pursuant to CEQA Section 15061.b.3 which states that CEQA only applies to projects that
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The land use
designations described in the existing Community Improvement Plan provide for a greater
range of uses than the current General Plan; therefore, there are no significant effects on
the environmental because the greater range of uses allowed by the Community
Improvement Plan would not be allowed without a future General Plan amendment and
related environmental review. Thus, revising the land use designations within the
Community Improvement Plan to reflect the General Plan would not result in any
environmental effects. As a result, a Notice of Exemption will also be prepared. The one
exception to CEQA exemption is the pending General Plan amendment to the Grand
Marina Village area. Since the environmental impacts of the Grand Marina Village project
had not been previously analyzed or anticipated by prior General Plan amendments, an
Honorable Chair and October 17, 2006
Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the Grand Marina Village
project and will be approved and adopted prior to the adoption of the proposed Sixth
Amendment.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the General Fund. Tax increment funds were approved in the FY
2006 -07 budget for the CIP amendment. The CIP amendment is expected to cost
approximately $41,000.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This resolution will facilitate an amendment that changes the BWIP CIP so that BWIP land
use designations are always consistent with the General Plan, as it currently exists and as
it may be amended in the future.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution receiving the Report to City Council and consenting to a Joint Public
Hearing.
Re.pec
Ily submitted
ie . Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
By: Rachel Silver
Development Manager, Housing
LAL /RS:
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
RECEIVING THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PREPARED
FOR THE PROPOSED SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE BUSINESS AND
WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND CONSENTING
TO HOLDING A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA
WHEREAS, on June 18, 1991, by Ordinance No. 2559, the City
Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") approved and adopted the
Community Improvement Plan ( "Plan ") for the Business and Waterfront
Improvement Project ( "Project" or "Project Area "); and
WHEREAS, the Plan has been amended a total of five (5) times (as
amended, the "Existing Plan "), the First Amendment established time limits
in compliance with Assembly Bill 1290 (Stats. 1993, Chap. 942), the
Second, Third and Fourth Amendments amended certain land uses, and
the Fifth Amendment merged the Project Area with the West End
Community Improvement Plan, extended eminent domain except over
residential uses and added territory; and
WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda ( "Commission ") is vested with the responsibility to carry out the
Existing Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Commission desires to amend the Existing Plan
( "Sixth Amendment ") to: update the land use provisions to conform to the
City's General Plan as it currently exists and as it may be amended from
time to time; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has caused to be prepared a Report to
the City Council on the proposed Sixth Amendment pursuant to Section
33457.1 of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California
(Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.; "CRL "); and
Resolution #2 -B (2)
Joint CC & CIC Meeting
10 -17 -06
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2006, the Commission, by resolution,
authorized the transmittal of the Report to the City Council prepared for the
proposed Sixth Amendment to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, Section 33458 of the CRL authorizes a joint public
hearing on the proposed Sixth Amendment with the consent of the
Commission and the City Council of the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, the Commission has prepared the required notice of
joint public hearing for transmittal pursuant to CRL Section 33452.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby receives the Commission's
Report to the City Council prepared for the proposed Sixth Amendment
pursuant to CRL Section 33457.1.
Section 2. The City Council consents to and calls a joint public
hearing with the Commission on November 21, 2006, at 7:25 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as possible, in the City Council Chambers (3rd Floor),
located at City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, for the
purpose of considering the proposed Sixth Amendment and other related
matters.
Section 3. The City Council hereby approves the notice of joint
public hearing as written and attached to this resolution.
Section 4. Pursuant to CRL Section 33452, the City Clerk is hereby
directed to work with Commission staff and advisors in the mailing of a copy
of the aforesaid notice attached herewith to the last known assessee of
each parcel of land within the Project Area as shown on the last equalized
assessment roll of Alameda County. The notice shall also be sent to all
residents and businesses within the Project Area if addresses therefor are
obtainable at a reasonable cost, and to the governing body of each of the
taxing entities that receives a portion of the ad valorem taxes levied on
properties within the Project Area.
Section 5. Pursuant to CRL Section 33452, the City Clerk is hereby
directed to work with Commission staff and advisors in the publishing of the
aforesaid notice in a newspaper of general circulation for a period not less
than once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks prior to the date of the
joint public hearing. The notice shall be published in the Alameda Journal
on October 24 and 31, and November 7 and 14, 2006, to satisfy this
requirement.
NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FOR THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") and the
Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") will hold a joint public
hearing on November 21, 2006, at 7:25 p.m., in the City Council Chambers (3'1 Floor), located at City
Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, to consider and act upon the proposed Sixth
Amendment ( "Sixth Amendment ") to the Community Improvement Plan ( "Community Improvement
Plan ") for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "Project" or "Project Area "), and to
consider all evidence and testimony for or against the approval and adoption of the proposed Sixth
Amendment. At any time not later than the hour set forth above for the hearing of objections to the
proposed Sixth Amendment, any person may file in writing with the City Clerk of the City of Alameda a
statement of objections to the proposed Sixth Amendment. At the day, hour and place of the hearing,
any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Sixth Amendment, or the regularity of any of
the prior proceedings, may appear before the City Council and the Commission and show cause why the
proposed Sixth Amendment should not be adopted. At the hour set forth above for the hearing of
objections, the City Council and the Commission shall proceed to hear all written and oral objections to
the proposed Sixth Amendment.
The purpose of the proposed Sixth Amendment is to amend specific land use references within
the existing Community Improvement Plan to refer to the City of Alameda's General Plan, as it
currently exists and as it may be amended from time to time, for all permitted land uses. No amendment
is proposed to the boundaries of the Project Area or the fiscal or time limits governing the Agency's
activities under the Community Improvement Plan. The fiscal and time limits stated in the existing
Community Improvement Plan, as amended, for the Project Area shall remain in force as adopted.
A map of the Project Area is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof. The legal
description of the boundaries of the Project Area is described in Instrument #2003220741, of the Official
Records of Alameda County, California. A copy of the legal description of the boundaries of the Project
Area is available, free of charge, at the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue,
Alameda, California. Interested persons may inspect and, upon the payment of the costs of
reproduction, obtain copies of the proposed Sixth Amendment, the existing Community Improvement
Plan, the Report of the Commission to the City Council on the proposed Sixth Amendment, and any
other information pertaining thereto at the offices of the Community Improvement Commission of the
City of Alameda and the City Clerk located at City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California.
Should you wish to challenge in court the approval and adoption of the proposed Sixth
Amendment or any related action or document, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the joint public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence
delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the joint public hearing.
A Public Workshop regarding the proposed Sixth Amendment will also be held on Monday,
October 30, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers (3rd Floor), located at City Hall, 2263 Santa
Clara Avenue, Alameda, California.
Dated: October , 2006
City Clerk, City of Alameda
Publish: October 24, 2006;
October 31, 2006;
November 7, 2006; and
November 14, 2006
EXHIBIT A
Proposed Redevelopment Plan Map
City of Alameda
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by
the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Proclamation
Welcoming Father Adonay of Asuchio, El Salvador to the City of Alameda and
Extending Greetings and Expressions of Continuing Friendship to
Members of the Directiva and to the People of Asuchio, El Salvador
WHEREAS, the Alameda Social Service Human Relations Board initiated a project to revitalize and
expand the Alameda Sister City Program to encourage friendship and understanding
between the peoples of the United States and other nations through the medium of
direct personal contact; and
WHEREAS, the people of the City of Alameda and its officials have enthusiastically endorsed the
concept of forming friendship relations and affiliations with foreign cities with
common concerns and mutual interests; and
WHEREAS, residents of the City of Alameda have visited Asuchio, El Salvador and have reported
to the City Council and the Social Service Human Relations Board regarding the desire
of Alameda and Asuchio residents to establish and maintain friendly relations between
the two locales; and
WHEREAS, officials in both cities have indicated a sincere willingness to engage in programs
which will be beneficial to their peoples, particularly in the development of cultural
and social ties and in the development of an exchange program between the two cities;
and
WHEREAS, Father Adonay will return to Asuchio and report to the Directiva and people of
Asuchio regarding his experiences visiting the City of Alameda;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Alameda,
hereby extend a warm welcome to our City to Father Adonay and proclaim greetings and expressions of
friendship and goodwill to the people of Asuchio; and
FURTHERMORE, present these gifts as an expression of friendship from the City of Alameda to Father
Adonay, on behalf of the Directiva of Asuchio and all Asuchio residents.
Vice Mayor Marie Gilmore
Councilmember Tony Daysog
Mayor Beverly J. Johnson
Councilmember Doug deHaan
Councilmember Frank Matarrese
Agenda Item #3 -A
10-17-06
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - OCTOBER 3, 2006- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
(06- ) Conference With Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations:
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Executive Management Group, Management and
Confidential Employees Association, and Police Association Non -
Sworn.
(06- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: VanderHeiden v. City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received
a briefing from its Labor Negotiator; no action was taken;
regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a briefing from
Legal Counsel and gave direction to Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:50 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 3, 2006
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - - OCTOBER 3, 2006 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 9:50 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmember Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(06- ) The Proclamation declaring October as Disability Awareness
month [paragraph no. 06- ] was addressed after the minutes
[paragraph no. 06- ].
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06- ) Proclamation declaring October as National Arts and
Humanities Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Debra Owen,
Executive Director, Frank Bette Center for the Arts.
Ms. Owen thanked the Council on behalf of the City's very large and
thriving arts community.
Councilmember Daysog stated Alameda is blessed with an abundance of
artists; he saw art by an Alameda artist displayed in a Washington,
D.C. Art Center.
(06- ) Proclamation declaring October 4, 2006 as Walk & Roll to
School Day.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Elizabeth and
Sarah Adamson, Earhart Elementary School students.
Audrey Lord - Hausman introduced Gina Adamson, Walk and Roll
Coordinator; stated this year's Walk & Roll to School Day is the
sixth event.
(06- ) Proclamation declaring October 15 -21, 2006 as National
Business Women's Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Kimberlee
Garfinkle and Margaret Seaman with the Isle City of Alameda
Business and Professional Women.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
1
Ms. Garfinkle stated many of the members' relatives have been
affected by breast cancer; encouraged support of women -owned
businesses; noted recipients of this year's awards; stated this
year's event takes place on Saturday, October 21, at the Harbor Bay
Community Center.
(06- ) Library project update.
The Project Manager gave a brief update.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Project Manager for all the efforts to
make the project a big success.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Project Manager for the great
job; stated the Library Director has been set up with a great
building; the community is anxious for the opening; construction is
top quality.
Councilmember deHaan thanked the Project Manager for the impressive
tour; inquired how much money will be turned back to the branch
libraries.
The Project Manager responded figures would be assembled and
presented at the first Council meeting in December; stated the
amount should be in excess of the $2 million promised with the
passing of Measure O.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the next project.
The Project Manager responded there would be a community process
for branch libraries; stated the process has not started.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked the Project Manager for all the hard
work; stated the project's beginning was frustrating; a lot of
hours were put into value engineering, which made the project
possible.
Councilmember Daysog thanked the Project Manager; stated the
Library looks great on the outside.
The Library Director gave a brief presentation on the Library's
interior design and programs.
In response to Mayor Johnson's request for an explanation of
wireless capabilities, the Library Director stated the entire
building has a free, wireless network; a library card is needed to
connect to the network; the new Library will have 75 computers.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
2
Mayor Johnson stated over 100 years was a worthwhile wait.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 06- ] and
Public Hearing [paragraph no. 06- ] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
'[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
(06- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public
Utilities Board Meeting held on September 14, 2006; the Special
Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA), Community Improvement Commission (CIC), and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners Meetings, the Special Joint City
Council, ARRA and CIC Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting
held on September 19, 2006; and the Special City Council Meeting
held on September 26, 2006.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he provided corrected language for
the September 19, 2006 minutes to the City Clerk; corrected the
September 26, 2006 minutes to reflect that he arrived at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the minutes with noted
corrections.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Daysog abstained from
voting on the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board
minutes]
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCMENTS
(06- ) Proclamation declaring October as Disability Awareness
Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Ed Cooney,
Chair, Mayor's Committee on Disability Issues and Toby Berger,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
3
Committee Member.
Mr. Cooney stated disability is a natural condition and could
happen to anyone; thanked the Council for the proclamation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
( *06- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,039,803.21.
( *06- ) Resolution No. 14019, "Finding and Determining That a
Project Area Committee Need Not be Formed in Relation to the
Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Area." Adopted.
( *06- ) Ordinance No. 2953, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Subsection 30- 4.9A.g.8 (Off- Street Parking and Loading
Space) of the C -C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations), to Add a Process for Parking
Exceptions." Finally passed.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council requested that the matter be
brought back for review in six months; tweaking can be done if
necessary.
The Planning and Building Director stated that she would be happy
to provide a report as often as necessary.
Councilmember Daysog moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06- ) Resolution No. 14020, "Appointing Robert A. Bonta as a
member of the Economic Development Commission (Banking /Finance
Seat)." Adopted;
(06- A) Resolution No. 14021, "Appointing Cathy Nielsen as a
member of the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted; and
(06- B) Resolution No. 14022, "Appointing Henry B. Villareal as
a member of the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
4
The City
Villareal
(06- )
member of
Clerk administered the Oath TO Ms. Nielsen and Mr.
and presented certificates of appointment.
Resolution No. 14023, "Appointing David J. Burton as a
the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force." Adopted;
(06- A) Resolution No. 14024, "Appointing Stanley M. Schiffman as
a member of the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force." Adopted;
(06 B) Resolution No. 14025, "Appointing Ron Silberstein as a
member of the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force." Adopted;
(06- C) Resolution No. 14026, "Appointing Lizette Weiss as a
member of the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force." Adopted; and
(06- D) Recommendation to accept report on the membership of the
Climate Protection Campaign Task Force.
