2004-03-16 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 16, 2004 - - - 6:50 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, March 16, 2004, 6:50 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Council 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 LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of
Section 54956.9.
Number of cases: One.
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b)
of Section 54956.9.
Number of potential cases: One.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 16, 2004 - - - 7:10 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, March 16, 2004, 7:10 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH PROPERY NEGOTIATOR
Property: Alameda Theatre.
Negotiating parties:
City of Alameda and Cocores
Development Company.
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
Beverly J hair
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk, and
upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and
state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a
summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Commission
meetings.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 16, 2004 - - - 7 :25 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue
and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of 3
minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission.
Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish
to speak on an agenda item.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
Meetings of February 17, 2004 and March 2, 2004, and the
Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting held on March 3,
2004.
AGENDA ITEM
1. Recommendation to enter into an extension of the Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement with Movie TECS for the Redevelopment of
the Alameda Theatre.
ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the
rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3
minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during
Board meetings.
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 16, 2004 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue
and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Board on
introduced by Board Members may speak for
agenda item when the subject is before
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk
agenda item.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
agenda items or business
a maximum of 3 minutes per
the Board. Please file a
if you wish to speak on an
Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Financing Authority (APFA)
Meeting of March 18, 2003; the Special Joint City Council, APFA,
and Community Improvement Commission Meetings of September 16, 2003
and October 7, 2003; the Special Joint Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority and APFA Meeting of December 2, 2003; and
the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority
and APFA Meeting of February 17, 2004.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Board in regard to any matter over which the
Board has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on
the agenda.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from the Board)
ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
TUESDAY
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 rostrum
and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per
item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a
summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Council
meetings.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 16, 2004 - - - - 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 St.]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. 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 6:50 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:10 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:25 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING 7:27 P.M.
AUTHORITY, 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 honoring Frederica von Stade, on winning a 2004
Grammy Award and expressing appreciation for her contributions
to music in Alameda's school; and
• Presentation by the Mayor of Certificates of Appreciation
to Alameda School's Music Teachers.
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 March 2, 2004, and the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on March 3,
2004.
4 -B. Recommendation to accept the work of P &J Utility Company for
Alameda Point Water Upgrades, No. P.W. 02- 01 -04.
4 -C. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Application for Block Grant
Funds from the California Department of Conservation, Division
of Recycling.
4 -D. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Application to CalTrans for
a Safe Routes to School Program Grant for Improvements to the
Bike Bridge Approach and Pavement Cross Lights at 8th Street
and Taylor Avenue.
4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Setting Public Hearing on Delinquent
Real Property Transfer Tax.
4 -F. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding a New Subsection 2 -61.8 (Design Build) to Section 2-
61 (Bidding Procedures on Public Projects and Goods and
Supplies) of Chapter II (Administration).
4 -G. Bills for ratification.
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Honoring Sandre R. Swanson for His
Contributions to the City of Alameda. [Councilmember
Matarrese]
5 -B. Public Hearing to consider revisions to the Development
Regulations (ZA03 -0001) contained within Chapter XXX of the
Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the
Zoning Ordinance; [Continued from February 3, 2004]
• Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations).
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board
conditioned approval of Planned Development Amendment and a
Major Design Review for 3241 Garfield Avenue to allow: 1) the
construction of a 150 square -foot single -story rear addition;
2) the construction of as maximum 24 -inch tall deck with an
attached hot tub; and 3) the construction of a six -foot fence
around the side and rear property lines; and adoption of
related Resolution. This site is located within the R -1 -PD,
One Family Residence Planned Development Zoning District.
[Applicants and Appellants request that the Public Hearing be
continued to April 20]
5 -D. Recommendation regarding Alameda Ferry Services Request for
Proposals. [Note: This item has been continued to April 6, 2004]
5 -E. Recommendation to approve Bus Shelter Site Selection Criteria.
5 -F. Discussion of boat speeding issues on the estuary.
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)
8. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting will be adjourned in memory of Firefighter Richard
Stoker.
• 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: lwe,isige @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.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: March 10, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Regular and. Special City Council Meetings, Special Community
Improvement Commission Meeting and Alameda Public Financing
Authority Annual Meeting of March 16, 2004
Transmitted are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special City
Council Meetings, Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting and Alameda
Public Financing Authority Annual Meeting of March 16, 2004.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISION
MINUTES
Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
Meetings of February 17, 2004 and March 2, 2004, and the
Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting held on March 3,
2004.
The Board Secretary has presented for approval the minutes of the Special CIC
meetings of February 17, 2004 and March 2, 2004, and the Special Joint City
Council and CIC meeting of March 3, 2004.
AGENDA ITEM
1. Recommendation to enter into an extension of the Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement with Movie TECS for the Redevelopment of
the Alameda Theatre.
It is recommended that Council approve a 180 -day extension of the Exclusive
Negotiation Agreement with Movie TECS for the redevelopment of the Alameda
Theatre in order to have additional time to draft a Disposition and Development
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers February 23, 2004
Agreement (DDA) for consideration by the CIC. Longs has new concerns with the
proposed parking structure design which may change the needed traffic analysis for
the environmental review of the DDA.
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
MINUTES
Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Financing Authority
(APFA) Meeting of March 18, 2003; the Special Joint City
Council, APFA, and Community Improvement Commission Meetings
of September 16, 2003 and October 7, 2003; and the Special
Joint Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and APFA
Meeting held on December 2, 2003.
The Board Secretary has presented for approval the Minutes of the annual APFA
meeting of March 18, 2003; the Special Joint City Council, APFA and CIC meetings
of September 16, 2003 and October 7, 2003; and the Special Joint ARRA and
APFA meeting of December 2, 2003.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation honoring Frederica von Stade on winning a 2004
Grammy Award and expressing appreciation for her contribution
to music in Alameda's schools; and
• Presentation by the Mayor of Certificates of Appreciation
to Alameda Schools' Music Teachers.
The Mayor will present a proclamation to Frederica von State and certificates of
appreciation to Alameda schools' music teachers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on March 2, 2004, and the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission meeting held on March 3,
2004.
The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special and Regular
City Council meetings held on March 2, 2004 and the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on March 3, 2004.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 3
Councilmembers February 23, 2004
4 -B. Recommendation to accept the work of P &J Utility Company for
Alameda Point Water Upgrades, No. P.W. 02- 01 -04.
It is recommended that the Council accept the work of P &J Utility Company for
Alameda Point water system upgrades. The project was completed under budget.
4 -C. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Application to the
Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling for Block
Grant Funds for FY 2004 -05.
It is recommended that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing application to the
Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling for Block Grant Funds for fiscal
year 2004/2005. The City is eligible for $20,797 in block grant funds for the fiscal
year. Staff has identified appropriate beverage container recycling and public
outreach activities for use of the funds such as Earth Day, Run for the Parks,
Coastal Clean Up Day and the Mayor's Tree Lighting Ceremony.
4 -D. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing Application to CalTrans for
Safe Routes to School Program Grants.
It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution to apply to Caltrans for Safe
Routes to School Program Grants. The program provides funding for projects
designed to increase the amount of students bicycling and walking to school. Staff
is applying for this funding for two projects: Bay Farm island Bicycle Bridge Access
Improvements (Lincoln Middle School) and In- pavement Lights at 8th Street and
Taylor Avenue (Washington Elementary School).
4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Setting Public Hearing on Delinquent
Real Property Transfer Tax.
The sale of 2900 Main Street on March 27, 2003 did not include the collection of the
$4,320 real property conveyance tax due the City of Alameda. The property owner
has since paid the $4,320 tax but has not paid the interest and penalties that have
accrued to date. It is recommended that a public hearing on these delinquent
charges totaling $1,662.62 be scheduled for May 4, 2004.
4 -F. Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code
Section 5 -2.65 to Allow Advertising and Award of Public Works
Projects Using Design /Build Methods.
It is recommended that Council amend the AMC to allow advertising and award of
Public Works projects using design -build methods. The design -build method leaves
more of the design details to the contractor, subject to review by City staff and
guided by City performance specifications. This could reduce design and /or
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 4
Councilmembers February 23, 2004
construction costs, shorten project delivery time, and allow for innovative methods
and materials. In the case of design -build projects, the award can be made to a
bidder other than the lowest bidder if the firm can provide a project with a lower life -
cycle cost or best value.
4 -G. Bills for ratification.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Honoring Sandre R. Swanson for His Many
Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Alameda.
Sandre Swanson is being honored for his 30 years of service wherein he has made
significant contributions to the City of Alameda and the East Bay community during
his tenure. Mr. Swanson is retiring this year as Chief of Staff to Congresswoman
Barbara Lee.
5 -B. Public Hearing to consider revisions to the Development
Regulations (ZA03 -0001) contained within Chapter XXX of the
Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), more commonly referred to as the
Zoning Ordinance; [Continued from February 3, 2004]
• Introduction of Ordinance Amending Article XXX of the
Alameda Municipal Code to Improve Customer Service,
Streamline Review Procedures, Clarify Technical Issues and
Codify Practices and Decisions Currently Being Implemented.
It is recommended that Council review the additional information provided by staff in
response to landscaping and open space and provide direction on the preferred
alternative and on any other section of the proposed amendments which needs
clarification or revision. It is also recommended that Council introduce the
ordinance with any desired revisions and direct the City Manager to finalize the
Ordinance incorporating these revisions to the Development Code; and continue the
hearing to April 6, 2004 at which time the Ordinance can be scheduled for adoption
by the Council.
5 -C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board
conditioned approval of Planned Development Amendment and a
Major Design Review for 3241 Garfield Avenue to allow: 1) the
construction of a 150 square -foot single -story rear addition;
2) the construction of as maximum 24 -inch tall deck with an
attached hot tub; and 3) the construction of a six -foot fence
around the side and rear property lines; and adoption of
related Resolution. This site is located within the R -1 -PD,
One Family Residence Planned Development Zoning District.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and Page 5
Councilmembers February 23, 2004
[Applicants and Appellants request that the Public Hearing be
continued to April 20]
Though a request was filed by the applicants and appellants to continue the Council
hearing from the March 2 hearing date to March 16 so as to provide additional time
to conduct mediation meetings, they were unable to reach an agreement on the rear
addition portion of the project and are now willing to proceed with the public hearing
process and are requesting another continuance to April 20 so all parties can be
present.
5 -D. Recommendation regarding Alameda Ferry Services Request for
Proposals.
It is recommended that the Council accept Blue and Gold Fleet's proposal for
operation of the Alameda Oakland Ferry Service (AFOS) and commence
negotiations, but reject their proposal for combined service of AOFS and Alameda
Harbor Bay Ferry Services (AHBFS) because there are no cost savings associated
with combining the two services. It is also recommended that Council direct the City
Manager to commence negotiations with Blue and Gold Fleet and Harbor Bay
Maritime for AHBFS.
5 -E. Recommendation to approve Bus Shelter Site Selection Criteria.
It is recommended that the Council approve the bus shelter siting criteria. The full
Transportation Commission, after receiving additional input from the public
regarding the criteria, approved the revised criteria.
5 -F. Discussion of boat speeding issues on the estuary.
Council is asked to review options to address boat speeding issues on the estuary.
These options are: a boater education program; increasing Alameda Police
Department enforcement which would incur an additional cost of approximately
$750,000; and adopting a fee on rental of boat slips and landing fees that would go
directly to paying for educational materials and enforcement efforts. As the U.S.