The Planning and Building Director stated staff would be able to
start working with the Task Force later in the month to set goals
for the local action plan to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases
with adoption of the resolutions; the project is very exciting.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions and
approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that leaf blowers and a vehicle
use plan be added to the list for the Task Force to work on.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment.
Mayor Johnson stated many highly qualified individuals applied and
were willing to volunteer time to the community; thanked the newly
appointed Task Force members.
Mr. Schiffman stated he sees the Task Force as a stewardship for
the environment; the goal is to leave a cleaner and healthier place
for future generations; he is delighted and honored to serve.
(06- ) Recommendation to allocate funding for the purchase of
the Beltline property and the park design and development process.
The Recreation and Park Director gave a brief presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
5
Councilmember Daysog stated the park design and development process
seems to be staff driven; inquired whether thought has been given
to a community driven process with staff support.
The Recreation and Park Director responded thought has been given
to having a very open and collaborative process, with a great deal
of community involvement.
Mayor Johnson
for approval.
Councilmember
tax fund.
requested that the process be brought back to Council
deHaan requested an explanation on the dwelling unit
The Finance Director stated the dwelling unit tax fund is a tax
that is assessed at the building permit process stage;
approximately one -sixth goes to the Library construction fund; the
remainder goes to Recreation and Park; there are no requirements
addressing us of the funds; typically, the funds are used for park
construction and revitalization.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much money is in the fund.
The Finance Director responded she did not know; stated funding
usage depends on the building cycle.
Mayor Johnson stated funding and ballot measure questions have been
raised; she has requested that the City Attorney respond to some of
the questions and provide an overview on the Beltline open space
issue.
The City Attorney provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated ordinances have two readings; inquired
whether the ordinance could be introduced but no finally passed
until the process is completed.
The City Attorney responded the first ordinance reading would not
jeopardize the City's position with on -going litigation; stated
rezoning action would not be taken until the second reading.
* **
Councilmember Daysog left at 8:45 p.m. and returned at 8:47 p.m.
* **
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether money is set aside and
earmarked for Estuary Park.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
6
The Recreation and Park Director responded the money was earmarked
as a match for a grant the City applied for through the State; the
City did not receive the grant.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City could pursue another
grant.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the City applied for the
second round of funding; stated the State reduced the total amount
available in the program to $1 million Statewide.
Councilmember deHaan inquired where the Estuary Park funding would
come from.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the City is always
looking for funding opportunities; stated State sources are
unlikely; a definite plan is not in place.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council set aside $1 million in a general
open space fund ; Council always has the ability match money for a
grant application.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Debra Arbuckle, Alameda, stated she wants to ensure public
involvement in the process; the public is willing to write grants.
Mayor Johnson suggested a stated a Task Force be established to
formalize community involvement.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he liked the idea of a Task Force.
Mayor Johnson stated Estuary Park and the Beltline are not
competing; Council would find money to match a grant application.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Task Force idea is good and would
help staff identify community resources, particularly grant
writers.
* **
Vice Mayor Gilmore left at 8:58 p.m. returned at 9:00 p.m.
* **
Ms. Arbuckle stated the Skate Park is a good example of community
involvement.
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed site clean up and open space uses.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
7
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the property should have an open
space commitment; he is intrigued with Councilmember Daysog's
suggestion regarding the first and second reading of the ordinance;
a legal opinion is necessary while the case is pending; he likes
the idea of a Task Force formalizing a community driven process;
the project's magnitude requires a Task Force in conjunction with
the Recreation and Park Commission; the planning process would be
long; he would like to see the planning process end when the City
takes control of the property.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Beltline is a great opportunity;
Jean Sweeney's efforts were instrumental in the process; requested
more detail on the $98,000 park planning cost; stated the process
was grassroots in nature; the community helped to lessened the
burden.
Councilmember Daysog suggested that the motion address starting the
process, including the first reading of the ordinance, and
addressing the legal issues.
The City Attorney suggested adopting a resolution expressing the
Council's intent to rezone the property to open space, which is
consistent with the voter's Measure E direction, as soon as the
City receives the deed; stated said resolution would not pose any
threat to the pending lawsuit against the City regarding possible
inverse condemnation.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with the City Attorney; stated the
community would understand that the City is moving forward but is
being careful.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to 1) allocate funds from Open Space fund and
designate said funds for the purchase of the Beltline, 2) begin the
community planning process with the recommendation that the process
be community driven with a Task Force that would work in
conjunction with the Recreation and Park Commission; and 3) prepare
a resolution that shows Council's intent to rezone the property
upon obtaining the deed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore suggested including the dwelling unit fund.
Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to include the dwelling
unit tax would augment the funds as described in the staff report.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
8
Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06- A) Resolution No. 14020, "Appointing Robert A. Bonta as a
member of the Economic Development Commission (Banking /Finance
Seat." Adopted.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment.
Mr. Bonta thanked Council for the opportunity to serve.
(06- ) Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution
Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise and Streamline
the Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire Departments Fee
Schedules.
The Building Official gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired when the current $125 Prebuild
Conference fee was established.
The Fire Marshal responded the fee was adjusted from $95 to $125
three years ago.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he liked the idea of going to a
time /cost fee versus a project evaluation fee; the office - tenant
improvement fees almost doubled; he does not see a good rational
for doing so; businesses might be discouraged from improving and
reusing empty space; inquired why the fee almost doubled.
The Building Official responded all fees were established by
reviewing the various plan check and inspection components; stated
tenant improvement inspections and plan checks tend to be fairly
complex.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue comes back to the rational
of reducing fees below cost recovery when a project is for the
City's general benefit; doubling the fee might not be for the
general benefit because of the large vacancy rate in commercial
spaces.
The Building Official responded the issue could be reviewed; stated
public benefit discussions involved special events for non - profit
groups such as sidewalk permits for homeowners, not necessarily a
property owner developing property; the theory was that property
owners should bear the fee when performing work on their property.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
9
Councilmember Matarrese stated the logic was not used on seismic
retrofit projects.
The Building Official stated the logic was based upon the common
good of seismic retrofitting; the City benefits from not having
buildings damaged in earthquakes.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the office - tenant improvement fee is
for projects over 5,000 square feet.
The Building Official responded the fee was based on a typical
office - tenant improvement cost; stated new fees would be
established based on the type of building construction, occupancy,
and square footage.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he does not see the logic in having
a dramatic increase for a hurting area.
The Building Official stated the logic was based upon cost.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the percentage of residential
fees versus commercial, particularly office - tenant.
The Building Official responded permit fees amounted to $180
million last year; $96 million was for residential remodel and
additions, which is approximately 50 %; new home fees were
approximately 20 %; commercial fees were approximately 30 %.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how much of the commercial fees were
office - tenant improvements, to which the Building Official
responded the bulk of the 30 %.
Councilmember Daysog stated residents would be paying less; the
Prebuild Conference fee was $125 three years ago; the $125 fee
should be $140 based on a 4% annual inflation rate; the proposed
$144 Prebuild Conference fee seems reasonable.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the false alarm fee included burglar
alarms, to which the Building Official responded currently there
are no false alarm fees for Fire Department responses, only Police
responses.
Mayor Johnson inquired how alarms are identified.
The Fire Marshal responded alarms are identified as a burglar or
fire alarm when received at the central station; stated fire alarms
are reported to the dispatch center and triggers the response from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
10
the Fire Department.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the new fee would be applied.
The Fire Marshal responded false alarm fees are not included in
Council action tonight and would be presented at a later date.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how Alameda compares to other cities.
The Building Official responded Alameda is in the middle; the
proposed fees would put Alameda closer to the top.
Councilmember deHaan stated the best test would be to implement the
proposed fees; inquired whether feedback was received under the
current distorted fees.
The Building Official responded pros and cons were received; stated
contractors compare Alameda favorably with other cities.
Councilmember deHaan stated fees can be raised but service delivery
becomes the key issue; fees do not become a concerning factor if a
contractor can expedite the process; inquired whether higher
service would be anticipated with the higher fees.
The Building Official responded service would continue to be
maintained at a high level.; stated anticipated staffing levels were
cross checked with the cost estimates.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether an overall fee collection increase
is anticipated or whether the increase is more of a refinement.
The Building Official responded the fee increases are more of a
refinement; stated currently $3 million is collected; $3.2 million
would be collected with the new fees.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether an overall, collective fee
comparison has been made.
The Building Official responded an overall fee comparison is
difficult to make with different cities.
Mayor Johnson stated the former Assistant City Manager intended to
review whether the fees were reasonable when added all together;
suggested reviewing the issue.
Councilmember Daysog stated the affordable housing fee was changed
several years ago to take inflation into account; affordable
housing fees started in the early 1990's under former Mayor
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
11
Withrow; a framework was instituted to address inflation; inquired
whether the same process should be done for all the other fees.
The Building Official responded fees are assessed upwards every
year.
Mayor Johnson requested that the matter be brought back to Council
in six months to make sure that the fee schedule works as intended.
Councilmember Daysog read the resolution paragraph addressing
administrative adjustments.
Mayor Johnson stated the intent is to make fees more predictable;
she hopes that the fee schedule works as intended.
Councilmember deHaan stated past, hard issues have been tackled,
particularly the flat rate; he hopes that a proper estimate can be
given for time and materials.
The Building Official responded efforts are made to provide proper
estimates; deposits should cover the full project.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the percentage for local fees
on new residential construction.
Te Building Official responded a Bayport home is valued at $350 to
$400 based on square footage; fees are about 4% of the value.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion Councilmember Matarrese stated the motion should
include direction to bring a report back to Council in six months
to make sure that the fee schedule works as intended, especially
with feedback on commercial fees.
The City Manager clarified that the fire inspection and alarm fees
are not included in the resolution.
Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan agreed to amend the motion to
incorporate Councilmember Matarrese's comments and clarification
that fire inspection and alarm fees are not included in the fee
schedule.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
12
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (Public Comment)
(06- ) Jimmie Lee Marks, Alameda, stated he was representing the
Encinal Alumni Association; the end of 3rd Street has no name;
inquired who he should speak to regarding naming the end of the
street Don Grant.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter would be directed to the City
Manager.
(06- ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed the harvest moon.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06- ) Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Rent Review
Advisory Committee.
Mayor Johnson appointed Karen Miller.
(06- ) Councilmember deHaan stated he would like an internal
audit on inter -fund transfers; a process needs to be in place in
order to move forward with control and management; he would like
some feedback on the ground rules.
(06- ) Councilmember Daysog stated he attended the League of
California Cities meeting several weeks ago; the hot topic was
redevelopment and why eminent domain should be stopped.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:41 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 3, 2006
13
October 12, 2006
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the
City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers
152869 - 153274
E15641 - E15766
EFT 259
EFT 260
EFT 261
EFT 262
EFT 263
EFT 264
EFT 265
Void Checks:
152340
GRAND TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
a
Pamela J. Sibley
Council Warrants 10/17/06
Amount
$1,870,464.18
$78,339.91
$56,540.61
$11,800.00
$35,728.65
$361,740.81
$74,211.18
$12,943.50
$14,403.00
($3.00)
$2,516,168.84
BILLS #4 -B
10/17/2006
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 17, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Accept the Annual Investment Report for the 2005 -2006
Fiscal Year
BACKGROUND
In June 2002, the City Council authorized staff to contract with PFM Asset Management
and Chandler Asset Management, Inc. for investment portfolio management. In January of
each year, the City Council adopts or reaffirms the 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 report covers the fourth year of the City's managed portfolio. Several goals were
achieved during this reporting period.
• Safety of Principal:
o The excellent credit quality was maintained.
The maturity distribution was structured to protect the portfolio in a rising rate
environment
• Liquidity:
The portfolio diversification was enhanced to capitalize on the sectors and
issuers offering the greatest value in the market
• Yield:
o Exceeded the industry- standard benchmarks to provide a solid return.
During the past year, more of the portfolio was invested in U.S. Treasury notes, Callable
Federal Agency Notes and Corporate Notes. These changes in sector distribution
occurred as market conditions changed in order to achieve the benchmark return. Credit
quality was maintained. Approximately 69% of the portfolio remains in the 1 -3 year
maturity, which is the point of best relative value in the present market.
Agenda Item #4 -C CC
10 -17 -06
Honorable Mayor and October 17, 2006
Councilmembers Page 2
The overall return for the managed composite portfolio since inception of the program was
2.79 %. This compares favorably to the Merrill Lynch benchmark earnings of 2.40 %, a
difference of 0.39% or approximately $250,000.
The Federal Reserve rate increases over the past year have affected the intermediate -term
interest rates. As interest rates continue to rise, the portfolio will have greater earnings for
new investments but the portfolio may experience a decline in the value of existing portfolio
holdings. Portfolio value and interest rates are inversely related.
At each quarter end, the portfolio managers have affirmed that there have been no
investments in companies that produce or manufacture cigarettes, alcohol or gambling
products.
BUDGET ANALYSIS /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The value added by having 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 .39% more than the benchmark, demonstrating the benefit of this
approach. In addition to earning returns above the benchmark, staff time is relieved to
perform other functions thereby increasing productivity.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Annual Investment Report for the 2005 -2006 fiscal year.
Respectfully submitted,
JAB:d1
Attachment
cc: City Treasurer
e -Ann Boyer
of Financial Officer
City of Alameda California
October 17, 2006
Honorable Mayor and City Council
I have reviewed the City of Alameda's Annual Investment Report for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006 and find that it complies with the Investment Policy
established by my office.
The interest of the Council is always appreciated.
KK:dI
Si
Fly,
Kevin K- nedy
City Tr surer
Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer
Office of the City Treasurer
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 220
Alameda, California 94501 -4477
510.747.4881 Office • Fax 510.747.4890 • TDD 510.522.7538
Attachment
Agenda Item #4 -C CC
10 -17 -06
1
City hired two investment advisors (PFM Asset Management LLC and Chandler Asset
Management) in June 2002.
N
a)
E
t
N
Q
E
O
c.)
c.)
a
co
cn
a)
cm
a)
L
to
0
in
0
L
Enhanced portfolio diversification to capitalize on the sectors and issuers offering the
greatest value in the market
Structured maturity distribution to protect the portfolio in a rising rate environment
Maintained the portfolio's excellent credit quality
Generated a solid return that has outperformed industry- standard benchmarks
i
Portfolio is well- diversified and focused in the sectors that offer the best relative value.
•
N
V
N
O N -
N
co N ¢ _N 4)
I— 2 O
N 0
O O W TO O)
D Z ZU O<
0 0
0 Corporate Notes
\o
0
Cfl
ti
\o
0
O
CO
0 0 0 0 c c 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0) CO N- CO LO c) N
k Excludes LAIF and Money Market Fund
The overall portfolio credit quality is excellent.
•
Credit Quality Distribution as of June 30, 2006
0"
< o
z
u_
a)
t.) Zctl
o Q)
oO
co▪ a
z
a,a
co• W
1
I)
i
0
c
0
0
a)
a)
O
a) ▪ =
il
N
Q >
co c
•— a)
Cc) c
O
to O
O 0
>- 0) O N
▪ — Z
o
a) = a)
_ u) c
E a,
a) ca it 1
7 Lc-)
U N co i o
a) a) co Cr)
E a)
O +-� > a)
L 0 N c
co a) "
N c U
0
a) 2 v
a) o
4 -'
cn
-4-
-' -
a)) >
L-
-E-° fli:D Ecti
_CD
,:::" ,:::" ,:::" (:*:) (:*:) (:*:) (:*:) (:*:) (:*:)
LO M 0 CO LO M 0 CO LO
LC) Li) Lri 4 4 4 4 M M
Source: Bloomberg
1
Owl
a
w
To mitigate the impact of rising rates, the portfolio was positioned with a shorter, more
•
conservative bias.
0 o
0)
CO
0 o
CO
N
I
O o
0
CO
June 30, 2002
June 30, 2006
0)
N-
CO
N-
1
O
0
,
O O
0 0
CO N
O
O
N-
oilo4Taod IeTol 4o ebeTUeoJed
O
0
3 - 4 Years
2 - 3 Years
N ci)
N—
I C
O
CO 2
LAIF and Money Market Fund
* Excludes
a)
U
E
a)
rn
co
co
rn
W� N
O
E
W
0
0 =
4-
0
co
_c _c
O 0)
0
0 c
• E
Cr) CO
L �
T!1
cn 0
ca
a) a)
•
C
3
4.1 Q o O 0 0
N'
Q), N (Ni
D V
H
Combined Benchmark2
a)
O
X
a)
O
O X
a) a)
L
a)
0 E
L O
L
a) a)
>
//O�
c
- c
L a)
U }
>n
0)
c
0)
a)
0-
a)
0)
O
a)
Q
E
O
U
a)
U
O
(6
o
o O
N
.. a• )
(o Q
U
a)
co
O N
O c
Q
O O
U
N
l`r
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: October 17, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re:
Recommendation to Award Contract for a Cleaning Service for the Police
Administration Building to Sunnyvale Building Maintenance in the amount
of $41,256
BACKGROUND
As authorized by the City Council request for bids for a cleaning service for the Police
Administration Building was formally advertised and bids were opened on August 18,
2006.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The City Clerk received the below listed five bids.
VENDOR
LOCATION
MONTHLY /ANNUAL BID
Jani -King, Inc.
1855 Gateway Blvd.,
Suite #180
Concord, CA 94520
$6,255 per month
$75,060 annually
Clean Innovation Corp.
3350 Scott Blvd.,
Bldg. 8
Santa Clara, CA 95054
$5,000 per month
$60,000 annually
Manos Janitorial Corp.
4173 MacArthur Blvd.,
#C
Oakland, CA 94619
$4,679 per month
$56,148 annually
D A D Services, Inc.
6675 Foothill Blvd.
Oakland, CA 94605
$3,955 per month
$47,460 annually
Sunnyvale Building Maintenance
P.O. Box 361052
Milpitas, Ca 95036
$3,438 per month
$41,256 annually
Agenda Item #4 -D CC
10 -17 -06
Honorable Mayor and October 17, 2006
Councilmembers Page 2 of 2
None of the received bids were from Alameda companies. Of the bids received, Jani-
King and D A D Services are already established vendors with the City. Jani -King has
current contracts with City Hall, Park and Recreation, and the Housing Authority. D A D
Services contracts with Alameda Power and Telecom. The Jani -ling bid was above the
approved expenditure or a cleaning service in the fiscal year 2006 -2007, 2007 -2008
operating budget.
Sunnyvale Building Maintenance was a responsible bidder that submitted the lowest
and best proposal. Sunnyvale Building Maintenance satisfies all provisions of the bid
documents and is the Police Department's recommendation for a cleaning service.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT
Funds for the recommended cleaning service are included in the approved fiscal year
2006 -2007, 2007 -2008 operating budget.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Award the cleaning service contract for the Police Administration Building to: Sunnyvale
Building Maintenance
Respectfully submitted,
49&
Walter B. Tibbet
Chief of Police
Attachment — Bid Summaries
?.vv. # vn l .- 06 ce ltd usw ,,,�; 5e., -�; c.e S .
This is to certify that bids for this project were publicly opened on 1 ,S 66 ;on _
(da )
in the City Clerk's Office, Room 380, City Hall, Alameda, California in the presence of: (OW p
BID OPENING CERTIFICATE Page 1
(talc
Apitretes.i Oky
r
and that the bids and bid security (if required) were received from:
BIDDER BID SECURITY
1. JG11M
SS , tfri+ - leo Cash
C.4.„(-, 9 ys Cashier's Check
or0
Bid Bond Certified Check
TOTAL BID AMOUNT: $ C, QS-E. ° 6 per NoH PA
5D • �\ J
• , • Cash Cashier's Check
; (.A GI' dos
Bid Bond Certified Check
TOTAL BID AMOUNT: $ eS, 0 e 0 • o o pe, n,,o04 --A
•o• a 3�( (� S2 C '
r� k e i s t l 3 ash Cashier s Check
�
TOTAL BID AMOUNT: $ 8.51 Per n ti-t-
Bid Bond Certified Check
4. P f k
■? lvd Cash
`- 4 , �.. CA". '� C, O Cashier's Check
TOTAL BID AMOUNT: $ 0 ?e/ /4enf -�
Bid Bond Certified Check
5. 06) MAAtOnd
Oc- Gr'4 Lo (�j
Cash Cashier's Check
Bid Bond
TOTAL BID AMOUNT: $ G 7 9• p Mo,4.1 / j ,5� /Lie. ° d .. Cix, &,.Agenda Item #4 -D CC
10 -17 -06
Certified Check
Attachment
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: October 17, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Purchase of Two New Fire Department
Ambulances Using the North County Fire Protection District's Competitive Bid
Award; and Approve a Purchase Agreement with Leader Industries, in an
Amount Not to Exceed $268,925.29
BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department is responsible for the Managed Vehicle and Equipment (fleet)
Replacement Program. On May 2, 2006 City Council adopted a Resolution #13951
establishing guiding principles for the management of the City's fleet vehicles and equipment.
The replacement program is based on the City of Alameda Fleet Replacement Criteria which
considers the useful life of vehicles and equipment in terms of age, mileage (or hours), and
usage. Vehicles and equipment scheduled for replacement are also reviewed and analyzed
for safety history and operating performance to determine if it is appropriate to replace a
vehicle or equipment at a later date. In addition, vehicles and equipment are reviewed to
determine if the minimum use guidelines have been met. As part of the Managed
Replacement Program, the Public Works Department has determined that two Wheeled
Coach ambulances (one 1994 one 1996) are due for replacement because they meet the City
of Alameda's Fleet Replacement Criteria and, therefore, have been placed on the list of
"Vehicles Recommended For Replacement 06/07."
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Staff has completed technical specifications for two Leader Type -III Paramedic and Rescue
equipped ambulances . Normal construction and delivery fora new ambulance is four to five
months. If this request is approved upon receipt of the new ambulances, our oldest front -line
ambulances will be placed in reserve status. In order to assure a cost effective purchase,
staff proposes to "piggy- back" onto the North County Fire Protection District's existing
competitive bid purchase of fire ambulances with Leader Industries. This is an option to
purchase that is provided in the City of Alameda's Municipal Code Subsection 2 -61 -7 Joint
Purchases with Public Agencies that reads,
"Subject to the provisions of subsection 2 -62.2 and notwithstanding any other provisions of
this chapter, materials, supplies, equipment, vehicles, apparatus, or other personal property
or goods may be purchased together or in cooperation with any other city, county, state,
federal or other public agency, including a joint powers authority, provided the purchase is
the result of competitive bidding or proposal and is made in compliance with the competitive
bid or proposal requirements of any participating agency or organization in a manner that is
consistent with law. Agenda Item #4 -E CC
10 -17 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed resolution does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
October 17, 2006
Page 2
The cost of these ambulances will not exceed $268,925.29 including sales tax. The
acquisition "of these ambulances and equipment will be with General Funds from the
Managed Vehicle Replacement Program. It is important to note that the amounts budgeted
in the Managed Vehicle Replacement Program for these vehicles includes an additional
$46,500.00 to purchase the ancillary rescue and support equipment necessary to fully
furnish these ambulances.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the proposed resolution authorizing the purchase of two new ambulances using the
North County Fire Protection District's competitive bid award and approval of a purchase
agreement with Leader Industries in an amount not to exceed $268,925.29.
Respe ' y submitt - +,
es L. Chri tiansen
ire Chief
Attachment: Purchase Agreement
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This Purchase Agreement is made by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA ( "CITY ")
and LEADER INDUSTRIES ( "LEADER ") a Division of the Halcore Group, Inc., a
foreign corporation incorporated in the State of Indiana and headquartered in Grove City,
Ohio.
In consideration for the mutual promises hereinafter set forth, the Parties to this
PURCHASE AGREEMENT agree as follows:
1. THE PURCHASE: CITY agrees to purchase, and LEADER agrees to construct, sell
and deliver two new and unused LEADER Type -3 Ambulances of current production
model #LM158 with latest design features (hereinafter the "Apparatus ") which are
further described on Exhibit A attached to this Agreement. LEADER agrees to construct
and deliver the Apparatus strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
specifications for fire ambulances ( "City Specifications ") as provided by LEADER on
August 28, 2006, which specifications are incorporated by this reference as if fully set
forth, and to deliver the Apparatus to CITY as provided in this Agreement. Details of
construction and materials where not otherwise specified in the City Specifications 'shall
be in accordance with industry standards.
2. QUALITY AND WORKMANSHIP: The design of the Apparatus shall embody the
latest approved automotive engineering practices. The workmanship shall be of the
highest quality in its respective field. Construction shall be rugged and ample safety
factors shall be provided to carry loads as specified and to meet both on and off road
requirements. All steel welding shall be in accordance with American Welding Society
D1.1-83 structural steel welding. All aluminum welding shall be in accordance with
American Welding Society and ANSI D1.2 -83 for structural welding of aluminum.
3. DESIGN AND STANDARDS: The Apparatus shall meet or exceed all applicable
requirements and/or recommendations established for ambulances, personnel safety and
construction, by the American Welding Society (AWS), American Institute of Steel
Construction (AISC), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASEM), Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), Department of Transportation (DOT), International
Association of Fire Chiefs and State of California and Federal motor vehicle and safety
codes. LEADER shall furnish certification of gross vehicle weight rating, gross
combined weight rating, and gross axle weight rating on a nameplate affixed to the
chassis, in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 35002.
4. DELIVERY: LEADER shall deliver the Apparatus under its own power, undamaged
and in full working order to the Alameda Fire Department, 1300 Park Street, Alameda,
California in the rear parking area on or before the 150th day following the receipt of a
signed order by a representative of Leader Industries. It is estimated this will occur on or
about February 17, 2007.
1
Attachment
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
10 -17 -06
A qualified delivery agent representing LEADER shall deliver the Apparatus and shall
remain in the area for three days to instruct the Fire Department personnel in the proper
operation, care and maintenance of the Apparatus.
LEADER shall provide, at the time of delivery, written certification of the Apparatus
weight distribution. The Certification shall list the actual weights and locations of the
following items:
A. Axle's Longitudinal Weight (front axle; rear axle)
B. Axle's Lateral Weight (right side; left side)
C. Horizontal Center of Gravity Location
D. Vertical Center of Gravity Location
LEADER shall provide, at the time of delivery, certified copies of current laboratory test
documentation, demonstrating compliance with Federal KKK- A -1822E requirement of
AMD Standard #001 for static load testing. To insure the integrity of the Horton module
being specified, documentation of HYGEE sled testing for the module and mounting
system type to be provided.
5. PURCHASE PRICE: The purchase price for two new ambulances shall not exceed
$268,925.29 of which $21,310.63 represents local sales tax of 8.75 %. CITY shall pay
LEADER the sum of $247,614.66 through a City wire transfer on October 20, 2006 in
full and complete satisfaction and consideration of the Apparatus to be delivered to CITY
pursuant to this Agreement. LEADER will provide all necessary paperwork to allow the
City to complete transfer of title and registration of the vehicles. City shall pay
$21,310.63 directly to the State of California in full and complete satisfaction of the local
sales tax due and owing on the Apparatus.
6. INSPECTION AND APPROVAL: CITY shall have the right to inspect each vehicle
that comprises the Apparatus any time during the construction of the Apparatus by
LEADER. LEADER shall provide CITY with a blueprint of the Apparatus for the
CITY'S approval or rejection prior to any metal being sheared or cut for the unit.
7. INDEMNIFICATION: LEADER shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
CITY, its officials, officers, employees, Boards and Commissions from and against any
and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including
reasonable attorney's fees, regardless of merit or outcome of any such claim or suit,
arising from performance of services and/or work (active or passive) by LEADER
pursuant to this Agreement.