Coast Guard, the Alameda County Sheriffs Department and the Oakland Police
Department cannot commit to a multi jurisdictional task force at this time, a letter
from the Council stressing the need for enforcement and recommending the
creation of the task force is also being recommended.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 17, 2004- -6:55 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(04- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property:
Alameda Theatre (2315 -2319 Central Avenue) and Longs Drugs (2314
Santa Clara Avenue); Negotiating parties: City of Alameda, Cocores
Development Company and Longs Drugs; Under negotiation: Price and
terms of payment.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission gave instructions
to Real Property Negotiators pertaining to the Alameda Theatre and
Longs Drugs.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
February 17, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 2, 2004- -7:00 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(04- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: 2329
Eagle Avenue; Negotiating parties: Community Improvement Commission
and Gregory Barron; Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that direction was given to the real
property negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
March 2, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 2, 2004- -7:25 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the special meeting at 7:57 p.m.
Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
Agenda Item
(04- ) Recommendation to send letters in support of FY 2005
Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for a $1.5 million line
item for the development of Advancing California's Emerging
Technologies' (ACET's) 35,000 square foot Bio- technology Incubator
to be located at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center site.
Commissioner Kerr stated that if the grant is not received, ACET
would need an additional $1,. million in funding; inquired who would
provide the additional subsidy to ACET.
Dr. Sam Doctors, ACET, responded the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) regional office would provide funding in its
next budget.
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the City should be aware of
key actions that might be necessary other than sending the
requested letters.
Dr. Doctors responded if the City could allow use of its lobbying
firm, ACET would be willing to pay the incremental costs; follow up
in Washington D.C. is helpful; thanked City staff for placing the
matter on the agenda quickly to meet a Washington D.C. timeline;
submitted ACET's design drawings.
Commissioner Kerr stated the letter quotes statistics on graduate
companies; that she does not have personal knowledge or
documentation on the statistics; therefore, she would request that
her name be removed from the letters.
Chair Johnson inquired whether she should sign the letter as the
Chair, rather than all CIC members.
The Executive Director inquired whether Dr. Doctors would prefer to
have the Chair sign the letter.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
March 2, 2004
1
Dr. Doctors responded additional members signing would strengthen
the letter; further stated the statistics are a result of careful
evaluations.
Chair Johnson requested that staff be provided with the backup
information for the statistics; suggested that the vote authorize
sending the letter and Dr. Doctors determining who should sign the
letters.
Commissioner Matarrese suggested the letter be signed pending
backup documentation for the statistics.
Commissioner Kerr stated that she has requested backup
documentation for seven years and has not received it.
Chair Johnson stated if the staff recommendation is passed by three
votes, she could sign the letter indicating that the City supports
the funding.
Dr. Doctors stated ACET would be willing to provide backup
documentation.
Commissioner Daysog stated Alameda is fortunate to have biotech
companies and is a leader in the biotech industry; ACET is
important for the economic development of not only Alameda, but the
region; ACET has graduated companies, like Guava Technologies, that
have become successful; noted that the City of Oakland tried to
lure ACET to relocate to Oakland.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 4. Noes: Commissioner Kerr - 1.
Chair Johnson stated the motion was to approve sending a letter;
Dr. Doctors would decide whether to have only her or all CIC
members in favor sign the letter.
Dr. Doctors stated that he would communicate with the Executive
Director regarding signatures; noted groundbreaking is set for June
4, just preceding a biotech expo in San Francisco.
Commissioner Daysog stated the City's lobbyist is very busy;
however, suggested the lobbyist be mindful of issues pertinent to
ACET.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
March 2, 2004
2
The Executive Director stated if the Commission supports said
suggestion, staff would follow up.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
March 2, 2004
3
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -MARCH 3, 2004- -5:35 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(04- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property:
1363 -65 Park Street; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda,
Community Improvement Commission, Chew Lun Benevolent Association
and Peet's Coffee & Tea; Under negotiation: Price and terms of
payment.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that direction was given to Real
Property Negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:05 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 and
Community Improvement Commission
March 3, 2004
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: James M. Flint
Executive Director
Date: March 5, 2003
Subject: Recommendation to enter into an extension of the Exclusive Negotiation
Agreement with MovieTECS for the Redevelopment of the Alameda Theatre to
Complete a Disposition and Development Agreement with MovieTECS
BACKGROUND
On October 7, 2003, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved entering into an
extension of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with MovieTECS for the
redevelopment of the Alameda Theatre in conjunction with a multi- screen theater project.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Staff and MovieTECS have agreed to business terms for the Disposition and Development
Agreement (DDA) and MovieTECS has finalized their project plans. As part of this project, staff
has been working with Longs to finalize a parking structure on the Longs property that, in
conjunction with the MovieTECS DDA, would create identified traffic impacts from the traffic
going to and from the parking structure. These traffic impacts are part of the required
environmental review in order to consider approval of the MovieTECS DDA.
Recently Longs has expressed some concerns with the proposed design for the parking structure.
Based on Longs previous acceptance of the parking structure design, the analysis of the traffic
impacts had begun in anticipation that this analysis would be utilized for the environmental
review of the DDA with MovieTECS. Longs' new concerns with the proposed parking structure
design may change the needed traffic analysis for the environmental review of the MovieTECS
DDA. Until that issue is resolved, the environmental review for the DDA cannot be finalized.
For this reason, staff is recommending a one hundred eighty (180) -day extension of the ENA to
resolve Longs' concerns and complete the environmental review for the DDA.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Some minor predevelopment costs are associated with the drafting of the DDA. Funding for such
costs are the obligation of the developer and included within the ENA. There is no fiscal impact
to the General Fund.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #1 CIC
3 -16 -04
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
RECOMMENDATION
March 5, 2004
Page 2
Additional time is required to draft a DDA for consideration by the CIC. For this reason, the
Executive Director recommends a 180 -day extension of the ENA.
Attachment
PB/MJF:ry
cc: Kyle Conner, MovieTECS
Economic Development Commission
Park Street Business Association
Respectfully submitted,
Paul Benoit
Development Services Director
By: Marc J. Fontes
Business Development Manager
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \econdev\MARC\Theatre\ENA \fourth extension agenda report to CIC March 04.doc
F: CP /Alameda Theatre/Atlas Properties/ENA
Plar 08 04 02:09p Kyle H. Conner 1 707 537 1806
MAR -08 -2004 MON 08:10 AM CITY CF ALAMEDA DSD FAX NO. 510 749 5808
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATING AGREEMENT
p.2
N. U2
This Amendment to Exclusive Negotiating Agreement, entered into this day of
, 2004, by and between the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda, a public entity lawfully created and existing under the laws of the State of California
( "CIC ") and MovieTECS, a California corporation (together referred to herein as "Developer "):
RECITALS:
A) On February 20, 2002, an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement was entered into by and
between CIC and Developer (hereinafter "ENA') for an initial 180 -day term, with a first
extension of 90 days and a second extension of 60 days.
B) Developer requested and received (through an Amendment to the ENA) an additional
extension of the negotiating period, which would expire on or about May 30, 2003.
C) Thereafter, Atlas Properties withdrew from thc project and MovieTECS is now the
remaining Developer.
D) Developer (MovieTECS) requested and received a second extension of the negotiating
period (through a Second Amendment to the ENA), which expired on or about August
31, 2003; Developer then requested two separate extension periods of 30 days each,
pursuant to the Second Amendment to the ENA.
E) Developer (MovieTECS) requested and received a third extension of the negotiating
period (through a Third Amendment to the ENA), which expired on or about January 31,
2004; Developer then requested two separate extension periods of 30 days each, pursuant
to the Third Amendment to the ENA.
F) Developer has requested an additional extension of the term for the ENA.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between and undersigned parties as
follows:
1, Paragraph 2 (a) ( "The Initial Term of the Negotiating Period ") is modified to read as
follows: "The term of this Exclusive Negotiating Agreement shall begin on February 20,
2002 and expire on July 31, 2004. If upon expiration of the Negotiating Period, the
Developer and the CIC have not executed a DDA, then this Agreement shall
automatically terminate unless this Agreement has been extended by the CIC and
Developer as set out in paragraph (b) of this section.
2. Paragraph 2(b) ( "Extensions of the Initial Negotiating Period ") is modified to read as
follows: "The Executive Director of the CIC may, at the written request of the Developer,
approve a first extension of the Negotiating Period for a period of thirty (30) days, which
approval shall be in the sole discretion of the Executive Director of the CIC. Following a
first extension of the Agreement for thirty (30) days, the Executive Director of the CIC
may, at the written request of the Developer, approve a second extension of not longer
than thirty (30) days if, in the sole discretion of the Executive Director, the negotiations
are likely to lead to the execution of a DDA. No further extensions are permitted under
Page 1 of 2
Mar 08 04 02:09p Kyle H. Conner 1 707 537 1806
MAR -08 -2004 MON 08 :10 AM CITY OF ALAMEDA DSD FAX NO. 510 749 5808
p.3
P. 03
this Agreement. The Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the expiration of any
extension entered into pursuant to the provisions of this section."
3. Except as expressly modified herein, all other terms and covenants set forth in the
Agreement shall remain the same and shall be in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this modification of
Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written.
DEVELOPER:
MovieTECS
By Kyl
Title: Presider!
GAerondehMARC\ThestrelAI ASFOUrtt Amendmait to ENA.doc
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION OF CITY OF ALAMEDA:
By: James M. Flint
Title: Executive Director
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By: aul Beno
Title: Development Services Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: Teresa L. High
Title: Assistant General Counsel
Page 2 of 2
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 18, 2003- -7:28 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 9:37 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Board Members Daysog, Kerr, Matarrese and
Chair Johnson - 4.
Absent: Board Member DeWitt - 1.
MINUTES
(03- ) Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Financing Authority
Meeting of March 19, 2002.
Board Member Kerr moved approval of the minutes.
Board Member Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Board Members Daysog, Kerr and Chair
Johnson - 3. Abstention: Board Member Matarrese - 1. Absent:
Board Member DeWitt - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual
Meeting at 9:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Alameda Public Financing Authority
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Annual Meeting
Alameda Public Financing Authority
March 18, 2003
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - SEPTEMBER 16, 2003- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:56 p.m.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
AGENDA ITEM
Present: Councilmembers /Board Members /Commissioners
Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and
Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
(03- 413CC/03- APFA /03- 046CIC) Joint Public Hearing:
(03 -001A) Resolution No. 03 -12, Authorizing the Purchase and Sale
of 2003 Tax Allocation Bonds of the Community Improvement
Commission of the City of Alameda and Approving Other Actions in
Connection Therewith." Adopted.
(03 -046A) Resolution No. 03 -115, "Authorizing the Issuance and Sale
To and Sale By the Alameda Public Financing Authority of Bonds
Relating to the Merged Improvement Areas, Approving an Indenture of
Trust for the Bonds and Approving Other Actions in Connection
Therewith." Adopted.
(03 -413A) Resolution No. 13630, "Approving the Issuance of 2003 Tax
Allocation Bonds of the Community Improvement Commission of the
City of Alameda (Merged Improvement Areas) and the Purchase and
Sale Thereof by the Alameda Public Financing Authority." Adopted.
Mayor /Chair Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association; and
Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner Daysog stated that he is
concerned about the undertaking a $50 Million bond issuance without
going through a public bidding process for the underwriter; Charter
Section 3 -15 requires bidding for public work improvements, which
is what the bonds will be used for.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing 1
Authority and Community Improvement Commission
September 16, 2003
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel stated Charter Section 3 -15
literally applies to public improvements and works; underwriting is
considered personal professional services, not a public work;
public work is defined by State law and specifically excludes
personal professional services; when the construction projects
commence, a public bidding process would be required; services are
outside the bid process and require a Request for Proposal, with
discretion to evaluate services.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the
matter was of concern to others; noted the Library Bond went
through a bid process.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Kerr stated that she has
concern about financing the three Housing Authority projects, none
of which are inside the redevelopment area; the Housing Authority
has real estate it could use to refinance; the City's tax increment
money is getting heavily burdened; the State is taking money from
tax increment; tax increment should not be used as collateral for
the bonds; the proposal includes the Housing Authority entering
into a loan agreement with the Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) to pay for the bond; the State taking has made a vague
promise to repay tax increment money in 2006; inquired why the City
would enter into long -term bond financing for a three -year
financing gap; inquired why money should be borrowed locally to
finance State spending.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the staff report indicates that there
will be "funding for additional purposes;" inquired whether action
could be taken tonight and decisions on projects, such as the
Housing Authority, could be made at a later point.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative;
stated the action tonight is non - substantive; projects are not
being selected tonight, rather bonding capacity is being
considered; $50 million is being authorized; projects will be
selected through many hearings and a public process; selection of
projects is prohibited.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Kerr stated the Resolutions
includes "Whereas in order to refinance City advances and WECIP
obligations and to finance the Housing Authority Loan to offset the
ERAF transfers;" the items she objects to are specifically defined
and mentioned in the resolution.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether direction could be given to
revise the resolution.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative;
stated the language could be changed to make it clear that it is
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing 2
Authority and Community Improvement Commission
September 16, 2003
enabling legislation, rather than a specific action item.
Bond Counsel Chip Eady of Nixon Peabody LLP, stated the resolution
as draft does not restrict the use of bond proceeds or compel bond
proceeds to be used only for the mentioned purposes; at the time
the bonds are issued, there needs to be a set of reasonable
expectations as to how the bond proceeds might be issued; the
examples are intended to be illustrative, rather than exhaustive;
as the financing goes forward, the items are subject to change; the
bonds will not be sold until sometime in October and will not be
delivered to investors until late in October; there is still plenty
of time to make adjustments and adjustments can be made after the
bonds are issued as long as none of the bond covenants are violated
in the process regarding the tax exemption.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the resolution language could
be changed; if there is concern about some of the uses of the bond
funds, the items could be taken out as illustrative examples.
Mr. Eady responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Kerr stated that her
objections are not to slow down the redevelopment in the business
districts, rather to preserve the tax increment to allow the
business districts' projects to go forward.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated that he
concurs with Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Kerr's
concerns; the City needs to move forward with the illustrative
language removed from the resolutions; the bonds need to be sold to
allow the City to start moving on the theater and other projects.
Mayor /Chair Johnson noted Bridgeside shopping center is included,
too.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner Daysog inquired whether there
is concern about bidding out the bond service.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the matter should be reviewed in the
future; the City needs to move forward on the matter; inquired
whether there is urgency to take action on the bonds, in terms of
the projects.
The Finance Director stated the City has been working on the
project for two years; the project is complex; competitive sale of
bonds is used for single purpose bonds, such as the library bond;
the bond is complex and is more amenable to a negotiated sale
agreement; the underwriters have worked with the City since Marina
Village was formed; the company's idea allowed the City to get to
the point of issuing the bonds.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing 3
Authority and Community Improvement Commission
September 16, 2003
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired how the City would pay the
underwriter, to which the Finance Director responded with bond
proceeds.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner Daysog inquired how much the
underwriter would be paid, to which the Finance Director responded
1.25% of the bond issue.
The Finance Director stated the City ensures that it is getting a
competitive price, by providing comparable pricing of other issues
that are being priced at the same time the City is going to the
market.
Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner Daysog stated since the
company provided good service to the City in the past, if the City
went through the competitive process, it would prove the company
should be selected.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the issue should be addressed; requested
the Council be provided briefing on the matter, including options;
stated Council should provide guidelines before [selection of bond
underwriter], not after the fact.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether
the timing is critical and whether the decision could be postponed.
The Finance Director stated an action to refund Catellus bonds
coming before Council in October; there are timelines that need to
be met.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the matter could be considered
before the Catellus bond issue to give direction on whether it
should go through a competitive bid process; inquired how long the
competitive bidding process takes; Council needs a briefing on the
process at the next Council meeting before dealing with the
Catellus project bonds.
The Finance Director stated that she would provide information on
negotiated sale versus a competitive sale process.
The Acting City Manager /Executive Director stated staff would place
the matter on the October 7 agenda.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese inquired what the
impact of delaying would be on the theater, Bridgeside and parking
structure projects.
The Development Services Director stated the staff is in active
negotiations on all the projects; delay of one meeting would not
have severe negative impact; delay of a month or two would create
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing 4
Authority and Community Improvement Commission
September 16, 2003
problems; noted interest rates are low and might go up.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired how going through a competitive
bidding process would impact the timeframe.
The Finance Director stated there would be significant delay; bonds
would probably not be able to be issued until the first of the year
if a bidding process were used.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated approval
needs to move forward tonight; the City has waited long enough for
the theater and parking structure; other projects, such as
Bridgeside, are at critical points; the question of how the City
gets the best price needs to be addressed for future bond sales.
Mayor /Chair Johnson concurred with Councilmember /Board Member/
Commissioner Matarrese; requested the briefing be scheduled as soon
as possible; stated projects should not be impeded.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
the staff recommendation to issue the bonds with the illustrative
language removed from the resolutions.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel inquired whether illustrative
language is being removed to restrict the scope of the bonds or to
merely allow flexibility in the future to make the decision.
Mayor /Chair Johnson and Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner
Matarrese responded to allow flexibility.
The City Attorney /Legal Counsel stated staff understands that the
Council /Commission /Authority is allowing for maximum flexibility in
order to accommodate future demands and needs.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Kerr seconded the motion,
which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember/
Board Member /Commissioners Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair
Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor /Board Member /Commissioner Daysog - 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:22 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, APFA and CIC
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing 5
Authority and Community Improvement Commission
September 16, 2003
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - OCTOBER 7, 2003- -7:20 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:51 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
MINUTES
Present: Councilmembers /Authority Members/
Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
(03- 44000/03- APFA /03- 050CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City
Council, Alameda Public Financing Authority and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting of September 16, 2003.
Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved
approval of the minutes.
Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(03- 440CC) Resolution No. 13634, "Approving the Issuance of Tax
Allocation Refunding Bonds of the Community Improvement Commission
of the City of Alameda and Related Escrow Agreement." Adopted.
(03- 050CIC) Resolution No. 03 -116, "Authorizing the Issuance and
Sale of Refunding Bonds Relating to the Business and Waterfront
Improvement Project Area, Approving Amendment to Indenture of
Trust, and Approving Other Related Documents and Actions."
Adopted.
(03- 002APFA) Resolution No. 03 -13, "Approving Escrow Agreement
Related to Refunding of 2002 Revenue Bonds, Series A and Series B."
Adopted.
The Finance Director /Treasurer stated the action tonight refunds
bonds issued in March 2002 for the demolition of the existing
structures and construction of the backbone and infrastructure at
the Fleet Industrial Supply Center /East Housing; said bonds were
taxable; said bonds are being refunded and issued as tax - exempt for
an anticipated savings of $900,000 over the life of the bonds.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing 1
Authority and Community Improvement Commission
October 7, 2003
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the bonds were competitively
bid.
The Finance Director /Treasurer responded the bonds were negotiated;
however, the financing team was selected in 2002 via a Request for
Proposals (RFP) process.
Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved
adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember /Authority Member /Commissioner Gilmore seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Alameda Public Financing
Authority and Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Public Financing 2
Authority and Community Improvement Commission
October 7, 2003
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT ALAMEDA REUSE
AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ALAMEDA
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY - - - DECEMBER 2, 2003 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 8:18 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present:
Absent:
Authority Members Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
None.
AGENDA ITEM
ARRA Resolution No. 33, "Approving an Assignment Agreement by and
between the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the
Alameda Public Financing Authority in Connection with the Issuance
by the Alameda Public Financing Authority of Its Revenue Bonds to
Finance and Refinance the Acquisition, Construction, Installation
and Equipping of Various Capital Improvements to Alameda Point (the
Former Alameda Naval Air Station) and Approving Related Documents
and Official Actions." Adopted.
(03- ) APFA Resolution No.03 -14, "Authorizing the Issuance and
Sale of Revenue Bonds by the Alameda Public Financing Authority in
the Maximum Aggregate Principal Amount of $15 Million to Finance
and Refinance the Acquisition, Construction, Installation, and
Equipping of Various Capital Improvements to Alameda Point (the
Former Alameda Naval Air Station) and Approving Related Documents
and Official Actions." Adopted.
Authority Member Daysog stated a $10 million bond issuance from
several years ago is being retired; an additional $3.5 million is
being issued for a total of $13.5 million; however, the amount
requested is not to exceed $15 million; inquired why a $1.5 million
difference is included.
The Finance Director responded that bond resolutions typically have
a "not to exceed" amount to allow staff to price the bonds; stated
the $10 million from 1999 is being refunded; $3.5 million, which
includes issuance costs and reserve funds, is being issued for new
projects.
Authority Member Daysog inquired how much financing the $3.5
million would cost in principal plus interest.
Bill Reynolds, Gardner and Associates, responded debt is being
issued as a taxable, variable rate debt; the total cost is not
known; the rates should be very low; the rates on the 1999 tax -
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority 1
and Alameda Public Financing Authority
December 2, 2003
exempt issuance have averaged well under 2%; the current issuance
will be slightly higher.
Authority Member Daysog inquired what the amount would be assuming
a minimum rate for a 30 -year period.
Mr. Reynolds responded assuming 7%, which is higher than the
anticipated rate, the City would pay approximately $2 million in
interest.
Kira Grisgavage, JP Morgan, stated assuming a $4.4 million initial
issuance, the total for the taxable portion was $8.8 million.
Authority Member Daysog stated if the initial issuance were $3.5
million, the total probably would be $7.5 million.
Authority Member Kerr inquired whether money would be borrowed to
pay salaries, to which the Executive Director responded in the
affirmative.
Authority Member Kerr stated cutting the budget was discussed,
however, the budget seems to be expanding; that she has concerns
about borrowing money since the future of Alameda Point is unknown.
The Executive Director stated that the delay in property conveyance
made borrowing additional funds necessary; expenditures have been
reduced by $1.3 million; staff would continue to review ways to
further reduce costs at Alameda Point.
Chair Johnson noted borrowing money is necessary because General
Fund money cannot be spent to finance Alameda Point operations.
Chair Johnson inquired when a budget would be presented, to which
the Executive Director responded within two weeks.
Authority Member Matarrese stated that the $3.5 million is
necessary to allow the conveyance and entitlement process to move
forward and would provide leverage for projects that must be
completed prior to development of the land.