8. WARRANTIES: Each of the warranties attached to this Agreement shall apply to the
Apparatus, and shall include any and all costs incurred for service, repairs, replacement,
labor, or any costs resulting from or attributable to poor workmanship, defective parts, or
materials and as otherwise stated on the warranties.
9. PERFORMANCE BOND: Satisfactory performance by LEADER pursuant to this
Agreement shall be the subject of a performance bond furnished to the CITY by
LEADER in the amount of one hundred percent (100 %) of the total cost of the Apparatus
(as specified in paragraph 5) concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The
performance bond shall be issued by a surety, and in a form both approved by CITY and
2
shall guarantee the faithful performance of each of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement.
10. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: Time is of the essence for the delivery of the
Apparatus. If the Apparatus is not delivered on or before the delivery date specified in
paragraph 4, damage will be sustained by CITY. Since it is and will be impracticable to
determine the actual damage which CITY will sustain in the event of and by reason of
such failure to deliver timely in accordance with this Agreement, it is therefore agreed
that, at the option of CITY, LEADER shall pay $100.00 to CITY for each and every
calendar day beyond March 19, 2007 not as a penalty, but as predetermined liquidated
damages.
11. DURATION OF BID PRICE: In the future, LEADER agrees to provide additional
Apparatus, at the stated price, for a period of five (5) years, beginning at the date of
award of this contract. Current price may be adjusted subject to modifications to these
specifications and increases or decreases reflected in the average of the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumer (CPL -U) Size B/C — 50,000 to 1,500,000 for the region
of LEADER INDUSTRIES. This is exclusive of Ford chassis pricing. Ford chassis will
be a direct pass - through. Pricing documentation will be provided.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on this
day of , 2006.
LEADER INDUSTRIES CITY OF ALAMEDA
BY:
DATE:
City Manager
RECOMMENDED FO APPROVAL:
Chief
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
('
-.if-Teresa Highsmith, City Attorney
3
ATTEST:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF TWO NEW TYPE -3 FIRE AMBULANCES
USING THE NORTH COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT'S
COMPETITIVE BID AWARD; AND
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH
LEADER INDUSTRIES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $268,925.29
WHEREAS, the Fire Department requires two type -3 ambulances to fully
perform its emergency medical response duties; and
WHEREAS, Sub - Section 2 -61.7 of the Alameda Municipal Code
authorizes the purchase of vehicles, apparatus, or other personal property or
goods together or in cooperation with any other city, provided the purchase is
the result of competitive bidding or proposal; and
WHEREAS, in November 2005, the North County Fire Protection District
conducted a competitive bidding procedure to purchase an ambulance; and
WHEREAS, as a result of its competitive bidding process, the North
County Fire Protection District chose to purchase its ambulance from Leader
Industries; and
WHEREAS, the Fire Chief of the City of Alameda is recommending that
two type -3 fire ambulances needed by the City of Alameda be purchased
pursuant to Sub - section 2 -61.7; and
WHEREAS, purchase of two type -3 ambulances from Leader Industries
provides fleet compatibility for most of the existing spare parts the City currently
owns; and
WHEREAS, the familiarity of the Fire Department personnel with Leader
Industries equipment will likely reduce training time for firefighters and garage
mechanics; and
WHEREAS, financing for the purchase has been arranged through the
General Funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Alameda that the Fire Chief or his authorized representative may purchase in
conjunction with the North County Fire Protection District's recent bidding
process, two type -3 ambulances from Leader Industries in an amount not to
exceed $268,925.29, in accordance with Alameda Municipal Code Sub - section
2 -61.7.
Resolution # 4 -E CC
10 -17 -06
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by
the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
DATE: October 17, 2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: Debra Kurita
City Manager
RE: Public Hearing to Consider a General Plan Amendment and Rezoning to
AIIow Residential Development (GP05- 0001/R05 -003 — Francis Collins
d /b /a /Boatworks LLC, Applicant — 2241 & 2243 Clement Avenue). A
Request to Approve a General Plan Amendment from OS (Open Space)
to MU -5 (Specified Mixed Use — Northern Waterfront, Willow Street to Oak
Street) on a 4.6 -acre Portion of the 10 -acre Planned Estuary Park, and
Rezone Properties Located at 2241 and 2243 Clement Street from M -2
General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R -4 /PD Neighborhood
Residential /Planned Development Combining District in Order to AIIow for
Residential Development of up to 242 Dwelling Units. The Properties are
Located North of Clement Street, West of Oak Street, and Adjacent to the
Oakland - Alameda Estuary.
Introduction of an Ordinance Rezoning Portions of Property Located at
2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue from M -2, General Industrial
(Manufacturing) District to R-4, Neighborhood Residential and PD,
Planned Development Combining District (R- 4 /PD).
BACKGROUND
The overall project requested by the applicant, Collins /Boatworks LLC, is extensive and
involves a series of development applications (including General Plan amendment,
zoning designation amendment, tentative map, site development review and design
review). Due to the scope of the project and its complexity, this report recommends
addressing the major issues of General Plan and zoning amendments, before holding
hearings on a specific development proposal. Therefore, the analysis provided in the
Planning Board Report, which is on file in the City Clerk's office, addresses the General
Plan and zoning issues only. Upon final action by the City Council on the General Plan
and zoning amendments, the specific development proposal could be considered at a
Planning Board hearing.
Agenda Item #5 -A
10 -17 -06
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Council Members October 17, 2006
On October 9, 2006 the Planning Board voted to approve resolutions recommending
that the City Council (1) deny the General Plan amendment requesting elimination of
4.6 acres of the 10 -acre waterfront Estuary Park, and (2) find that the rezoning is
categorically exempt from environmental review and approve rezoning for 4.8 of the 9.4
acres at issue to R -4 /PD, leaving the remainder of the land zoned M -2, its current
designation.
Numerous members of the public spoke at the Planning Board meeting in support of
retaining the park. However, housing at the density proposed was generally not
supported. Those objecting to the recommended housing density stated the following
reasons:
• The project would be too dense
• View of the water would be obscured
• Views of the Oakland hills would be obscured.
• Access to the waterfront would not be advantageous
• Perception that there is too much contamination on the site (including creosote)
for residential purposes, and a cited report indicated that cleaning of the soil
would result in the potential for liquefaction. It is believed that there is the
potential for hazardous materials to migrate over to the Boatworks site from the
pollution on the adjacent parcel.
• Traffic impacts would be too great.
• Desire that the entire area be devoted to a park.
At the October 12, 2006 Recreation and Park Commission meeting, the proposal was
reviewed regarding matters relating to the planned Estuary Park. The Commission's
recommendation to City Council will be transmitted under separate cover.
DISCUSSION
The subject site is located in the MU -5 Specific Mixed Use General Plan Designation.
Recognizing that the area could benefit from mixed -use development, the General Plan
designates the two subject parcels, along with six other parcels, as Mixed Use Area 5
(MU -5) — Northern Waterfront (Willow Street to Oak Street). The General Plan includes
three important policies for the MU -5 area:
2.6.e Willow Street to Oak Street (Northern Waterfront): Provide for
redevelopment of existing industrial sites for 250 to 350 two- family
residential units, treating the area north of Clement Avenue as an
extension of the residential neighborhood to the south.
2.6.f Willow Street to Oak Street (Northern Waterfront): Create a continuous
300 - foot -wide "marina green" park along the Estuary.
See also Policy 3.2.i in the City Design Element and Policy 6.1.e in
the Parks and Recreation Element.
Honorable Mayor and
Council Members
Page 3
October 17, 2006
6.1.e Acquire and develop an Estuary Park of 10 or more acres.
General Plan Amendment to Eliminate Waterfront Park Area
The subject parcels contain 9.4 acres, of which 4.6 acres are designated as a 300 -foot
wide park in the General Plan, as shown in the diagram below:
Approx. 4.6
acres to remain
zoned M -2
Approx. 4.8 acres to
be rezoned R4 /PD
as shown in the
rezoning ordinance
The applicant points out that the General Plan suggests that there would be public
funding involved in the acquisition of the park land. To date, public funding for the
parkland purchase has not materialized. There are no funds in the City's General Fund
with which to purchase park land, and bond measures have not been submitted to
voters. Also, the City has not received grant monies for park land acquisition. The
applicant reasons that because the public acquisition of the park land has not been
realized, residential development of the land should be allowed to proceed.
Accordingly, the applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment to eliminate the
designated Estuary Park acreage from subject property.
The General Plan indicates that the sector of the City in which the planned park is
located lacks sufficient park lands. Since adoption of that General Plan, no new parks
Honorable Mayor and Page 4
Council Members October 17, 2006
have been built in that sector. The need and desire for Estuary Park remain strong. The
General Plan states,
"Parks are especially valued in Alameda because existing acreage is small
relative to population, and opportunities or expansion of the park system are
few. Improved shoreline access has accompanied recent development, and
additional opportunities to take advantage of the island setting are
available."
The State standard for parks is at least 3 acres of neighborhood and community park
space per 1,000 residents. Unfortunately, Alameda does not meet this standard, which
is generally not feasible to meet in older, developed cities where large areas of vacant
or underdeveloped lands are not available. The goal established when the General
Plan was adopted in 1991 called for 2.3 acres of park land per 1,000 residents. This
figure included the 10 -acre Estuary Park. The General Plan also recognizes that some
neighborhoods are under - served by parks, including the northern area within which the
subject property lies.
Considering that there is still a need for a public park along the Estuary, and in view of
the residential development potential in the remaining MU -5 areas, the Planning Board
and staff recommend denial of the request for a General Plan Amendment to eliminate
4.6 acres from the planned 10 -acre Estuary Park.
Zoning Designation Amendment
The applicant requests that the two subject parcels be rezoned to R4 /PD in order to
allow residential development. The R4 /PD zoning would be consistent with the goals
and policies of the General Plan, particularly the Housing Element, when applied only to
the 4.81 -acre portion of the property that is not designated as a park in the General
Plan. Because the density allowed under R4 zoning would be up to 1 dwelling unit for
each 2,000 square feet of land, the rezoning as recommended would be consistent with
the residential density envisioned for the MU -5 area in the General Plan.
Under a Planned Development (PD) zoning designation, there can be exceptions to
yard areas and lot sizes. Some parcels in the MU -5 area, due to their configuration,
topography or other factors, are able to be developed with more dwelling units per acre
than other parcels. In order to achieve the development of 300 dwelling units in the
entire eight - parcel MU -5 area, site designs may be creative and deviations from
standard lot sizes and yard areas may be expected. For these reasons, a new zoning
designation of R4 /PD is recommended.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was adopted in 1991 along with the General
Plan. The General Plan at that time anticipated that between 250 and 350 dwelling units
could be built in the MU -5 area. When the Housing Element was adopted in 2003
Honorable Mayor and Page 5
Council Members October 17, 2006
wherein 300 dwelling units were cited in the MU -5 area, a mitigated negative declaration
was approved. Because the recommended R4 /PD zoning is intended to carry out the
goals of the General Plan and Housing Element for which environmental documents
were approved, no further environmental analysis is required. However, if the City were
to consider approving a General Plan amendment (not recommended here), further
CEQA review would be required.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
No additional funding would be required to implement the amended ordinance.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Actions taken on this subject do not affect the Alameda Municipal Code, however, the
City Zoning Map will be revised to reflect the change of zoning for this property.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Find that no further environmental review is required for the rezoning, and
2. Deny the General Plan Amendment, and
3. Approve rezoning of approximately 4.8 acres to R4 /PD.
By:
On file in the City Clerk's Office:
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy `il oodbury
Planning and Building Director
Andrew Thomas
Planning Services Manager
October 9, 2006 Planning Board Report (with attachments)
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE No.
New Series
RECLASSIFYING AND REZONING APPROXIMATELY 4.8 ACRES
OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2241 AND 2243 CLEMENT AVENUE
FROM M -2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (MANUFACTURING) DISTRICT
TO R -4 /PD, NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL /PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, City of Alameda presently contains real property at 2241
and 2243 Clement Avenue which is zoned as industrial; and
WHEREAS, the City seeks to amend the zoning of the subject property
to allow medium density residential use, consistent with the General Plan
designation as a housing opportunity site; and
WHEREAS, such rezoning would bring the property into conformance
with existing uses in the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, rezoning of the parcels would further the desire of the City
to achieve affordable housing goals consistent with the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the present legal and regulatory climate is stable but could
become uncertain or unpredictable should state or federal laws become
effective regarding land use through the state initiative process; and
WHEREAS, without immediate effectiveness the rezoning could be
subject to legal uncertainty pending potential changes in state law through the
initiative process regarding local zoning control; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to City Charter Sec. 3 -12, an ordinance may
become effective on Tess than thirty days from and after the date of its final
passage where it is enacted in the event of a great emergency or necessity
passed by four votes of Council and containing a statement of the emergency
or necessity; and
WHEREAS, the City Council expressly finds and declares that this
ordinance is necessary to achieve General Plan consistency and preserve
certainty of land use regulation of 2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Alameda, by four -fifths vote that:
Section 1. The City Council finds and determines the foregoing recitals
to be true and correct and hereby makes them a part of this Ordinance.
Introduction of Ordinance #5 -A
10 -17 -06
Section 2. Section 11 -116 of Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. is hereby
amended by reclassifying approximately 4.8 acres from M -2, General
Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R -4 Neighborhood Residential /PD
Planned Development, being all the real property situated within the City of
Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, located 300 feet south of
the Oakland- Alameda Estuary, north of Clement Street, west of Oak Street
and, generally east of the intersection of Elm Street as shown on Exhibit A.
Section 3. The R4 /PD zoning furthers the goals of the General Plan
and Housing Element forr which environmental documents were approved. No
further environmental review under CEQA is required.
Section 4. The above amendment shall be known as and referenced to
as Reclassification and Rezoning Amendment No. 200 to Ordinance No.
1277, N.S.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect the day
following the November 1, 2006, regular meeting of City Council.