Authority Member Gilmore thanked staff for providing an explanation
on bond counsel and consultant selection procedures.
Authority Member Daysog stated that by issuing debt, many
generations of Alamedans would pay for the $3.5 million; the cost
would be about $7 million over the life of the project; cutting the
budget is another way of financing services.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
and Alameda Public Financing Authority
December 2, 2003
2
Chair Johnson stated the budget should be reviewed; ARRA /APFA
members need to review the spending cycle throughout the process.
The Executive Director stated monthly progress reports and
quarterly financial reports would be provided.
Authority Member Matarrese inquired when the $3.5 million would
begin to be repaid, to which the Finance Director responded that
the bonds could begin to be repaid as soon as cash is available.
Authority Member Matarrese stated the debt would be covered by the
value of the land conveyed from the City to the master developer;
the only risk is whether the Navy will convey the land to the City.
Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether the debt type and amount
precludes acquiring fixed rate financing, to which Mr. Reynolds
responded variable rate debt provides flexibility to pay down debt
at any time without worrying about call protection.
Chair Johnson noted development must go forward regardless of who
is the master developer.
Authority Member Matarrese moved adoption of resolutions.
Authority Member Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Authority Members Gilmore, Matarrese
and Chair Johnson - 3. Noes: Authority Members Daysog and Kerr - 2.
Authority Member Matarrese inquired whether the requested monthly
and quarterly reports would be presented in open session, to which
the Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint meeting at 8:48 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Alameda Public Financing
Authority
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
and Alameda Public Financing Authority
December 2, 2003
3
UNAPPROVED MINUTE S
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION AND
ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 17, 2004- -7:27 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 8:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
AGENDA ITEM
Present: Councilmembers /Board Members Daysog,
Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
(04- CC) City Council Resolution No. 13680, "Approving Public
Utilities Board Action and Authorizing Negotiation, Execution, Sale
and Delivery of Certain Revenue Bond Anticipation Installment Sale
Financing Documents to Be Delivered in Connection with Amendments
and Agreements Related to the Continued Development, Construction,
Financing and Operation of the Citywide Hybrid Fiber Optic - Coaxial
Broadband Telecom System, and Authorizing, Ratifying and Directing
Certain Actions with Respect Thereto." Adopted.
(04- APIC) APIC Resolution No. 04 -11, "Approving, Authorizing and
Directing the Negotiation, Execution, Sale and Delivery of Certain
Revenue Bond Anticipation Installment Sale Financing Documents with
Alameda Power & Telecom (As the Bureau of Electricity Acting By and
For the City of Alameda) to Be Delivered in Connection with
Amendments and Agreements Related to the Continued Development,
Construction, Financing and Operation of the Citywide Hybrid Fiber
Optic- Coaxial Broadband Telecom System and Authorizing and
Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto." Adopted.
(04- APFA) APFA Resolution No. 04 -15, "Approving, Authorizing and
Directing the Negotiation, Issuance, Execution, Sale and Delivery
of Series 2004 Revenue Bond Anticipation Notes (Alameda Power &
Telecom) and Related Agreements and Instruments to Be Delivered in
Connection with Amendments and Agreements Related to the Continued
Development, Construction, Financing and Operation of the Citywide
Hybrid Fiber Optic- Coaxial Broadband Telecom System and
Authorizing and Directing Certain Actions with Respect Thereto."
Adopted.
Vice Mayor /Board Member Daysog stated the $16 million bond
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Public Improvement Corporation and
Alameda Public Financing Authority
February 17, 2004
1
previously issued must be repaid; in addition, $7 million is needed
to complete the [telecommunications] project at Bay Farm and Harbor
Bay Island, which totals $23 million; $33 million is being
requested; inquired why there is a $10 million differential.
The AP &T General Manager responded that the $33 million consists of
the $16 million certificates of participation, $4.8 million of "new
money" and the remaining $12.2 million would be capitalized
interest expense.
Vice Mayor /Board Member Daysog inquired whether the $12.2 million
in interest was previously capitalized or future interest.
The AP &T General Manager responded that capitalized interest was on
the combination of the $16 million and $4.8 million.
Councilmember /Board Member Matarrese moved adoption of the
Resolutions.
Councilmember /Board Member Matarrese stated completing the project
is important.
Councilmember /Board Member Gilmore seconded the motion, which
carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers /Board
Members Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 3. Noes:
Councilmembers /Board Members Daysog and Kerr - 2.
Councilmembers /Board Members Daysog and Kerr noted that their
reasons for voting against the bonds were stated at .a previous
meeting [December 16, 2003 Regular City Council Meeting].
ADJOURNMENT
Chair /Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:38
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Secretary, Alameda Public Financing
Authority and Alameda Public
Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Public Improvement Corporation and
Alameda Public Financing Authority
February 17, 2004
2
Alameda is extremely fortunate to have among its residents Frederica
von Stade, internationally renowned mezzo - soprano well known to
audiences for three decades; and
Ms. von Stade is one of America's finest artists and singers who has
appeared with every leading American opera company as well as her
extensive appearances in Europe; and
Ms. von Stade is unparalleled in her artistry as a recitalist where her
repertoire extends from the classics of Mozart and Haydn to
Broadway's greatest musicals; and
Whereas, Ms. von Stade has received six Grammy Nominations and this year
was duly awarded the Grammy; and
Ms. von Stade has always acknowledged the importance and shared
her love of music especially with the children of Alameda by creating
a program to raise money for music programs in our schools; and
Ms. von Stade has donated much of her time and efforts to annual
gala events which have benefited the music programs in Alameda
Schools.
Wbw, therefore, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby
declare March 16, 2004 as
in the City of Alameda and extend our congratulations to Ms. von Stade on
receiving the Grammy Award for 2004, and also express our sincere appreciation
for sharing her love of music with our community and our children.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 2, 2004- -5:35 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Absent:
Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of cases: City of Oakland v. City of Alameda; Asian Health Services
and Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce v. City of Alameda.
(04- ) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations:
Alameda City Employee Association (ACEA), Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), Alameda Police Officers
Association (APOA), Alameda Police Managers Association (APMA),
Police Association Non -Sworn (PANS), Alameda Fire Managers
Association (AFMA), International Association of Firefighters
(IAFF), and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).
(04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (c) of Section
54956.9; Number of cases: One.
(04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigaion;
Signification exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54946.9; Number of cases: One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation,
direction was given to Legal Counsel; regarding Conference with
Labor Negotiator, an update was received from the City's Labor
Negotiator and no action was taken; regarding Initiation of
Litigation, an update was given by Legal Counsel and no action was
taken; and regarding Signification exposure to litigation,
direction was given to Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MARCH 2, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(04- ) Cultural Arts Presentation by Poet Laureate Mary Rudge
and Alameda City Arts Council.
Lisa Piatetsky, Alameda City Arts Council, outlined the role and
activities of the City's Poet Laureate and submitted a list of
activities to Council.
Mary Rudge, Poet Laureate, read a poem she wrote entitled This is
the Day.
Mayor Johnson thanked Ms. Rudge for serving as the City's first
Poet Laureate.
Councilmember Kerr thanked the volunteers on the Arts Council.
Vice Mayor Daysog thanked the Library Director for coming up with
the idea to have a Poet Laureate.
(04- ) Mayor Johnson introduced Professor Koji Kanagawa, Fukuoka
Institute of Technology, who was in attendance as part of his visit
from Japan.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept report on
banning investments [paragraph no. 04- ] and the recommendation
to endorse revised Legislative Policy Positions [paragraph no. 04-
] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
March 2, 2004
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *04- ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special
Joint City Council, Alameda Public Improvement Corporation and
Alameda Public Financing Authority Meeting, and the Regular City
Council Meeting held on February 17, 2004. Approved.
(04- ) Recommendation to accept report on banning investments in
Corporations that derive any portion of revenues from alcohol,
tobacco or gambling.
Councilmember Kerr stated the City Treasurer's report highlights
some of the problems with restricting investments; noted that she
[Councilmember Kerr] would have a long list of items to add
[restrict] if the City decided to start limiting investments;
however, imposing her own political and philosophical views on the
people of Alameda is not necessarily appropriate.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he raised the issue because
public health money is spent on alcohol and tobacco related
disease; tobacco lawsuit money is spent to mitigate the effect of
the product; therefore, investing in said companies seems
incongruous; thanked the City Treasurer for the report; inquired
how much revenue the Local Area Investment Fund (LAIF) derives and
how much investment the fund has in said types of business.
Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, submitted a copy of the December
LAIF report outlining holdings; stated that the investment policy
has been tightened since he was elected Treasurer; the 15% level
was selected intentionally; limiting investments narrows diversity
and could increase the risk or lower the return of the portfolio;
the LAIF fund is used for cash management; the City does not have
input into how LAIF invests money; activism is best achieved by
ownership of companies; however, the City does not own stock in its
investment portfolio, does not have voting power and cannot direct
decision making; urged Council to maintain the current policy.
Councilmember Matarrese stated cities banding together might be a
way to influence the investments LAIF chooses.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2004
2
(04- ) Recommendation to endorse revised Legislative Policy
Positions and to authorize the City Manager to direct the
preparation of letters of support or opposition consistent with
policies.
Councilmember Kerr stated the recommendation needs work; under
housing, the policy suggests supporting low- income homeownership
programs; however, many homeownership programs provide assistance
without subsidy; the City Manager and Mayor would be authorized to
send letters unilaterally without a vote of the Council; whether
the Council should support funding for the School District would
depend on the funding source; suggested that the Council create a
list, which could be circulated for review and to provide more
explicit language; some topics are too broad.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the finance and local control section
is not clear whether "legislation supporting a level playing field
for internet sales of products" is addressing levying sales tax on
internet sales.
The City Manager stated the policy positions could be circulated to
provide Council an opportunity for closer review; most policies are
a reflection of the League of California Cities' positions; the
policy allows the City to support or oppose legislation in concert
with the League as it is introduced; staff would circulate the
policy, allow comment, and circulate a final draft before the
matter returns within the next two Council meetings.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated lobbying agencies in Sacramento turn to
cities to support legislation; often requests are not made with
sufficient time for review; in addition to the policy, the Council
should consider formulating a strategy to deal with making rushed
decisions.
Councilmember Kerr stated the League could be a little more prompt
in its requests at times; that she would request that the League
provide information to cities as soon as possible.
The City Manager stated that he would contact the League's
Executive Director to explain information is needed more quickly;
the level of legislation introduced on a regular basis is
challenging.
Councilmember Kerr stated bills can be gutted and entirely new
bills can be introduced under the same number; with limited staff,
the League catches almost every piece of pertinent legislation.
( *04- ) Recommendation to accept the work of Buestad Construction
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2004
3
for City Hall West Elevator Project, No. P.W. 06 -01 -18 and allocate
an additional $35,000 in Community Development Block Grant Funds.
Accepted.
( *04- ) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a
Construction Agreement for the demolition of 2310 Lincoln Avenue
(LinOaks), No. P.W. 08- 03 -16. Accepted.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13688, "Authorizing the Application for
Federal FY 2005 Office of Traffic Safety Funds to Purchase Six
Pole - Mounted Radar Speed Displays." Adopted.
( *04- ) Resolution No. 13689, "Amending Exhibit A - Compensation
Plan Established by Resolution No. 13545 to Adjust Benefits
Provided to Deputy City Manager Classification Assigned to the
Alameda Point Project Manager Position." Adopted.
( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,183,589.71.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(04- ) Resolution No. 13690, "Appointing Margaret McNamara as a
Member of the Planning Board." Adopted.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms.
McNamara with a certificate of appointment.
(04- ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board decision to approve Minor Design Review MDR03 -0256 to allow
construction of an approximately 360- square -foot, second -story room
addition. The property is located at 116 Brunswick Road. Applicant:
Todd Meagher. Appellant: Paula Kindrachuk; and
(04- A) Resolution No. 13691, "Denying the Appeal and Upholding
the Planning Board's Approval of Minor Design Review, MD03 -0256 at
116 Brunswick Road." Adopted.
The Planner II gave a brief presentation on the project.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal): Paula Kindrachuk, Appellant;
Robert Kindrachuk, Appellant; and Nadine Marasti, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
March 2, 2004
Opponents (Not in favor of appeal): Todd Meagher, Applicant.
Neutral: Lee Harris, Harbor Bay Isle (HBI) Homeowners Association;
and Debbie Pollart, HBI Community Architectural Committee.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the homeowners
association's upcoming arbitration on the project has any impact on
the Council's decision.
The Acting City Attorney responded there is no impact on the City's
decision; however, should the City decide to deny the Appeal and
the homeowners association comes to a different conclusion, the
Applicant would have a conflict with the homeowners association.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the project still would
have been considered a minor design review if the homeowners
association had not approved the project.
The Planner II responded in the negative; stated the project would
have been a major design review; when the project was presented to
the City, the homeowners association had not approved it and it was
processed as a major design review; after the homeowners
association reviewed the shade study, the City took action [changed
the process to minor design review].
Councilmember Kerr stated the view from the Appellant's window
would be severely restricted by the addition; the area is crowded.
Councilmember Gilmore noted that the Planning Board came to its own
conclusions about shading.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution denying the
appeal and upholding the Planning Board's decision.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he would like more information on the
impact of the suggestion to move the addition over five feet;
without said information, he supports the Appellant.
Mayor Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor
Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and Kerr - 2.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Applicant complied with all the
standards and did not request any variances; the property owner has
property rights and has complied with everything the City requires;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
March 2, 2004
if problems persist, the Code or homeowner association's Covenants
Conditions and Restrictions should be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated the Harbor Bay process gives close scrutiny to
projects.
Vice Mayor Daysog noted the Appellant should keep their view of
sunsets.
(04- ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board conditioned approval of Planned Development Amendment and a
Major Design Review for 3241 Garfield Avenue to allow: 1) the
construction of a 150 square -foot single -story rear addition; 2)
the construction of as maximum 24 -inch tall deck with an attached
hot tub; and 3) the construction of a six -foot fence around the
side and rear property lines; and adoption of related Resolution.
This site is located within the R -1 -PD, One Family Residence
Planned Development Zoning District. Continued to March 16, 2004.
(04- ) Recommendation to approve final design for the Main
Library Building.
The Library Director gave a brief presentation on the Library
design.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are showers in the library.
The Library Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
shower is adjacent to the staff restrooms; the Library Building
Team and the public are interested in a "green" [environmentally
friendly] building and Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) certification; LEED has a structured process; points
are gained by including various features; to receive the point for
alternative transportation credit, there must be long term bicycle
parking and a changing and shower room; staff would be encouraged
to walk or ride bicycles to work.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding points, the
Library Director stated both the long term bike parking and shower
are required to receive one LEED point.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much the shower would cost to construct,
to which the Library Director responded approximately $3,000.
Councilmember Kerr inquired why one LEED point would be awarded for
a shower for staff and bike parking for the public.
The Library Director responded the point is for encouraging
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
March 2, 2004
employees to use alternative transportation; the shower is not
intended to be public.
In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding the number of
employees at the main library, the Library Director responded 35 to
40 employees.
Mayor Johnson inquired how many employees are present at one time,
to which the Library Director responded up to 14 employees might be
present at one time.
Councilmember Matarrese stated spending $3,000 might be worth
keeping a car off the street; the public should understand the
rationale for expenditures.
Councilmember Kerr stated there seems to be an incredible amount of
seating for children and a small proportion of seating for adults
near the fiction section on the first floor.
The Library Director stated additional adult seating is upstairs.
Councilmember Kerr noted people browsing fiction like to sit down
and read; having children's seating adjacent to the adult fiction
seating might not be best since children tend to have different
needs than adults; having a quiet area for adults, without children
running around, would be nice.
The Library Building Team Chair gave a brief presentation on
proposed public art for the new library building.
Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated drive - through service, a commercial
first floor and other innovations should have been considered.
Mayor Johnson noted many suggestions were reviewed during the long
public process.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated that the shower cost should be
compared to a single parking space, which costs $20,000, and other
road maintenance costs; the 1999 Bicycle Plan recommended long -term
bicycle parking with shower facilities.
Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda, thanked the Library for including showers
and long -term bike parking, which give employees incentive to
bicycle to work.
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed the library.
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Library Building Team, stated the adult
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
March 2, 2004
seating on the first floor has comfortable, upholstered seating
with coffee tables; people can take materials into the cafe; there
is a quiet reading room upstairs; noted LEED points would be
awarded for use of solar panels, which could save the library
$30,000 in energy costs.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(04- ) Recommendation to approve strategy to prepare a Citywide
Transportation Master Plan.
Councilmember Kerr stated the plan would cost $400,000; money
should not be spent until the City knows what will happen at
Alameda Point and given the State budget crisis.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the plan would include a range of
options for the former base, including the possibility of the land
not being conveyed to the City.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated that
he is working with City staff involved with Alameda Point to ensure
the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is consistent with
development; the TMP would incorporate whether the base is
developed; the cost would be over a four -year period; over $100,000
was authorized in the current fiscal year for staff to work on
transportation issues at the TC and Transportation Technical Team
level; the proposal is a more coordinated, comprehensive and
proactive method, which will be more cost effective.
The City Manager noted work must be done on a preliminary basis
while negotiations are continuing with the Navy and Master
Developer.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether transportation studies completed in
connection with the former base would be included in the TMP.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; noted
boards and commissions with interest in transportation would have
input.
Councilmember Kerr stated $100,000 has been spent and an additional
$400,000 would be spent in the next four years; there is a big hole
in the planning [due to Alameda Point development unknowns] and it
is not the right time to go forward.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2004
8
The Public Works Director stated the work completed has been
through staff working with the TC; the $100,000 allocated for work
with the TC has not been spent; the TC believes the best way to
spend said money is to begin the TMP; the total cost would be
$400,000.
John Knox White, Transportation Commission Chair, stated the TC
wants to be proactive with development coming forward; a plan needs
to be established to dictate transportation needs and goals for
planning development; studies being conducted at Alameda Point are
going to meet the needs of the TMP; the TMP can be used to update
the Transportation Element of the General Plan.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether Measure A and high- density
housing issues were clear; and how said matter would be treated
within any transportation plan.
Mr. Knox White responded the TC would not address anything that
would step outside of Measure A; Measure A is the City's
requirement and discussing the matter is not within the TC's
purview.
The City Manager stated staff is very clear about adhering to the
tenets of Measure A as articulated in the Charter.
Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated the Public Transit Committee
established a Public Transit Plan; said Plan should be referred to
as the TMP is developed; suggested that TC provide monthly reports
to the City Council.
Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed transportation.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the City's Long Range Transit Plan
was helpful in keeping transit services in Alameda; the Bicycle
Master Plan must be updated for the City to qualify for grant
funds; said update will cost $50,000, which is included in the
$400,000 budget; development issues related to transportation need
to be handled comprehensively.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City has dealt with many transit
issues, e.g. preserving AC Transit services and traffic
mitigations; now is the time to plan; the money will be well spent.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated residents have been
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2004
9
complaining about traffic and speeding on particular streets; when
the City takes action to calm traffic on a particular street, it
moves to another street and other residents are up in arms; a
comprehensive plan is needed for instituting traffic calming
measures to ensure a problem is not being created elsewhere and to
ensure the load is being balanced throughout the City.
Mayor Johnson stated there has not been a uniform approach to
transportation issues; transportation issues are very important
since Alameda is an island; one of the public's biggest concerns is
traffic and transportation.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated there have been injuries and deaths due to
increased speeding traffic; some streets have been
disproportionately impacted by traffic accidents; the Plan that
emerges will benefit Alameda Point; the TMP should be judged by its
ability to get people out of the single occupancy mode of transit
and into alternative modes.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and
Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1.
(04- ) Recommendation to approve Enhanced Public Notification
Procedures.
Councilmember Kerr stated a considerable amount of money was spent
on newspaper ads; inquired the percent spent on large ads versus
mailing to neighbors within 100 feet.
The Interim Assistant City Manager responded the amounts were
listed in the table attached to the staff report.
Councilmember Kerr stated mailing costs are worth the expense; only
sending notices to neighbors within 100 feet was ill planned;
expanding mailings to 300 feet was important; adding a second story
or building in backyards affects neighbors further away than 100
feet; the 20 -day notification is sufficient.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the 30 -day notice was difficult for
staff; thanked the Senior Clerk for handling the task; inquired
whether the 20 -day notice requirement lessens the load on the
Planning Department.
The Development Review Manager responded in the affirmative; noted
that generally matters under the 30 -day notice category require
either more than one hearing or study sessions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2004
10
Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(04- ) Richard Neveln, Alameda, encouraged the installation of
bus shelters and the use of speed bumps to slow traffic.
(04- ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed Alameda's resources.
(04- ) Jamie Rosman, Alameda, stated that he is concerned about
excessive speeding and wakes on the estuary; the Transportation
Commission (TC) addressed the issue; last spring, a speeding boater
struck and killed a Grand Marina resident; the boaters would like
the City to address the matter with the same level of concern as
other traffic calming measures; requested that the City Council
place the matter on an agenda.
The City Manager noted that City staff has been working with the
boating community and would be presenting a report to Council.
(04- ) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the TC suggested formation
of a task force to address estuary speeding; however, due to lack
of funding, other agencies would not agree; additionally, the TC's
role is not enforcement; urged Council to provide guidance and
include the estuary in the City's circulation plan.
In response to Mayor Johnson's question regarding enforcement
jurisdiction, the Public Works Director stated Alameda, Oakland and
the Coast Guard have shared jurisdiction.
The Public Works Director stated the TC recommended a task force be
created; other agencies told the Police Department agencies they
are not interested in creating a task force; staff suggested signs
be provided to marinas regarding wakes.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Coast Guard participates in
enforcement on the estuary, to which the Public Works Director
responded the Coast Guard has the authority, but is not active in
enforcement.
(04- ) Elaine Lutz, Grand Marina, stated that she introduced the
wake issue to the TC last year; the issue has been ongoing; last
summer, the City's Police boat was used to enforce laws on the
estuary, which was very successful; last spring, the Marina began
repairs on the outer dock on the estuary and uncovered damage from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2004
11
wake stress; City staff directed her to approach the TC to request
expanded enforcement of wake laws and traffic calming measures,
such as signs; the TC studied the issue and offered signs to
marinas, which will be very helpful; the City of Alameda is the
only agency doing anything about wake enforcement; requested the
Mayor and Council to encourage other agencies to get involved in
enforcement of wake laws.