Presiding Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
EXHIBIT A
Approx. 4.6
acres to remain
zoned M -2
Approx. 4.8 acres to
be rezoned R4 /PD
as shown in the
rezoning ordinance
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting
assembled on the day of , 2006, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said City this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
October 17, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Declaring the Intent of the City Council to Rezone the 22 -Acre Beltline
Railroad Property Consistent with Voter Approved Measure E (Open
Space /Park Use as soon as the Property is Acquired by the City of
Alameda)
BACKGROUND
During the meeting of October 3, 2006 the Council adopted a motion allocating funding in
the amount of $966,027 to purchase the Beltline Property. Staff was also directed
to prepare a resolution declaring the Council's intent to rezone the property as open /space
park use as soon as the City acquires the property.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
In November 2002, the electorate of the City of Alameda adopted Measure E which
approved amendments to the City's General Plan and Zoning Code to parks and open
space for the 22 -acre site known as the Beltline Railroad Property. The effects of
Measure E have been stayed pending the resolution of litigation between the City of
Alameda and the Alameda Beltline Railroad. Staff has prepared the attached resolution to
formally declare the Council's intent to rezone the property as soon as it is acquired
Rezoning the property to park/open space is not inconsistent with preserving an
opportunity for a transportation corridor within the property.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
Acquisition of the Beltline property for park purposes will not have a significant effect on the
environment and is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Sections 15316 and 15325 of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
• Section 15316 exempts acquisition of land in order to establish a park where the
land is in a natural condition or contains historical or archaeological resources and
the management plan for the park has not been prepared.
• Section 15325 exempts transfers of ownership or interests in land in order to
preserve open space lands for park purposes.
Agenda Item #5 -B
10 -17 -06
Honorable Mayor and October 17, 2006
Councilmembers Page -2-
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
Council has previously allocated $917,558 from the Open Space Fund to be supplemented
by $48,649 from the Dwelling Unit Tax Fund to achieve the purchase price of $966,027.
Adoption of this resolution will have no impact on the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The adoption of this resolution will have no effect on the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution declaring the intent of the City Council to Rezone the 22 -Acre Beltline
Property to be consistent with voter approved Measure E as soon as the property is
acquired by the City.
Respectfully submitted,
Alameda Recreation & Parks
DK:DL:bf
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO REZONE
THE 22 -ACRE BELTLINE RAILROAD PROPERTY CONSISTENT
WITH VOTER - APPROVED MEASURE E (OPEN SPACE /PARK
USE) AS SOON AS THE PROPERTY IS ACQUIRED BY THE CITY
OF ALAMEDA
WHEREAS, in 1924 the City entered into an option agreement with
the Alameda Beltline Railroad, memorialized by Ordinance No. 259, giving
the City the right to purchase the Beltline Railroad property from the
Alameda Beltline Railroad for the Alameda Beltline Railroad's original price
of purchase; and
WHEREAS, in November 1998, the Alameda Beltline Railroad
switched its last cars on the Beltline tracks, thus ceasing operations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda has been concerned about
transportation issues for many years and desires to maintain a
transportation corridor for possible rail, light rail or other transportation uses
in the future; and
WHEREAS, on November2, 1999, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2817,
the City executed its option to purchase the Beltline Railroad property; and
WHEREAS, on May 11, 2000, the Alameda Beltline Railroad filed
suit against the City of. Alameda seeking injunctive relief to prevent the
City's repurchase of the Beltline property; and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, the electorate of Alameda by
majority vote adopted Measure E, which approved amendments to the
City's General Planning and zoning code to parks and public open space
for the 22 -acre parcel commonly referred to as the Beltline Railroad
property; and
WHEREAS, the effect of Measure E was stayed by Court action
pending resolution of litigation between the City of Alameda and the
Alameda Beltline Railroad; and
Resolution #5 -B
10 -17 -06
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2006, the City Council by unanimous
action appropriated $966,027 for the purchase of the Beltline Railroad
property pending resolution of the litigation between the City of Alameda
and the Alameda Beltline Railroad; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use of the Beltline Railroad property as
open space or park is not inconsistent with preserving a transportation
corridor within the Beltline Railroad property.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. It is the intent of the City Council to implement the will of
the electorate by rezoning the 22 -acre Beltline Railroad property for park
and open space use, as soon as the Beltline Railroad property has been
acquired by the City of Alameda.
Section 2. Planning activities to develop open space and recreational
uses for the 22 -acre Beltline Railroad property shall also consider the need
for a potential transportation corridor within the Beltline Railroad property.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2006, by
the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this day of , 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 17, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Request for Proposal (RFP) to Purchase Five All- Electric Vehicles for City Fleet
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2006, City Council adopted Resolution Number 13951 establishing guiding principles for
the management of the City fleet vehicles and equipment. This resolution requires that, in evaluating
vehicle replacements, the City staff consider the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles, with electric
vehicles being the first choice, based on functional requirements and economic feasibility. Staff has
reviewed the vehicles identified as either replacement or capital outlay with the functional
requirements associated with these vehicles and identified five vehicles as suitable for alternative
fuel.
DISCUSSION
The City is issuing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to qualified companies for the purchase of a
minimum of five all- electric vehicles, depending on the cost per vehicle, for use by various city staff
while conducting their daily work activities within the City limits (see Exhibit A). These vehicles
will be used for travel to and from building sites, for on -going building inspection activities, for
travel between different City offices to attend meetings and for the delivery of packages and mail to
various City buildings. The RFP will be issued upon notification by Caltrans that the grant
requirements have been met which is anticipated by October 20, 2006.
The vehicles that are being replaced will be declared surplus and sold at auction. All revenues from
the sale of the surplus vehicles will be returned to the Vehicle Replacement Fund.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
On June 6, 2006, City Council authorized the City Manager to file a grant application for $99,000 in
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) funds for replacing existing
City vehicles with electric vehicles and installing charging stations at locations to be identified. The
CMAQ grant funds have been appropriated as of October 1, 2006 by the Congestion Management
Agency (CMA) and the City must obligate them by March 31, 2007. In addition, the adopted Budget
and Financial Plan for Fiscal Years 2006 /2008 includes $34,500 from the Vehicle Replacement Fund
and $3,000 from the General Fund for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles.
Agenda Item #5 -C
10 -17 -06
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
October 17, 2006
Page 2
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Request for Proposal (RFP) to Purchase Five All- Electric Vehicles for the City Fleet.
Respect submitted,
Matthew . Naclerio
Public Works Director
MTN: gc
Attachment
cc: Chief Financial Officer
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)
Purchase of All- Electric Vehicles
for City Fleet
Electric Vehicle Purchase
CITY OF ALAMEDA
October 17, 2006
Important Date:
Proposal Due Date: November 15, 2006
Contact:
Matt T. Naclerio, Public Works Director
Public Works Department
50 West Mall Square — Room 110
Alameda, CA 94501
Phone: (510) 749 -5840
Fax: (510) 749 -5867
Page 1
Attachment
Agenda Item #5 -C
10 -17 -06
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No.
I. Introduction 1
A. Background 1
B. Purpose of the Request 1
II. Scope of Services 2
III. Proposal Format 2
C. Vehicle Specification and Exemptions 2
B. Company Qualifications and References 2
D. Proposed Project Schedule 2
E. Proposed Budget 3
IV. Selection Process 3
A. Qualifications 3
B. Selection Criteria 3
C. Proposed Selection and Project Schedule 3
D. Award of Contract 3
V. Proposal Due Date and Delivery 3
VI. Conditions of Request 4
A. General Conditions 4
B. Liability of Costs and Responsibility 4
C. Validity 4
D. Standard Purchase Agreement 4
E. Permits and Licenses 5
F. Oral and Written Explanations 5
G. Proposer's Representative 5
H. Restrictions on Lobbying 5
I. Insurance 5
Attachment
Standard Agreement
Electric Vehicle Purchase C:\ DOCUME -1 \cm_user\LOCALS-1 \Temp\3 #RFP.DOC
Page 2
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Alameda ( "City ") is requesting proposals from qualified companies ( "Proposer ") to
purchase as many as five newly manufactured all- electric vehicles, depending on the cost per
vehicle, for use by various City staff while conducting daily work activities within the City
limits. The City has allocated approximately $100,000 for these purchases.
A. Background.
The City of Alameda, California is a unique island community of approximately 76,000 residents
located in the heart of the San Francisco Bay Area. The small town atmosphere of our city is
evident in the historic grid street system, the 25 miles per hour speed limit on a majority of our
streets and the charming Victorian homes that grace the shady tree -lined streets. Characterized
by flat terrain and temperate weather, the City covers 12.8 square miles and includes the main
island and a smaller peninsula adjacent to the Oakland International Airport.
The City has a long, established history of making decisions on land use, transportation,
construction, waste management and energy management that emphasizes decreasing air
pollution, improving air quality, enhancing urban livability and sustainability, increasing energy
efficiencies and reducing green gas emissions. In fact, Alameda Power & Telecom, a department
of the City, is one of the most "green and clean" municipal utilities in the nation, with more than
80% of its energy derived from clean renewable resources such as geothermal and hydroelectric
facilities. Furthermore, the City Council of the City of Alameda has adopted a resolution to
participate in the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign and create a City Task Force as well as a resolution supporting the
development and commercialization of "plug -in" electric and hybrid electric vehicles.
With a City Fleet of over 400 vehicles and pieces of equipment, the City is committed to
reducing our current reliance on gasoline and diesel fuels by purchasing alternative cleaner
vehicles fuels including electrical, biodiesel, ethanol mix gasoline and CNG. All- electric
vehicles are the City's first choice for alternative fuel vehicles followed by hybrid vehicles and
then other alternative fuel vehicles. The terrain, weather, and established history of
environmentally conscious decision - making combine to make Alameda an ideal location to
operate all- electric vehicles.
B. Purpose of the Request.
The City is requesting quotes from qualified companies to purchase as many as five newly
manufactured all - electric vehicles, depending on the cost per vehicle, for use by various city staff
while conducting their daily work activities within the City limits. The vehicles will be used for
travel to and from building sites for on -going building inspection activities, travel between
different City offices to attend meetings and the delivery of packages and mail to various City
buildings.
Electric Vehicle Purchase C: \DOCUME.1 \cm_user \LOCALS- 1 \Temp\3 #RFP.DOC
Page 1
II. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City will agree to purchase as many as five newly manufactured all- electric vehicles,
depending on cost per vehicle, that meet the minimum specifications contained in Exhibit A and
additional requirements contained within this RFP. The successful proposer will construct, sell
and delivery to the City, vehicles that meet or exceed the minimum criteria contained within this
RFP.
III. PROPOSAL FORMAT
All proposals shall include the following minimum information:
A. Vehicle Specifications and Exemptions.
The proposal should provide the following:
1. A vehicle that meets the minimum required specifications identified in Exhibit A.
2. Additional information requested in Exhibit B.
3. Additional detailed description of the vehicle specifications, including available options,
and areas where the vehicle being proposed exceeds the City's minimum specifications.
4. Identification of the lead contact person from the company, who will handle all questions
from the city regarding the project, including contractual matters, shall also be included in the
proposal.
The proposal should also demonstrate that the company understands the proposed uses for the
vehicles and that the vehicle to be provided will meet the City's needs. Any exceptions to the
minimum required specifications (Exhibit A) and an explanation of the exception and the
anticipated affect on meeting the City's proposed uses for the vehicles shall also be included.
B. Company Qualifications and References.
Provide an outline of the company's qualifications indicating relevant background experience of
and capabilities for constructing reliable all- electric vehicles. A list of current orders for all -
electric vehicles that the company is currently manufacturing or putting into service and their
proposed schedule for delivery is also required. A list of clients with reference contact
information including contact person, phone number and product(s) provided to client is also
required.
C. Proposed Project Schedule.
Time is of the essence. The proposal shall include a schedule to begin construction of the
vehicles and a date for vehicles to be delivered to the location identified in Section D. The City
expects vehicles to be delivered no later than March 30, 2007.
Electric Vehicle Purchase C:\ DOCUME- 1\ cm_user\LOCALS- 1 \Temp\3 #RFP.DOC
Page 2
D. Proposed Budget.
Indicate the total cost including tax, license, freight, etc. on a per vehicle basis to provide a fully
functioning, newly manufactured all- electric vehicle delivered to the City of Alameda, Central
Garage Office located at 2040 Grand Street. Provide itemized costs for available options that
exceed the vehicle's standard equipment and/or City's minimum specifications. The City has
allocated approximately $100,000 for these purchases.
IV. SELECTION PROCESS
A. Qualifications.
All proposals received by the due date will be evaluated by the City. Only information which is
received in response to the RFP will be evaluated.
B. Selection Criteria.
The City will select the most qualified proposal and determine the number of vehicles to
purchase (from one vehicle to five vehicles) based on the following critical areas: cost, proposed
exemptions, proven track record, timeliness of delivering vehicles, current vehicle order requests
and available options.
C. Proposed Selection and Schedule.
Proposal Due Date: November 15, 2006
Selection of Recommended Company: November 17, 2006
Agreement Approval Date: December 5, 2006
Project Completion: March 30, 2007
D. Award of Contract.
It is anticipated that any award of a purchase agreement will be made by the City Council at their
December 5, 2006 meeting.
V. PROPOSAL DUE DATE AND DELIVERY
One sealed copy of the proposal, clearly marked with the project description, should be submitted
no later than:
3:30 p.m.
to the address below. All copies received by that time will be date and time stamped. Proposals
will not be accepted after this time.
Electric Vehicle Purchase C:\ DOCUME- 1 \cm_user \LOCALS—I \Temp\3 #RFP.DOC
Page 3
Proposals should be addressed to:
•
Matthew T. Naclerio, Public Works Director
Public Works Department
950 West Mall Square, Room 110
Alameda, CA 94501
Faxed proposals will not be accepted. Hand carried proposals will be accepted at the above
address.
VI. CONDITIONS OF REQUEST
A. General Conditions.
The City reserves the right to cancel or reject all or a portion or portions of the request for
proposals without notice. Further, the City makes no representations that any agreement will be
awarded to any company submitting a proposal. The City reserves the right to reject any and all
proposals submitted in response to this request or any addenda thereto.
Any changes to the proposal requirements will be made by written addendum.
B. Liability of Costs and Responsibility.
The City shall not be liable for any costs incurred in response to this request for proposals. All
costs shall be borne by the person or organization responding to the request. The person or
organization responding to the request shall hold the City harmless from any and all liability,
claim or expense whatsoever incurred by or on behalf of that person or organization. All
submitted material becomes the property of the City of Alameda.
The selected company will be required to assume responsibility for all services offered in the
proposal whether or not they possess them within their organization. The lead contact from the
company, as identified in the RFP, will be the sole point of contact with regard to contractual
matters, including payment of any and all charges resulting from the. contract.
C. Validity.
The proposer agrees to be bound by its proposal for a period of ninety (90) days commencing
from the proposal due date, during which time the City may request clarification or correction of
the proposal for the purpose of evaluation. Amendments or clarifications shall not affect the
remainder of the proposal, but only that portion so amended or clarified.
D. Standard Purchase Agreement.
A sample purchase agreement has been provided in the Appendix for the proposer's review and
comment. If a proposer wishes to take exception to any of the terms and conditions contained in
Electric Vehicle Purchase
C: \DOCUM E-1 \cm_user \LOCALS -1 \Temp\3 #RFP. DOC
Page 4
the purchase agreement, these should be identified specifically; otherwise it will be assumed that
the proposer is willing to enter into the agreement as it is written. Failure to identify contractual
issues of dispute can later be the basis for the City disqualifying a proposer. Any exceptions to
terms, conditions, or other requirements must be clearly stated. Otherwise, the City will consider
that all items offered are in strict compliance with the RFP, and the successful proposer will be
responsible for compliance. The City will consider such exceptions as part of the evaluation
process which may constitute grounds for rejection of the proposal. The purchase agreement will
not be executed by the City without first being signed by the proposer.
E. Permits and Licenses.
Proposer, and all of proposer's sub - consultants, at its and/or their sole expense, shall obtain and
maintain during the term of any agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses
including, but not limited to, a City Business License which will be required in connection with
the performance of services hereunder.
F. Oral and Written Explanations.
The City will not be bound by oral explanations or instructions given at any time during the
review process or after the award. Oral explanations given during the review process and after
award become binding when confirmed in writing by an authorized City official. Written
responses to question(s) asked by one proposer will be provided to all proposers who received
Requests for Proposals.
G. Proposer's Representative.
The person signing the proposal must be a legal representative of the firm authorized to bind the
firm to an agreement in the event of the award.
H. Restrictions on Lobbying.
The agreement will be subject to 24 CFR 87 which prohibits the payment of federal funds to any
person for influencing or attempting to influence, any public officer or employee in connection
with that award, making, entering into, extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or
modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan or agreement.
I. Insurance
General Liability, Automobile, Professional, Liability, and Worker's compensation insurance are
required in the amount set forth in the attached sample purchase agreement.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Minimum Standards
Exhibit B - Additional Required Information
Exhibit C - Standard Purchase Agreement
Electric Vehicle Purchase C:\ DOCUME- 1\ cm_user \LOCALS-1 \Temp\3 #RFP.DOC
Page 5
Exhibit A — Minimum Specifications
Minimum Specifications
Speed:
Ability to accelerate to and successfully maintain 25 mph (40 km/h)
Range:
At least 25 miles per charge
Charging Time:
No more than 12 hours to achieve full charge
On Board Charger:
Required
Batteries:
Zero - maintenance or maintenance -free, non - spillable
Configuration:
2- seater
Propulsion:
100% electrically driven, regenerative braking
Brakes:
Hydraulic system, with electromagnetic regeneration
Parking brake
Steering:
Automotive rack and pinion
Safety:
Required Certification that vehicle meets all US safety standards
and can be licensed as an on -road legal street vehicle
Body Type:
Vehicle must be fully enclosed.
Canvas doors are not acceptable.
Laminated safety glass is required.
Miscellaneous:
AM/FM Radio
Air Conditioning
Dome light
Grab Handle
Heater/Defogger
Hazard Lights
Hard Doors
License Plate Bracket (Front and Back)
Exhibit B — Additional Required Information
Additional Re 1 uired Information
Maximum Speed: (mph)
Range Per Charge (miles):
Hours to achieve 80% chargeable:
Gradability:
Battery Type (e.g. Lead -Acid or
Nickel - Metal):
Dimensions (inches): Length
Width
Height
Storage /Cargo: (cubic feet)
Propulsion Details (HP):
Body Material:
Frame Material:
Curb weight:
GVWR:
Brake Type (e.g. disc /drum):
Wheel base: (inches)
Suspension Type (Front /Rear):
Charger Detail:
Plug Type:
Expected Battery Life (Years):
Warranty:
-
PURCHASE AGREEMENT
This Purchase Agreement is made by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA ( "CITY ") and
COMPANY NAME AND ADDRESS ( "COMPANY ").
In consideration for the mutual promises hereinafter set forth, the Parties to this PURCHASE
AGREEMENT agree as follows:
1. THE PURCHASE: CITY agrees to purchase, and COMPANY agrees to manufacture,
sell and deliver five new and unused KIND OF ELECTRIC VEHICLE of current production
model with latest design features that are licensed as an on -road legal street vehicle including
extra options as selected by CITY (hereinafter the "E- VEHICLES ") which are further described
on Exhibit A attached to this Agreement. COMPANY agrees to manufacture and deliver the E-
VEHICLES strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the specification for electric
vehicles ( "CITY SPECIFICATIONS ") as provided to COMPANY as a Request for Proposal
(RFP) issued October 17, 2006 which specifications and RFP are incorporated by this reference
as if fully set forth, and to deliver the E- VEHICLES to CITY as provided in this Agreement.
Details of construction and materials where no otherwise specified in the City Specifications
shall be based on mutual agreement by CITY and COMPANY.
2. QUALITY AND WORKMANSHIP: The design and manufacturing of the E- VEHICLES
shall embody the latest approved automotive engineering practices. The workmanship shall be
of the highest quality in its respective field. Construction shall be rugged and ample safety
factors shall be provided to meet the demands as specified in the CITY SPECIFICATIONS and
RFP and to meet all requirements and speed conditions to be licensed as an on -road legal street
vehicle.
3. DESIGN AND STANDARDS: The E- VEHICLES shall meet or exceed all applicable
requirements and/or recommendations established for electric vehicles by the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE), Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL), Department of
Transportation (DOT), and State of California and Federal motor vehicle and safety codes.
COMPANY shall furnish certification of gross vehicle weight rating, gross combined weight
rating, and gross axle weight rating on a name plate affixed to the chassis, in accordance with
California Vehicle Code Section 35002.
4. DELIVERY: COMPANY shall deliver the E- Vehicles under its own power to the Public
Works Depailnient, Central Garage, 2040 Grand Street, Alameda, California in the rear parking
area on or before DATE OF ARRIVAL.
A qualified delivery engineer representing COMPANY shall deliver the E- VEHICLE and shall
remain in the City for one day to instruct the Public Works Department personnel in the proper
operation, care and maintenance of the E- VEHICLES.
5. PURCHASE PRICE: The purchase price of the E- VEHICLES is DOLLAR AMOUNT of
which SALES TAX DOLLAR AMOUNT represents local sales tax. CITY shall pay
COMPANY the sum of through a City wire transfer on in full and
E- Vehicles
Page 1
C: \DOCUME -4 \cm user\ LOCALS- 1 \Temp\5 #purchaseagree.doc
complete satisfaction and consideration of the E- VEHICLES to be delivered to CITY pursuant to
this Agreement. COMPANY shall pay directly to the State of California in full and
complete satisfaction of the local sales tax due and owing on the E- VEHICLES.
6. INSPECTION AND APPROVAL: CITY shall have the right to inspect each vehicle that
comprises the E- VEHICLES any time during the construction of the E- VEHICLE by
COMPANY.
7. INDEMNIFICATION: COMPANY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
CITY, its officials, officers, employees, Boards and Commissions from and against any and al!
loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable
attorney's fees, regardless of merit or outcome of any such claim or suit, arising from
performance of services and /or work by COMPANY pursuant to this Agreement.
8. WARRANTIES: COMPANY shall provide standard warranties which are attached to
this Agreement and shall apply to the E- VEHICLES, and shall include any and all costs incurred
for service, repairs, replacement, labor, transportation, or any costs resulting from or attributable
to poor workmanship, defective parts, or materials and as otherwise stated on the warranties.
9. PERFORMANCE BOND: Satisfactory performance by COMPANY pursuant to this
Agreement shall be the subject of a performance bond furnished to the CITY by COMPANY in
the amount of one hundred percent (100 %) of the total cost of the E- VEHICLES (as specified in
paragraph 5) concurrently with the execution of this Agreement. The performance bond shall be
issued by a surety company, and in a form both approved by CITY and shall guarantee the
faithful performance of each of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
10. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: Time is of the essence for the delivery of the E- VEHICLES.
If the E- VEHICLES are not delivered on or before the delivery date specified in the RFP,
damage will be sustained by CITY. Since it is and will be impracticable to determine the actual
damage which CITY will sustain in the event of and by reason of such failure to deliver timely in
accordance with this Agreement, it is therefore agreed that, at the option of CITY, COMPANY
shall pay $150.00 to CITY for each and every calendar day beyond DATE not as a penalty, but
as predetermined liquidated damages.
E- Vehicles
Page 2
C:\DOCUME— 1 \cm_user \LOCALS 1 \Temp\5#purchaseagree.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on this
day of 2006.
COMPANY CITY OF ALAMEDA
A Municipal Corporation
Name Debra Kurita
Title City Manager
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Mohammed Hill
Assistant City Attorney
E- Vehicles
Page 3
C: \DOCUME- 1 \cm user\ LOCALS- 1 \Temp\5#purchaseagree.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: October 17, 2006
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Appropriate $100,000 in Measure B Funds to Update the City's Traffic Model and
Authorize Preparation of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to the Transportation
Element and Direct Staff to Include the Proposed Transportation Policies Recommended
by the Transportation Commission in the GPA
BACKGROUND
The City's core transportation policies, especially those policies associated with land
development, are contained within the Transportation Element of the General Plan.
Development projects are evaluated to determine whether they are consistent with these General
Plan policies and the City's EIRs use the General Plan to evaluate the extent of a proposed
project's impacts on the community.
The Public Works Department has been working with the Transportation Commission (TC) and
a Task Force comprised of members from several City Boards and Commissions to develop a
Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The TMP will include six sub -plans: multimodal circulation;
bicycle; pedestrian; transit; transportation systems management /transportation demand
management (TSM /TDM); and motor vehicle, and include a policy component and a
implementation component for each sub -plan. As originally envisioned, the policy component of
the TMP would become the basis for guiding the future update of the Transportation Element in
conjunction with a complete General Plan Update. In April 2005, the TC developed and
recommended for Council's acceptance draft TMP goals and policies pertaining to the movement
of people and goods in the City (Attachment 1). Staff held several public meetings and
presented the proposed goals and policies to various Boards and Commissions for input and
discussion prior to this TC action. We are currently working with the TC to employ the draft
goals and policies and develop a Street Functional Classification System (SFCS) for all modes of
transportation as part of the TMP. This effort is expected to be complete by December 2006. As
originally proposed, the draft TMP goals and policies and the SFCS were to be presented to
Council for acceptance, prior to initiating a comprehensive environmental review and traffic
analysis and preparing the implementation plans. Ideally the latter tasks would be performed in
conjunction with the update of the General Plan.
Agenda Item #5 -D
10 -17 -06
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers October 17, 2006
On August 30, 2006, subsequent to the approval of the draft goals and policies, the TC approved
recommending that the City Council adopt a set of seven new policies to evaluate Environmental
Impact Reports (EIRs) and associated development projects (see Attachment 2). The TC
proposed the seven new policies in anticipation of Council's review and certification of EIRs
associated with several large development projects currently in the development entitlement
process and in particular the proposed Alameda Landing Project. The TC requests that Council
consider these new transportation policies prior to their consideration of the Alameda Landing
proj ect.
The new policies recommended by the TC are more detailed and specific then the TMP goals
and policies previously proposed by the TMP task force and address transportation operational
impacts. In addition, the policies expand upon, and in some cases are in conflict with, the
policies within the Transportation Element of the existing General Plan. State law requires that
all policies within a jurisdictions' General Plan be internally consistent. Consequently, approval
of these new policies will require an update or amendment of the General Plan's Transportation
Element at this time, instead of during the General Plan update as previously envisioned.
DISCUSSION
The TC recommends that City Council approve seven new transportation policies. These seven
new policies are in addition to the policies reviewed by the TMP task force for inclusion in the
Transportation Element of the General Plan. The TC further recommends that the proposed
policies be used in reviewing EIRs until such times as the Transportation Master Plan (TMP)
policies are approved. Staff has reviewed each of the proposed policies and determined that a
number of them are not consistent with the City's existing General Plan. In order to consider
these policies in conjunction with Council's review of an EIR or development projects, a General
Plan Amendment and associated environmental review would be required.
Transportation Policy #1
Roadways will not be widened to create additional automobile travel lanes to accommodate
additional automobile traffic volume with the exception of increasing transit exclusive lanes or
non - motorize vehicle lanes.
Transportation Policy #2
Intersections will not be widened beyond the width of the approaching roadway with the
exception of a single exclusive left turn lane when necessary.
Transportation Policy #3
Speed limits on Alameda's new roads should be consistent with existing roadways and be
designed and implemented as 25 mph roadways.
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers October 17, 2006
Transportation Policy #4
All EIRs must include analysis of the effects of the project on the City's transit, pedestrian and
bicycling environment, including adjacent neighborhoods and the overall City network.