Mayor Johnson stated the City of Alameda should not have sole
responsibility; suggested reviewing whether there is funding for
enforcement on waterways.
The City Manager stated suggesting an increase in a particular
service is difficult when the City might face layoffs; that he is
disappointed in other agencies; the City does not have funding to
address the matter alone.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested the report to Council include the
amount of fines for speeding on the estuary.
Councilmember Kerr stated destruction on land would be addressed;
since destruction is on the water, it has not received attention;
destruction of taxpayers' property by lawbreakers is a serious
matter, which should be addressed.
Ms. Lutz stated several Coast Guard boats and the Alameda County
Sheriff's boat patrol the estuary every day.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether said boats are active with
enforcement, to which Ms. Lutz responded in the negative.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(04- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has heard concerns
about people affixing yard sale signs on public property; requested
a report on the matter.
The City Manager stated a report would be provided.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a fine, to which the City
Manager responded fines would be included in the report.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 10:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 2, 2004
12
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -MARCH 3, 2004- -5:35 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(04- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property:
1363 -65 Park Street; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda,
Community Improvement Commission, Chew Lun Benevolent Association
and Peet's Coffee & Tea; Under negotiation: Price and terms of
payment.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that direction was given to Real
Property Negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:05 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 and
Community Improvement Commission
March 3, 2004
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 1, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of P & J Utility Company for Alameda Point Water
System Upgrades, Phase 1, No. P.W. 02 -01 -04
BACKGROUND
On February 4, 2003, Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call for bids for the
Alameda Point Water System Upgrades, Phase 1, No. P.W. 02- 01 -04. The purpose of the project
was to provide water meters and backflow prevention to the occupied buildings at Alameda Point.
On May 6, 2003, the City awarded a contract in the amount of $720,000, including contingencies, to
P & J Utility Company.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The project has been completed in accordance with the Plans and Specifications and is acceptable to
the Public Works Department. The Alameda Point Community Partners have also been advised of
project progress and consulted during project development.
Seventeen (17) extra work orders were issued for construction work at buildings where existing
conditions differed from those identified in the design documents. The number of extra work orders
was anticipated given the age of water and other underground services at Alameda Point. The design
engineer used all available record drawings plus field observations to complete the project design.
The final project cost, including extra work orders, is $707,035. Future phases of the Alameda Point
Water System Upgrades project will provide for replacement of existing water mains prior to
acceptance of the system by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD).
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding for the project is budgeted under CIP #99820. The project is financed by an Economic
Development Agency grant and Alameda Point bonds for a total project budget of $1,200,000. The
project budget includes all aspects of the Alameda Point Water system upgrades including design,
�U �of
Uep rtment
Public Wmis Wrkrfw• Yard
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -B CC
3 -16 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
March 1, 2004
project management, and construction inspection by both the Public Works Department and
EBMUD. Additional funding must be identified in order to complete future phases of the work.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that City Council, by motion, accept the work of P & J Utility
Company for Alameda Point Water System Upgrades, No. P. W. 02- 01 -04.
MTN:dl
cc: Nanette Banks
G: \PIJB W ORKS\P W A DM IN\COUNCI L \2004 \031604\AC CEPTP &J. doc
Respectfull ubmitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
a%/,4biej
By: John V. Wanktum
Supervising Civil Engineer
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Glyof Alameda
EUbIICWorks
Department
Public Wale Work fir You!
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 2, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing Application to the Department of
Conservation, Division of Recycling for Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2004/2005
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Section 14581(a)(4)(A) of the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter
Reduction Act, the Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling (Division) is required to
distribute a total of $10,500,000 in fiscal year 2004/05 to eligible cities and counties specifically for
beverage container recycling and litter cleanup activities.
Each city is eligible to receive a minimum of $5,000 or an amount calculated by the Division, based
on a per capita calculation. The City has applied for and received these block grant funds on a yearly
basis since fiscal year 1999 -2000.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The City is eligible for $20,797 in block grant funds for fiscal year 2004/2005. A resolution is
required for this application. Staff has identified appropriate beverage container recycling and public
outreach activities for use of the funds. City events to be funded by the block grant include: Earth
Day, Run For the Parks, Coastal Clean Up Day, and the Mayor's Tree Lighting Ceremony.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact to the City's General Fund. Grant funds are non - competitive and do not
require matching funds.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
ofAb..d.
yubIicWorks
epartment
Public Wocks WaAsfwY !
Re: Resolution #4 -C CC
3 -16 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
March 2, 2004
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by resolution, authorize application to the
Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling for Block Grant Funds for fiscal year 2004/2005.
MTN:mfd/dl
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
A92
By: Maria F. Di Meglio 4-e
Program Specialist
G:\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\ COUNCIL \2004 \031604\DOCGRANTAPP2004 05.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
ayofAlm as
uubIicWo&s
Department
Public Works ;Major You!
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR BLOCK GRANT FUNDS FROM THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF RECYCLING
WHEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Beverage
Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act that provides funds to cities and counties for beverage
container recycling and litter cleanup activities; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling has been
0 delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up
Li- - w necessary procedures for cities and counties or their designees under the program; and
0 -z
cc
u) ® WHEREAS, per Section 14581 (a)(4)(E) of the California Beverage Container Recycling and
Litter Reduction Act, the eligible participant must submit the Funding Request Form by the due date
4C and time in order to request funds from the Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling.
> 1>-
I-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Alameda
authorizes the City Manager, or his designee to:
1. Submit a Funding Request Form to the Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling
which entitles the City of Alameda to block grant funds.
2. Execute, in the name of the City of Alameda, all necessary applications, contracts, payment
requests, agreements, forms and amendments hereto for the purposes of securing grant funds
and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in the Section 14581(a)(4)(A) of the
California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act and provide information
regarding this program to the Department of Conservation's Division of Recycling upon
request.
Resolution # 4 -C CC
03 -16 -04
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 regular meeting assembled on the
day of , 2004, 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 , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 2, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Apply to Caltrans for Safe Routes to School
Program Grants
BACKGROUND
Caltrans distributes approximately $20 million per year statewide for its Safe Routes to School
program, for which the City has been awarded funding each of the past two funding cycles. The
program provides funding for projects designed to increase the level of students bicycling and
walking to school. Staff has prepared two applications for this funding cycle.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Public Works staff has continued to work with the Alameda Unified School District to identify
traffic problems in the vicinity of public schools. The projects outlined below will help to address
some of the concerns that have been raised.
Project 1: Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge Access Improvements (Lincoln Middle School)
The Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge is a key link in the City's bicycle facilities network. Access to
the bridge from the Main Island, however, is somewhat difficult and confusing. The bridge is a
significant link from the Main Island to Bay Farm Island, especially for students who attend Lincoln
Middle School. In addition, many parents drop their children off on Fernside Boulevard increasing
further the number of pedestrians at this location. Currently the sidewalk is effectively only five feet
wide between the bike bridge and Lincoln Middle School due to the presence of trees. Given the
significant number of students as well as the general public (both bicyclists and pedestrians) who use
the bike bridge, a wider facility would be an important safety enhancement at this location. Staff
proposes to use the grant funds to construct a 10 -foot asphalt path adjacent to the west side of the
existing sidewalk to provide for safe bicycle and pedestrian travel.
Project 2: In pavement Lights at 8th Street and Taylor Ave. (Washington Elementary School)
Eighth Street is a major travel route to and from the Webster and Posey Tubes. The school
crosswalk at Eighth Street and Taylor Avenue is an uncontrolled intersection adjacent to Washington
Elementary School. In- pavement lights at this location will help make motorists aware of the
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtvotAlameda
U WAS
vepatiment
ILbGc Wrela ns n f Yew!
Re: Resolution #4 -D CC
3 -16 -04
Honorable Acting Mayor and
Concilmembers
Page 2
March 2, 2004
�1I
presence of pedestrians. Letters in support of in pavement lighting at this crosswalk have been
received from the Alameda Police Department, BikeAlameda, and Pedestrian Friendly Alameda.
The Alameda Unified School District has approved these applications as well.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Safe Routes to School program funds 90 percent of project costs and requires a 10 percent local
match. The bicycle bridge access project costs are estimated at $499,750, leaving the City's
contribution at $49,975. The costs for the in- pavement lights at Eighth Street and Taylor Avenue
have been estimated at $61,600; the City's required match is $6,160. Funding is available in the
City's Measure B allocation to cover the match for both of these projects.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that City Council adopt a resolution to apply to Caltrans for Safe
Routes to School Program Grants
Respect ly submitted,
cip.reer. c/,6:se:ZiorL,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Barry B
Progr ecialist
MTNBB:di
cc: Measure B Watchdog. Committee
G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004'031604\SR2S application.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Glycol Alma'
Uepart rent
WM1IicWod Wolk/or You!
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING APPLICATION TO CALTRANS FOR A
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM GRANT FOR
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BIKE BRIDGE APPROACH AND
IN PAVEMENT CROSS LIGHTS AT 8TH STREET AND TAYLOR AVENUE
WHEREAS, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has allocated
Safe Routes to School funds for bicycle projects for the fiscal year 2004/05; and
ate.
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda wishes to apply to Caltrans for the funding of two
projects: $449,775 for a multi -use path and associated improvement to enhance access to the Bay
e _ Farm Island bicycle bridge, and $55,440 for in- pavement crosswalk lights at the intersection of 8th
cts �- Street and Taylor Avenue; and
-s
A
a WHEREAS, Safe Routes to School funding guidelines require that local agencies
vfund at least 10% of the total project cost; and
WHEREAS, the City has $56,135 in funds available in Measure B sales tax revenues
to provide the local matching funds for the two projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda authorizes the filing of applications with Caltrans for allocation of Safe Routes to School
funds for the two projects described above, authorizes the necessary 10% local match and authorizes
the Public Works Director to execute any necessary documents.
Resolution # 4 -D CC
03 -16 -04
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 , 2004, 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 , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Date: March 9, 2004
Re: Resolution to Set Public Hearing on Delinquent Real Property Transfer Tax
BACKGROUND
City of Alameda Municipal Code Section 3 -58 is entitled "Real Property Conveyance Tax."
The purpose of this code section is solely for raising revenue and is not for regulatory
purposes.
AMC Section 3 -58 -15 states that the amount of tax, penalty, and interest imposed is
assessed against the property and, if not paid when due, shall constitute an assessment
against the property and shall be a lien against the property.
DISCUSSION
The Finance Department contacts purchasers of property if the real property conveyance
tax is not collected and transmitted to the City. Property owners are given written notice of
the amount owed and instructions for payment. AMC 3 -58 -16 states that if payment is not
received, the Director of Finance shall file with the City Manager a written notice of those
delinquencies, and the City Manager shall present this to the City Council. The City
Council shall fix a time and place for a public hearing. The Director of Finance shall then
notify the property owner.
With the confirmation of the report by the City Council, the delinquent tax charges, which
remain unpaid, shall constitute a special assessment against the property. The Director of
Finance shall turn over to the County Tax Collector the total sum of unpaid delinquent
charges consisting of the delinquent transfer taxes, penalties, and interest at the rate of 6%
per year from the date of recordation of the sale.
The sale of 2900 Main Street was recorded on March 27, 2003. The sale did not include
the collection of the $4320 real property conveyance tax due the City of Alameda. The
property owner has since paid the $4320 tax but has not paid the interest and penalties
that have accrued to date. Several attempts to collect the balance due have been
unsuccessful.
"Dedicated to Ecellence, Committed to Service"
Re: Resolution #4 -E CC
3 -16 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FINANCIAL IMPACT
March 9, 2004
Page 2 of 2
Real Property Conveyance Tax is due when the property is transferred. If not paid, a
delinquency penalty of 10 percent accrues if the tax is unpaid at the time of recordation of
the deed. Another penalty of 15 percent accrues if the tax remains unpaid after 90 days.
Interest accrues at 1 '/2 percent per month on the tax. An administrative charge of $30 on
each property and $7 release of lien fee shall be added to the amount owed for each
property approved for a tax lien by the City Council.
The total late charge included (thru 2/28/04) in the amount due as shown on the attached
list is $1,662.62.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends the adoption of the resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
ZJ /fl
G: \FINANCE \COUNCIL \031604 \Hea ringTra nsTax.doc
Attachment
James M. Flint
City Manager
By: Zenda James
Finance Director
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Delinquent Property Transfer Tax
X
C9
E H
C
O C
< F- O
Property Address
Purchaser Name
Sale Amount
Date of Recording
N
N
CD
CD
2900 Main Street
Roger A. Mann and Joan W. Mann
March 27, 2003
74- 905 -32 -1
E
0 Li-
0
=r�
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
SETTING PUBLIC HEARING ON
DELINQUENT REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX
WHEREAS, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsection 3 -58.15 (Tax a
Lien) states that the amount of tax, penalty, and interest imposed is assessed against the
property and, if not paid when due, shall constitute an assessment against the property
and shall be a lien against the property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsection 3 -58.16 (Notice of
Hearing on Lien), the Finance Director shall file with the City Manager a written notice
of those persons on whom the City will file liens; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of such notice, the City Manager shall present same to
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council shall forthwith, by resolution, fix a time and place
for a public hearing on such notice.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda and pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code subsections 3 -58.15 and 3- 58.16:
1. With confirmation of the report by City Council, the delinquent tax
charges, which remain unpaid, shall constitute a special assessment
w against the property.
z
cc
2. On May 4, 2004, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock, P.M., the Council will hold a
public hearing on delinquent real property transfer tax.
3. The Finance Director shall cause a copy of such resolution and notice to
be served upon the transferor or transferee of property not less than five
(5) days prior to mailing a copy of such resolution and notice to the
transferor or transferee of property at his/her last known address.
4. Service shall be deemed complete at the time of deposit in the United
States Mail.
Resolution # 4 -E CC
03 -16 -04
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 , 2004, 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 , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 10, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 2-
61.8 to Allow Award of Public Works Projects Using Design -Build Method
BACKGROUND
Many public agencies in California and elsewhere are utilizing a contracting process called
Design - Build. Under this contracting method, the public agency contracts with a single entity
for design and construction services.
In recent discussions with architects and contractors, they cite the following merits of the design -
build method:
1. Reduce design and/or construction costs by allowing specific project solutions and
methods that the contractor wishes to employ.
2. Shorten project delivery time by allowing contractors to use state -of -the -art construction
methods and materials and to start construction before the design is fully detailed.
3. Allow for innovative methods and materials, rather than a specified project.
In addition to these potential benefits, design -build may reduce the City's exposure to contractor
claims based on design deficiencies. Since the design -build contractor prepares the construction
documents, the project owner is generally responsible only for additional costs on account of
changes to the scope of work and differing site conditions.
The most commonly cited negative aspect of design -build is that the public agency gives up
control over details of the design early in the process.
Under the design -build method, the contracting agency prepares a performance -type
specification sufficient to convey the agency's requirements and solicits sealed proposals for
design and construction of the project. The agency can elect to award the contract based on low
bid or, upon four (4) affirmative votes, on an evaluation of the proposals to determine which
provides the "best value" or another basis using defined criteria. The successful design -build
thydAlarneda
Ppublic-Woda
apartment
Public Works Works- for You!
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Introduction of Ordinance
#4 -F CC
3 -16 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
March 10, 2004
contractor must provide a design that meets the agency's requirements, as defined in the request
for proposals, and construct the project.
For the example of a concrete parking structure, the traditional contracting method is to develop
complete plans and specifications which detail all the elements of the finished product including
reinforcing steel, embedded items, foundations and related items. In the design -build method the
request for proposals would describe the necessary attributes of the structure such as number of
parking places, size, and related items that convey the structure's function and appearance, but
would leave the specific technical and design details to the contractor, subject to review by the
architect or agency staff. In designing the project, the contractor is guided by performance
specifications adopted by the agency, including design and building code requirements.
The basic principle of contracting by public agencies is that contracts generally must be awarded
based on objective criteria in order to avoid fraud, favoritism or corruption. Conventional public
contracting methods require that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, which
sharply curtails the public agency's exercise of discretion. In design- build, the public agency can
consider factors in addition to price as long as it notifies prospective bidders of the evaluation
criteria and applies the factors in an even -handed manner.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
As a Charter City, Alameda has the power to adopt ordinances that establish design -build
contracting methods.
The proposed ordinance, which is attached to this report, would give the City flexibility in
procuring some construction projects. It provides that the City Council may authorize use of
design -build on projects with estimated construction costs of $1 million or more when it is
anticipated that the method will reduce project cost, expedite project delivery or provide other
benefits.
The ordinance defines some of the essential terms of design -build construction and sets forth the
basic procedure for awarding such contracts. It contemplates that the City Manager and staff
will develop more detailed procedures for design -build projects through administrative rules and
regulations. At a minimum, those procedures will address: information to be included in design -
build Requests for Proposals; procedures for evaluating design -build proposals and awarding
design -build contracts; bonding and insurance requirements for design -build contractors; and
subcontractor listing requirements for design -build proposals.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
avoudi.d+
ItUblkkWotks
epart neat
Public Ways *Hula, You!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
MUNICIPAL CODE REFERENCE
Page 3
March 10, 2004
The proposed ordinance will add Section 2 -61.8 in total, and create an alternative contracting
procedure for projects estimated to cost $1 million or more.
FISCAL IMPACTBUDGET CONSIDERATION
There is no direct cost to the City as a result of the proposed ordinance. As stated above, the
City may be able to realize cost savings and increased certainty in construction costs by using the
design -build process.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by Ordinance, amend the AMC by adding
the proposed Section 2 -61.8.
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
ohn V. Wankum
upervising Civil Engineer
MTN:JVW:gc
G:\PUB WORKS\P WADMIN\ COUNCIL\ 2004 \031604\DesignBuildOrdinance l .doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtvdAlanda
blIC ent
Public Works NW.:trfor You!
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW
SUBSECTION 2 -61.8 (DESIGN BUILD) TO SECTION 2 -61 (BIDDING
PROCEDURES ON PUBLIC PROJECTS AND GOODS AND SUPPLIES) OF
CHAPTER II (ADMINISTRATION)
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new
subsection 2 -61.8 (Design Build) to section 2 -61 (Bidding Procedures on Public Projects
and Goods and Supplies), of Chapter II (Administration) thereof to read:
2 -61.8 Design Build
a. This section provides for an alternative and optional procedure on bidding on
t0 certain building construction projects.
b. The City Council may authorize use of a design -build contract for projects
I- estimated to cost one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more when it is anticipated that this
CIS contracting method will reduce project cost, expedite project completion, or provide
design features not achievable through the design- bid -build method. The city may award
a design -build contract based on either the low responsible bid or Best Value.
1—
c. As used in this section:
1. "Best value" means a value determined by objective criteria and may include,
but is not limited to, price, features, functions, life -cycle costs, and other specified
criteria.
2. "Design- build" means a procurement process in which both the design and
construction of a project are procured from a single entity.
d. Design -build projects shall progress as follows:
1. The city shall prepare a set of documents setting forth the scope of the project
in sufficient detail to describe the city's needs and minimum requirements.
2. Based on the documents prepared in paragraph (1), the city shall prepare a
request for proposals that invites interested parties to submit competitive sealed proposals
in the manner prescribed by the city.
3. The city shall prequalify design -build entities and may use the standard
questionnaire developed by the Department of Industrial Relations.
Introduction of Ordinance #4 -F CC
03 -16 -04
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 , 2004, 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 , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
March 11, 2004
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
121116 - 121618
EFT 082
EFT 083
EFT 085
Void Checks:
Amount
1,945,607.85
369,029.70
105,957.73
31, 800.00
117719
121200 ($39.33)
121252 ($248.45)
121263 ($248.45)
121303 ($981.80)
121355 ($76.00)
121369 ($8,180.20)
121380 ($7,508.17)
($23,075.86)
GRAND TOTAL
Allowed in open session:
Date:
Respectfully submitted,
City Clerk Pamela J. Sibley
Approved for payment:
Date:
Finance Director
Council Warrants 03 -16 -04
2,412,037.02
BILLS #4 -G
3/16/2004
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ACKNOWLEDGING SANDRE R. SWANSON
FOR HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA records its appreciation for the
significant contributions rendered by SANDRE SWANSON, to the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, SANDRE SWANSON has completed a distinguished career of serving the
Ninth Congressional District as District Director and Senior Policy Advisor to former
Congressman Ronald Dellums and is retiring this year as Chief of Staff to Congresswoman
Barbara Lee; and
WHEREAS, SANDRE SWANSON has made significant contributions to the City of
Alameda, among those being:
• Mr. Swanson helped to secure over $8 million in federal funding to assist Alameda's
efforts to redevelop the former Alameda Naval Air Station .
• Mr. Swanson provided assistance in negotiations with the Department of Defense, Office
of Economic Adjustment to secure funding for much - needed studies such as the Detailed
Utility Study, which serves as the framework for development of infrastructure at
Alameda Point.
• Mr. Swanson assisted in securing funding for the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA) to initiate the Science City Feasibility Study, which supported the
high - tech/biotech commercial development of Alameda Point.
• Mr. Swanson balanced economic development with community development by assisting
with the development of the aerospace museum at Alameda Point.
• Mr. Swanson kept Alameda on the forefront of federal policymakers by regularly
bringing regional representatives and staff from Washington on tours of Alameda Point.
• Mr. Swanson assisted the ARRA in removing the airfield designation from the former
Naval Air Station, Alameda.
• Mr. Swanson has served as a member of the City of Alameda Golf Commission for three
years and has established policies that maintain special citizen golf programs while
sustaining the financial stability of the golf complex.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda
hereby commends Mr. Swanson on his dedication to the Alameda community and extends its
deepest gratitude to him for his many labors on behalf of the City of Alameda.
Resolution # 5 -A
- 1 03 -16 -04
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 regular meeting assembled on the
16th day of March 2004 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 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
Date:
To:
Memorandum
March 3, 2004
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From:
Re:
James M. Flint
City Manager
Public Hearing to Consider Revisions to the Development Regulations (ZA03-
0001) Contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC),
more Commonly Referred to as the Zoning Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
The hearing on the Development Code Amendment was opened at the February 03, 2004 City
Council meeting. Public testimony was received, the hearing was closed and the Council
discussed the proposed amendments. The portion of the Development Code Amendments
generating the most discussion was the requirement for minimum landscaping and private open
space. Concern was expressed that the actual amount of open space in certain cases was being
reduced. The Planning & Building Director advised that this was not the intent of the proposed
amendment nor was it the intent of the Planning Board when they forwarded this
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council requested staff further review and
provide clarification of this issue and continued the public hearing to March 16, 2004.