Transportation Policy #5
El-Rs will not propose mitigations that degrade the neighborhood environment and identify
"Levels of Service" or other such measurements to ensure that the pedestrian and bicycling
environment will not be degraded as development takes place.
Transportation Policy #6
Mitigations for future development should be solely directed at reducing traffic through TDM
measures and transit, bicycle and pedestrian capital projects, in order to reduce the negative
environmental effects of development, rather than attempting to accommodate them.
Transportation Policy #7
The City should follow the example of Davis, Oakland, Berkeley and other "Transit First"
communities and establish General Plan policy that acknowledges that automobile congestion
will occur at certain locations as Alameda changes and grows and that this congestion is not
considered a Significant Environmental Impact. For example, a delay of 55 seconds at an
intersection for a car on Park Street or at Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue should not be
considered a Significant Environmental Impact requiring mitigation in Alameda which it
currently is.
Conclusion
Staff Analysis: With the exception of the proposed Transportation Policy # 4, which is consistent
with the current General Plan Transportation Element policies, implementation of the remaining
Transportation Policies would require a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to update the
Transportation Element. The GPA would ensure all related policies are internally consistent and
modify /delete existing policies that conflict with the proposed policies. An internally consistent
General Plan policy framework is required by State law and is essential to the City's ability to
implement transportation improvements and maintain uniformity in City decision - making. State
law also requires that the amendment of any General Plan policy include review and
recommendation by the Planning Board. Furthermore, such a policy amendment is considered a
"project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and requires an
environmental analysis (either an EIR or a Negative Declaration) prior to adoption by the City
Council. As part of the environmental review, a traffic analysis would be required to determine
the potential traffic impacts and the level of significance associated with each of the proposed
policy amendments.
Honorable Mayor and Page 4
Councilmembers October 17, 2006
Staff's original proposal for the development of the TMP goals and policies for City Council
acceptance, anticipated running the City's existing traffic model to ensure the Street Functional
Classification System was consistent with projected traffic volumes and did not anticipate
performing detailed traffic operational analyses. The task force goals and policies were
sufficiently broad and general that the existing traffic model did not need to be modified and
validated and new traffic counts were not required to bring the policies to Council for
acceptance. However, this additional work and their associated costs would have been required,
but at a later date and as part of the General Plan Update. The seven new policies proposed by
the TC address transportation operational impacts, and accelerate the need for the City to collect
traffic data, perform detailed operational traffic analyses and revise and valid the traffic model.
The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) is currently modifying the
County -wide model and the City has an opportunity to revise our traffic model to be consistent
with the new Countywide model concurrent with the modification of transportation policies.
This will require data collection, traffic analyses, model validation, etc., similar to the tasks
associated with analyzing the seven new TC policies using the existing City model; however,
transitioning to the new County model will have additional costs because the County is changing
the modeling software and additional traffic analyses, model runs and validations will be
required.
While the use of the existing citywide model is adequate for analyzing traffic impacts associated
with both sets of policies, eventually the City would need to update our traffic model to be
consistent with the Countywide model and these additional costs would be incurred. In addition,
the County's traffic model, expected to be released by the end of the year, will be able to perform
detailed analyses of transit, TDM, truck activity and other traffic operational concerns of the TC.
Since State law requires local jurisdictions to be in compliance with the County's Congestion
Management Plan (CMP), and the CMA is the official body that oversees this compliance, staff
recommends using the County model to analyze traffic impacts associated with the General Plan
Amendment.
Schedule: The Multimodal Circulation Plan of the TMP includes proposed policies and a
defined Street Functional Classification System. While the seven new transportation policies
currently proposed by the TC are not explicitly included in the Multimodal Circulation Plan's
policies reviewed by the TMP task force, they can be added to the scope of the work and
evaluated as part of the overall TMP process. More specifically, staff recommends that the
proposed Multimodal Circulation Plan policies, the revised Functional Classification System,
and the seven new transportation policies be considered as part of a single General Plan
Amendment. This would maximize the efficient use of the City's staff resources and consultant
budget. A single environmental review process would also enable the City to develop an
effective public involvement process, whereas conducting two very similar environmental
review processes separately could create confusion. This would allow the TC's concerns to be
brought to the City Council for consideration in such a way that promotes cost effectiveness and
consistency between these polices and the TMP.
Honorable Mayor and Page 5
Councilmembers October 17, 2006
In August 2006, a consultant was hired to work with staff and the TC to develop the Functional
Classification System. The Functional Classification System will be an integral part of the
Multimodal Circulation Plan and is anticipated to be completed by the end of the year. To
respond to the TC's objective to have the new policies be effective as early as possible, staff
proposes to move forward with the review and development of policies for adoption of the
Multimodal Circulation Plan by the City Council in September 2007. To accomplish this, the
consultant scope of work and schedule would be modified as follows:
• October - December 2006: Work with TC to clarify language in the proposed new seven
policies and resolve inconsistencies with the previously proposed policies.
• December 2006: Final consultant recommendations on Functional Classification System
presented to TC.
• January 2007: Hire environmental consultant and initiate CEQA Process.
• January - July 2007: Traffic analyses and environmental review process completed,
public education and outreach process implemented, policies circulated to Boards and
Commissions for review and comment. Assumes CMA traffic model is available in
January and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared.
• August 2007: Consideration by Planning Board.
• September 2007: Consideration by City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
As part of the General Plan Amendment, staff anticipates that a Mitigated Negative Declaration
(MND) would be required to identify the traffic impacts and their level of significance associated
with the proposed policy changes.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The traffic analysis using the new CMA model and environmental review associated with the
analysis of the Multimodal Circulation Plan of the Transportation Master Plan is estimated to
cost $210,000. Currently there is $110,000 in Measure B monies budgeted for this effort. An
additional $100,000 is needed to complete this work. This money is available from the City's
Measure B allocation. The cost of conducting an environmental and traffic review is as follows:
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 6
October 17, 2006
Item
Estimated Cost for
Environmental
Analysis of
Multimodal
Circulation Plan
as Previously
Planned
Estimated Cost for
Environmental
Analysis of
Multimodal
Circulation Plan
& Interim Policies
Using the Old
Citywide Model
Estimated Cost for
Environmental
Analysis of Multi -
modal Circulation
Plan, Interim Policies
& Using CMA Model
for Citywide
Application
Data Collection
$0
$ 30,000
$ 30,000
Data Input, Traffic
Model Update, and
Models Run
$40,000
$60,000
$ 100,000
Traffic and
Environmental Analysis
$10,000
$ 30,000
$ 50,000
Preparation of
Environmental
Document
$10,000
$ 20,000
$ 20,000
Public and Agency Input
$10,000
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
Sub -Plan Preparation
$40,000
N/A
N/A
Total Estimated Cost
$110,000
$150,000
$210,000
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The TC recommended policies would require a General Plan Amendment, as well as associated
amendments to the zoning ordinance and other City ordinances and policies.
RECOMMENDATION
Appropriate $100,000 in Measure B Funds to update the City's Traffic Model, authorize
preparation of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to the Transportation Element and direct staff
to include the proposed transportation policies recommended by the Transportation Commission
in the GPA.
Honorable Mayor and Page 7
Councilmembers
Respect lly bmitted, Prepared by,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
MTN:BH:gc
Attachments
cc: Transportation Commission
Chief Financial Officer
Measure B Watchdog Committee
Barbara Hawkins
City Engineer
October 17, 2006
A. Circulation Goal
ATTACHMENT 1
Draft Policies of the Alameda Transportation Master Plan
Virtually every street in Alameda is a residential street. Therefore, transportation
decisions need to balance the goals of moving traffic smoothly and quickly with
Alamedans much loved quality of life. As they have in previous Transportation
Workshops, including the 1990 General Plan update meetings, Alamedans have made
is clear that they are willing to forgo high speed streets in order to accommodate the
community aspects that are fostered by slower speeds.
As has been the goal in Alameda for decades, the Transportation Master Plan (TMP)
envisions a city that is actively supportive of a multimodal transportation system
(incorporating automobiles, transit, bicycles, walking, and the needs of people with
disabilities). Traffic volume is one of the key concerns of Alamedans, and the TMP
recognizes that our city cannot reduce traffic volumes while implementing projects and
programs that rely heavily on automotive use only and negatively impact the use of
other modes.
The main island of Alameda's historic street grid and the entire City's overall flatness
and temperate weather make Alameda a city that can effectively encourage bicycling
and walking for a lot of intra - island trips. Traffic congestion concerns on our bridges and
tubes call for increasing High Occupancy Vehicle trips (e.g. buses, carpools, and
ferries) for off - island trips. It is important that with the upcoming build -out of Alameda
Point and other large scale projects, the City work to reduce the impact of automobile
trips on the quality of life for residents and on the easy, safe use of non - automotive
transportation modes.
Plan, develop and maintain a safe, barrier -free and efficient transportation system
to provide the community with adequate present and future mobility.
Objective A -1: Provide for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and services.
Policies
A -1.1 Maintain a consistent multimodal classification system of streets throughout the
City that will be the basis for identifying vehicle commuter routes, transit routes, bike
lanes, as well as corridors for other modes of transportation.
A -1.2 Enhance pedestrian safety and mobility, particularly in high pedestrian use areas,
applying methods consistent with the hierarchy classification of streets identified in A-
1.1.
A -1.3 Implement and maintain a Truck Route map coordinated with the private sector
and neighborhood representatives.
C:\DOCUME -1 \cm_user\LOCALS -1 \Temp \TC attachment 1.doc
Attachment 1
Agenda Item #5 -D
10 -17 -06
Draft Policies of the Alameda TMP
A -1.4 Provide a network of facilities to allow for the safe conveyance of bicycle traffic
on all streets and in all sections of the city.
A -1.5 Support a convenient, cost - effective public transit system to serve the mobility
needs of all segments of the population, including citizens with disabilities, to and from
major destinations in Alameda and throughout the region.
A -1.6 Design transportation facilities to comply with accepted design and safety
standards or guidelines including the use of design features and materials that do not
adversely impact on people with disabilities.
A -1.7 Work with appropriate regional agencies to identify the feasibility of developing
presently unavailable alternative modes such as citywide and regional light rail, expanded
ferry options and Bus Rapid Transit.
A -1.8 Encourage traffic within, to, and through Alameda to use the appropriate street
system by providing clear and effective traffic control measures to ensure smooth flow
without unduly disrupting the quality of life for residents.
A -1.9 Design transportation facilities to accommodate current and anticipated
transportation use.
A -1.10 Maintain the historic street grid and maximize connectivity of new developments
to the grid, as well as within any new developments.
A -1.11 Minimize the creation of improvements that would physically interrupt existing
grid systems, such as cul -de -sacs or diverters.
A -1.12 Develop and implement a list of priority projects that support level of service
standards.
A -1.13 Develop a set of design criteria for construction projects that would enable safe
access for transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians, and people with disabilities.
Objective A -2: Protect and enhance the service level of the transportation system.
Policies
A -2.1 Develop multimodal level of service (LOS) standards that development will be
required to maintain by encouraging the use of non - automotive modes.
A -2.2 Monitor the multimodal level of service at major intersections to identify priorities
for improvement.
A -2.3 Promote methods to increase vehicle occupancy levels
Page 2 of 9
C:\DOCUME -1 \cm user\LOCALS -1 \Temp \TC attachment 1.doc
Draft Policies of the Alameda TMP
A -2.4 Support and monitor the City's Traffic Capacity Management Procedure (TCMP),
which was developed to meet the City's development and transportation goals west of
Grand Street.
A -2.5 Work with regional, state, and federal agencies to develop plans for design,
phasing, funding, and construction of facilities to enhance multimodal cross - estuary
travel, such as increased access to Interstate 880 (bridge, tunnel or other vehicle
connection) bike /pedestrian shuttles or high occupancy vehicle -only crossing (e.g. transit
or carpool lane) to Oakland.
A -2.6 Create interagency working groups to discuss ways of mitigating impacts on
circulation generated from outside the impacted agency's jurisdiction.
Objective A -3: Preserve mobility for emergency response vehicles and maintain emergency
access to people and property.
Policies
A -3.1 Consider emergency response goals in long -range transportation planning and
while designing current projects.
A -3.2 Work with public safety agencies to ensure adequate consideration of emergency
response needs.
A -3.3 Develop a network of emergency response routes, balancing emergency service
needs with vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle safety consistent with the adopted street
classification system.
Objective A -4: Encourage, promote and facilitate proactive citizen participation to
determine the long -term mobility needs of our community.
Policies
A -4.1 Maintain a public forum, such as the Transportation Commission, to facilitate
citizen input on transportation policy.
A -4.2 Assist in efforts to facilitate dialogue between City departments, residents, and
neighborhood organizations.
Objective A -5: Consider the transportation needs of the community, including those with
limited mobility options.
Policies
A -5.1 Maximize compliance of transportation facilities with Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements.
A -5.2 Continue to support the Paratransit program.
Page 3 of 9
C:\DOCUME -1 \cm user\LOCALS -1 \Temp \TC attachment 1.doc
Draft Policies of the Alameda TMP
A -5.3 Continue to support the fixed -route AC Transit system to provide mobility for all,
including those without access to personal transportation.
Objective A -6: Increase the efficiency of the existing transportation system by emphasizing
Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies and Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) techniques.
Policies
A -6.1 Identify, develop, and implement travel demand management strategies to reduce
demand on the existing transportation system.
A -6.2 Identify locations where signal coordination could be employed to improve traffic
flow and reduce vehicle emissions.
A -6.3 Coordinate with the appropriate agencies to utilize emerging technologies and
Smart Corridor techniques (e.g. transit- priority systems for traffic signals and real -time
information to enable travelers to choose the best routes) for the bridges and tubes.
A -6.4 Minimize the cross -island portion of regional vehicular trips by providing
alternative connections to I -880 Freeway and by encouraging Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) techniques.
A -6.5 Support and maintain an up -to -date Transportation System Management (TSM)
and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan consistent with state law to
provide adequate traffic flow to maintain established LOS .
A -6.6 Require monitoring programs to ensure that TSM and TDM measures mitigate
impacts.
Objective A -7: Identify facilities, corridors, mode transfer points, and rights -of -way needed
to enhance the viability of non - automobile transportation. meet long -term mobility needs in
order to minimize the need for increased cross - island roadway capacity.
Policies
A -7.1 Identify and address impediments to system -wide mobility.
A -7.2 Identify major activity centers that can function as mode transfer points.
A -7.3 Work with retail development to set aside existing parking areas as well as develop
and promote mode transfer points, such as park- and -ride lots, to enhance the use of
alternative modes of transportation and to assist the development of an intermodal
transportation system.
A.7.4 Develop strategies to preserve and identify required rights -of -way.
Page 4 of 9
C:\DOCUME -1 \cm user\LOCALS-1 \Temp\TC attachment 1.doc
Draft Policies of the Alameda TMP
B. Livability Goal
Balance the mobility needs of the community with the overall community
objective of creating a livable human and natural environment. Coordinate the
interaction of transportation systems development with land use planning
activities.
Objective B -1: Design and maintain transportation facilities to be compatible with adjacent
land uses.
Policies
B -1.1 Buffer land uses adjacent to high volume streets without the use of soundwalls.
B -1.2 Include landscaping in transportation projects to enhance the overall visual
appearance of the facility.
Objective B -2: Plan, develop and implement a transportation system that enhances the
livability of our residential neighborhoods.
Policies
B -2.1 Protect residential neighborhood integrity by minimizing the impacts of through
traffic on low - volume residential streets.
B -2.2 Maintain a Traffic Calming Toolbox and implementation program.
B -2.3 Support programs that increase the number of people transported without
increasing the number of vehicles.
B -2.4 Develop a program that monitors and reacts to traffic volumes on selected city
streets to ensure an appropriate distribution of traffic.
B -2.5 Maintain a speed limit of 25 MPH on all streets in Alameda in order to avoid
creating barriers between neighborhoods. Exempt current roadways with speed limits
above 25 MPH: Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway, Main Street, Constitution Way,
Tilden Way, Doolittle Drive, Island Drive, North Loop Road, South Loop Road, and
Harbor Bay Parkway.
Objective B -3: Plan, develop and implement a transportation system that protects and
enhances air and water quality, protects and enhances views and access to the water, and
minimizes noise impacts on residential areas.
Policies
B -3.1 Street projects should be designed to minimize the requirements for sound
mitigation measures. Do not implement street projects that necessitate a soundwall.
Page 5 of 9
C:\DOCUME -1 \cm user\LOCALS -1 \Temp \TC attachment 1.doc
Draft Policies of the Alameda TMP
B -3.2 Ensure that transportation system improvements comply with accepted noise
standards in residential areas. Monitor the noise impacts of the existing transportation
system. Identify strategies to mitigate excessive noise conditions.
Objective B -4: Develop a Transportation plan based on existing and projected land uses
and plans. Encourage land use decisions that facilitate implementation of this
transportation system.
Policies
B -4.1 Encourage development patterns and land uses that promote the use of alternate
modes and reduce the rate of growth in region -wide vehicle miles traveled.
B -4.2 Integrate planning for Environmentally Friendly Modes, including transit,
bicycling and walking, into the City's development review process.
B -4.3 Encourage mixed use development that utilizes non - single occupancy vehicle
transportation modes.
Objective B -5: Manage both on- street and off - street parking to support access and
transportation objectives.
Policies
B -5.1 Consider a fully- funded on- street parking permit program in neighborhoods with
chronic parking problems and new developments.
B -5.2: Support use of parking in -lieu fees where feasible to increase and encourage
public transit options and evaluate the use of Shared parking strategies in mixed use
areas.
C. Transportation Choice Goal
Encourage the use of transportation modes, especially at peak - period, other than
the single- occupant automobile in such a way as to allow all modes to be
mutually supportive and to function together as one transportation system.
Objective C -1: Develop programs and infrastructure to encourage the use of high
occupancy vehicles (HOVs), such as buses, ferries, vans and carpools.
Policies
C -1.1 Update and implement the recommendations of the Alameda Long Range Transit
Plan.
C -1.2 Consider the use of strategies to give priority to high occupancy vehicles at the
bridges and tubes.
Objective C -2: Enhance opportunities for pedestrian access and movement by developing,
promoting, and maintaining pedestrian networks and environments.
Page 6 of 9
C:\DOCUME—1 \cm user\LOCALS --1 \Temp \TC attachment 1.doc
Draft Policies of the Alameda TMP
Policies
C -2.1 Include improvements to pedestrian facilities as part of City transportation
improvement projects (streets, bridges, etc.).
C -2.2 Review City sidewalk design standards to ensure continued compliance with
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and to better serve pedestrian needs.
C -2.3 Identify gaps and deficiencies in the City's existing pedestrian network and
develop strategies to rectify them.
C -2.4 Develop and implement a Pedestrian Master Plan with regard to physical system
improvements, as well as programs and policies relating to encouragement, education and
enforcement
Objective C -3: Promote and encourage bicycling as a mode of transportation.
Policies
C -3.1 Maintain and implement the Bicycle Master Plan with regard to physical system
improvements (especially the identified priority projects), as well as programs and
policies relating to encouragement, education and enforcement.
C -3.2 Include improvements to bike facilities as part of City transportation improvement
projects (streets, bridges, etc.).
C -3.3 Identify gaps and deficiencies in the City's existing bike network and develop
strategies to rectify them.
Objective C -4: Manage demand placed on the street system through a TDM program to be
developed with available funding in accordance with state law.
Policies
C -4.1 Work with major employers to accommodate and promote alternative
transportation modes, flexible work hours, and other travel demand management
techniques and require that appropriate mitigation be funded through new development if
a nexus exists.
Objective C -5: Assess the impacts on all transportation modes (including auto, transit, bike
and pedestrian) when considering mobility and transportation improvements.
Objective C -6: Coordinate and integrate the planning and development of transportation
system facilities to meet the needs of users of all transportation modes.
Page 7 of 9
C:\DOCUME -1 \cm user\LOCALS -1 \Temp \TC attachment 1.doc
Draft Policies of the Alameda TMP
Policies
C -6.1 Review and update multimodal design standards for lane widths, parking, planting
area, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes to guide construction, maintenance, and redevelopment
of transportation facilities consistent with the street classification system.
C -6.2 Identify areas of conflict and of compatibility between modes (e.g. walking,
bicycling, transit, automobiles, and people with disabilities). Pursue strategies to reduce
or eliminate conflicts, increase accessibility, and foster multimodal compatibility.
C -6.3 Maintain a committee (such as the Interagency Liaison Committee) that works with
transit service providers to resolve transit- related problems.
C -6.4 Coordinate efforts with regional funding agencies in order to address Alameda's
regional transportation issues.
D. Implementation Goal
Implement and maintain the planned transportation system in a coordinated and
cost - effective manner.
Objective D -1: Require developers to reserve and construct (if nexus exists) rights of way,
transportation corridors and dedicated transportation facilities through the development
process and other means.
Objective D -2: Ensure that new development implement approved transportation plans,
including the goals, objectives, and policies of the Transportation Element of the General
Plan and provides the transportation improvements needed to accommodate that
development and cumulative development.
Objective D -3: When considering improvements to transportation facilities, the following
issues should be addressed: traffic demand, preservation of neighborhood character,
impacts to traffic operations including all modes of transportation, protection of historic
and natural resources, utility and stormwater needs, the conservation of energy, and
maintenance costs when considering improvements to transportation facilities.
Objective D -4: Prioritize the maintenance of capital investment and maximize the efficient
use of the existing street system through operational improvements over new construction.
Policies
D -4.1 Implement programs to fund maintenance of the existing and future transportation
systems to the extent feasible to meet desired service levels.
D -4.2 Coordinate with utility construction, maintenance schedule and public agencies.
D -4.3 Continue to regularly update the City's pavement management system (PMS)
program.
Page 8 of 9
C:\DOCUME -1 \cm user\LOCALS --1 \Temp \TC attachment 1.doc
Draft Policies of the Alameda TMP
Objective D -5: Develop service level standards for the operation and maintenance of public
works infrastructure, including streets, bridges, pedestrian ways, bicycle facilities and
intersections.
Page 9 of 9
C:\DOCUME—'1 \cm user\LOCALS -1 \Temp \TC attachment 1.doc
Attachment 2
The City of Alameda is currently in the midst of many large -scale development projects,
including the Northern Waterfront, Alameda Landing, and Alameda Point.
The City's 1990 General Plan states one of its key goals as deemphasizing the use of the
automobile in Alameda. Further, the transportation element of the existing General Plan states
unequivocally that the city will not increase through - traffic capacity in its planning (policy
4.1.c). Both of theses goals have been supported in the recent Transportation Master Plan policy
meetings which have won the support of numerous city boards and commissions. In 2001, the
City Council passed a resolution making Alameda a Transit First city. Since adoption of the
Transit First Policy, the community has created the city's Bicycle Master Plan and Long Range
Transit Plan, both of which were accepted by the city council.
The City's Public Works Department commissioned a transportation poll as a part of the first
phase of the Transportation Master Plan in which residents stated their full support for
maintaining the current 25 mph speed limit on Alameda's streets and maintaining the
walkable/bikable nature of Alameda's streets. This policy has subsequently been incorporated
into the Alameda Point General Plan amendment and PDC and the planning for the Catellus
Master Plan.
Clear City policy is critical to good city planning. Clear City policies provide essential direction
for City staff, certainty and direction for the project developers and investors, and reassurances
for Alameda residents that development in Alameda will occur based upon agreed upon,
community supported policy direction.
Alameda maintains a small -town feeling through most of the City that its residents enjoy.
Research has clearly shown that high speed, high volume traffic, wide intersections, noise
mitigations due to traffic, and a lack of facilities creates an environment that is non - conducive to
pedestrians and creates barriers to the convenient use of a city's pedestrian network, cutting off
neighborhoods from each other and diminishing the quality of life for all Alamedans. The City's
General Plan policies mandate that public and private developments, including public investment
in streets, maintain and preserve the character of Alameda. This character is defined by
pedestrian friendly streets and intersections that accommodate automobiles, bicyclists, transit
vehicles, and pedestrians. Alameda streets and intersections are designed to be shared and to
accommodate all modes of transportation. It is this small town, 25 mile per hour, shared design
character that should be preserved when designing new streets and new intersections.
Furthermore, given that Alameda has limited ingress and egress options, rushing vehicles to
congested pinch points at the tubes and bridges adds no time savings to travelers, while
negatively affecting the overall community. Aggressive congestion mitigation at Alameda
intersections holds very little benefit for drivers and will become less and less effective as the
regional roadways continue to clog up.
10/11/2006
Attachment 2
Agenda Item #5 -D
10 -17 -06
Therefore, in order to support the community planning processes involved in the writing of the
City's General Plan, Long Range Transit Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, as well as the General Plan
Amendments for Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront, the Transportation Commission
recommends that the City Council and Planning Board 1) direct staff to implement the following
policies as standing City Policy, 2) amend the General Plan where necessary to include these
policies until such time as TMP is adopted by the City Council, and 3) reject any EIR
mitigations, including Alameda Landing EIR mitigations, that do not meet them:
1. Roadways will not be widened to create additional automobile travel lanes to
accommodate additional automobile traffic volume with the exception of increasing
transit exclusive lanes or non - motorize vehicle lanes. (Consistent with the General Plan,
Long Range Transit Plan, proposed Transportation Master Plan)
2. Intersections will not be widened beyond the width of the approaching roadway with the
exception of a single exclusive left turn lane when necessary. (Provides consistency with
the General Plan, proposed Transportation Master Plan; The General Plan does mention
implementing right -turn only lanes, however, we recommend limiting the number of
lanes at the intersection).
3. Speed limits on Alameda's new roads should be consistent with existing roadways and be
designed and implemented as 25mph roadways. (Provides consistency with General Plan
and proposed Transportation Master Plan)
4. All EIRs must include analysis of the effects of the project on the city's transit, pedestrian
and bicycling environment, including adjacent neighborhoods and the overall City
network. (Provides consistency with General Plan, Long Range Transit Plan, Bicycle
Master Plan, proposed Transportation Master Plan and proposed Pedestrian Master Plan).
5. EIRs will not propose mitigations that significantly degrade the bicycle and pedestrian
environment which are bellwethers for quality of life issues and staff should identify
"Levels of Service" or other such measurements to ensure that the pedestrian and
bicycling environment will not be significantly degraded as development takes place.
(Provides consistency with General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, proposed TMP, and
proposed Pedestrian Plan)
6. Mitigations for future development should be solely directed at reducing traffic through
TDM measures and transit, bicycle and pedestrian capital projects, as well as more
efficient use of existing infrastructure via traffic signal re- timing, etc. in order to reduce
the negative environmental effects of development, rather than attempting to
accommodate them.
7. The City should follow the example of Davis, Oakland, Berkeley and other "Transit
First" communities and establish General Plan policy that acknowledges that automobile
congestion will occur at certain locations as Alameda changes and grows and that this
congestion is not considered a Significant Environmental Impact. For example, a delay of
55 seconds at an intersection for a car on Park Street or at Webster and Atlantic should
10/11/2006
not be considered a Signficant Environmental Impact requiring mitigation in Alameda,
(which it currently is.). Congestion is often less of an impact on existing neighborhoods
than high volume, free - flowing traffic which increases noise, reduces safety and isolates
neighborhoods from each other.
Implementing these policies will help to clarify existing City plans and planning processes and
supports City staff in directing future development in a direction that maintains the character of
Alameda's neighborhoods. These policies will further help to integrate future developments into
the "seamless" design for the city that the General Plan calls for.
10/11/2006