The previous staff report and attachments were provided at the February 03, 2004 City Council
meeting. If additional copies are required, please contact the Planning and Building Department.
DISCUSSION
PROPOSED LANDSCAPING /OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS
The current landscaping/open space regulations are confusing and difficult to administer (See
Attachment #1 current open space regulations). To achieve improved customer service, simplify
the regulations and achieve a greater amount of landscaped open space per parcel, the Planning
Board is recommending that the existing regulations be revised to require 25% of the parcel to be
landscaped area with minimal impervious surfaces allowed (for example, patterned walkways
and statuary /fountains). The attachment provides a revised and expanded table and discussion of
current and proposed open space requirements to clarify that the proposed regulations will not
reduce the total amount of open space required per parcel.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing and
Introduction of Ordinance #5 -B
3 -16 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
March 3, 2004
The attached tables illustrate that the proposed 25% landscaping requirement would provide for
more open space than the current regulations. The tables provide examples and do not include
all variable parcel sizes for the various zoning districts. The tables represent the total amount of
open space (private and landscaped) that would be required under the current and proposed
regulations. The table previously provided by staff only compared the existing "usable" open
space requirement per unit with the proposed "landscaped" open space requirement per parcel.
If the City Council remains concerned that the new regulation will not require as much open
space per parcel as the existing regulations, the City Council may consider a further regulation to
be added to this section of the code which stipulates that the property owner must provide the
greater amount of open space after calculating the existing requirement per unit for each zone
district and the proposed landscaping requirement of 25% of the parcel area. Please note that the
draft ordinance includes this language.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
There will be no additional funding in the Planning & Building Department budget necessary for
this amendment.
MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE
The proposal amends Municipal Code Chapter XXX.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council review the additional information provided
by staff in response to landscaping and open space and provide direction on the preferred
alternative. In addition, the Council should provide direction on any other section of the
proposed amendments which needs clarification or further revision. After discussion, the City
Council should introduce the ordinance with any desired revisions and direct staff to finalize the
Ordinance incorporating all of the revisions to the Development Code. The hearing should then
be continued to April 06, 2004 at which time the Ordinance can be scheduled for adoption by the
City Council on the Consent Calendar.
By:
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory Fuz
Planning and Building Director
Je
y •rmack
evelopment Review Manager
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
March 3, 2004
Attachments:
1. Requirements for Minimum Landscaping and Private Open Space.
2. Comparison of Current and Proposed Open Space Requirements by Parcel Site
Cc: Planning Board
Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
Board of Realtors
G :\PLANNING\ZOU\31604CCReport.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
ATTACHMENT #1
1. Open Space Purpose:
In addition to the minimum required setback and maximum building coverage limitations
of all Residential districts, the zoning code provides requirements for the provision of
"minimum usable open space" with the development of all residential construction
(excluding single family and condominiums). While never explicitly stated in the
regulations, these regulations appear have two distinct purposes:
❑ to assure that each individual unit has a private outdoor area (e.g. patio
or deck) of a minimum size, dimension and location to be of true use
to the resident; and
❑ to assure that an appropriate portion of the entire site remains "open,"
in that it is not covered by a building or not used for either parking or
vehicular access
2. Open Space Definitions:
The current Open Space regulations require the provision of "usable open space" which
is defined as "...that area of a building site or building which is landscaped or otherwise
developed and maintained for recreation or outdoor living by the occupants excluding
yards or other areas having a width of eight (8) feet or less, required front yards or areas
devoted to automobile access or storage" (AMC section 30- 5.12).
The current regulations also describe the types of areas which can be considered as usable
open space: private balconies, private porches, decks, patios, courts, roof decks and
enclosed areas and structures which are accessory to usable open spaces (for example a
gazebo, greenhouse or potting shed). Each of these areas have specific dimensional
requirements if they are to be counted toward usable open space (for example a balcony
must be attached to and be accessible from only a single dwelling unit, must have an area
of at least sixty square feet with a minimum horizontal dimension of five feet and be
unenclosed on at least 2/3 of its perimeter. Such a balcony may also not be used for
primary access into the unit).
Current regulations do not require any of the "usable open space" area be landscaped.
The "usable open space" area may be paved and/or covered with structures such as a
potting shed or a greenhouse. Thus, between the main building, driveway, parking areas,
paved "usable open space" and any other accessory buildings, almost the entire parcel
can be covered with "hardscape" and still meet current open space requirements.
Currently only the front yard may not be entirely paved although portions may be paved
such as driveways or sidewalks. It is important to reduce impervious surfaces with
respect to volume of runoff into the City's storm drain system and to replenish aquifers.
Further, installation of landscaping has positive effect on the aesthetics of site
development as well as air quality. To implement those objectives the concept of
Attachment #1
"landscaped" area in lieu of "usable open space" was developed which would mandate
that a certain percentage of any parcel be planted or otherwise landscaped.
3. Open Space Calculations:
The District specific development standards of Section 30 -4 currently require that a total
"Usable Open Space" be provided on a site, according to the following schedule:
R -2 — 600 sq. ft. per dwelling unit
R -3 — 500
R -4 — 400
R -5 — 200
R -6 — 120
Lf
G)
L)
The recommended proposal would base open space requirements on parcel size rather
than the zoning district in which the parcel is located. At the last meeting, some members
of the City Council and the public expressed concern that there may be a reduction of
required open space if the proposed regulations went into effect. Staff has prepared a
table comparing the current and proposed open space regulations by zoning district and
by parcel size (see Attachment #2). While there would be only a small increase in open
space for projects involving duplex construction in the R -2 zone on 4,000 square foot
lots, in every case the proposed open space regulations would result in a greater amount
of open space than the current ones for the cited lot sizes. Please note that current
regulations allow for the private open space component to be included in the total open
space requirement; the proposed regulations would require that private open space be
provided in addition to the 25% landscaped open space requirement.
4. "Private Open Space" Requirements:
The current regulations were adopted to address the private open space needs of multi-
family housing, and appear to be very lenient as to what constitutes acceptable "private"
outdoor recreation areas:
• Ground floor units: Minimum 120 sq. ft.
• Upper floor units: Minimum 60 sq. ft.
Such decks and porches could be "stacked," so shadowed spaces can count toward
meeting "open space" requirements. The proposed regulation would no longer allow
private open space to be counted if it has a "...story, staircase, porch or deck directly
above (it)... ". This will make the private open space a much more usable, sunny and
people friendly space.
The current proposal would eliminate the distinction between a "lower" and an "upper"
unit by requiring that each unit would be provided by a 120 square foot patio or deck, or
alternatively a 500 square foot lawn for each unit. Thus, each tenant would have an
equitable outdoor living space regardless of the location of the unit. These requirements
would be in addition to the minimum open space or landscaped area required for each
parcel. Thus, tenants would be ensured a private outdoor entertainment and play area as
well as a common landscaped area.
5. "Common Open Space" Requirements:
Since the current regulations were adopted to address the open space needs of multi-
family housing, "common" open space is required to be provided as a portion of the total
"usable open space" provided on a site. Common open space has to be provided per the
following schedule:
R -2 —150 sq. ft.
R -3 — 120 "
R -4 — 90 "
R -5 — 60 "
R -6 — 30 "
The current regulations distinguish between "private" and "common" open space;
however, no definitions are provided for these concepts, but locational restrictions are
included (for example, no front or side yard may be used as common open space). The
section specifies what types of setbacks may be counted as open space (for example no
private open space may be located within five feet of a side property line nor ten feet of a
rear property line).
The proposed changes recommended by staff and the Planning Board would eliminate the
concept of "common" open space. The minimum landscape area requirement for each
parcel would replace the existing "common" open space requirement.
6. Examples of Open Space requirements:
A significant number of projects received by the City are for the conversion of a single -
family home with a high basement to a duplex by raising the height of the basement to
meet building code requirements which allows habitable space in the basement. A street
level entry door is installed for the new unit as well as appropriate new windows. The
original porch of the home is kept intact to serve as the entry into the existing unit
although the staircase usually needs to be lengthened in order to meet code. Below is a
table which compares the current and proposed open space requirements _ for a
hypothetical 4,000 square foot parcel located in an R -2, R -4 and R -6 zoning district:
Open Space Requirements for a Hypothetical Duplex on a
4, 000 sq. ft. lot in various Zone Districts
Open
Space
Current
Proposed
Current
Proposed
Current
Proposed
R -2
R -2
A
R -4
R -4
A
R -6
R -6
0
Min. private
180
240*
+60
180
240*
+60
180
240*
+60
Min.
common
1,020 **
1,000 * **
+20
560 **
1,000 * **
+440
60
1,000 * **
+940
Total
required
1,200
1,240
+40
800
1,240
+440
240
1,240
+1,000
* the Planning Board is recommending that a minimum of 120 square feet of private open
space be provided for each unit, a change from the current regulation which requires 120
square feet for a ground level unit and 60 square feet for upper level units.
** this number represents the total of the currently required "common open space" and
the remainder of the "usable" open space requirement for the parcel.
* ** this number represents the proposed 25% landscaped area which would be required
for each parcel.
G:\PLANNING\ZOU\open space ccreport.doc
Comparison of Current and Proposed Open Space Requirements by Parcel Size
R -2 Zoning District
Parcel Size
Units*
Current (600 sq. ft/unit)
Proposed **
A from current
4,000 sq. ft.
2
1,200 sq. ft.
1,240 sq. ft.
+40 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
2
1,200 sq. ft.
1,490 sq. ft.
+290sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
3
1,800 sq. ft.
1,860 sq. ft.
+60q. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.
3
1,800 sq. ft.
2,110 sq. ft.
+310 sq. ft.
8,000 sq. ft.
4
2,400 sq. ft.
2,480 sq. ft.
+80 sq. ft.
9,000 sq. ft.
4
2,400 sq. ft.
2,730 sq. ft.
+330 sq. ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
5
3,000 sq. ft.
3,100 sq. ft.
+100 sq. ft.
R -3 Zoning District
Parcel Size
Units*
Current (500 sq. ft./ unit)
Proposed **
A from current
4,000 sq. ft.
2
1,000 sq. ft.
1,240 sq. ft.
+240 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
2
1,000 sq. ft.
1,490 sq. ft.
+490 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
3
1,500 sq. ft.
1,860 sq. ft.
+360 sq. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.
3
1,500 sq. ft.
2,110 sq. ft.
+610 sq. ft.
8,000 sq. ft.
4
2,000 sq. ft.
2,480 sq. ft..
+480 sq. ft.
9,000 sq. ft.
4
2,000 sq. ft.
2,730 sq. ft.
+730 sq. ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
5
2,500 sq. ft.
3,100 sq. ft.
+600 sq. ft.
R -4 Zoning District
Parcel Size
Units*
Current (400 sq. ft/unit)
Proposed **
A from current
4,000 sq. ft.
2
800 sq. ft.
1,240 sq. ft.
+440 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
2
800 sq. ft.
1,490 sq. ft.
+690 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
3
1,200 sq. ft.
1,860 sq. ft.
+660 sq. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.
3
1,200 sq. ft.
2,110 sq. ft.
+910 sq. ft.
8,000 sq. ft.
4
1,600 sq. ft.
2,480 sq. ft.
+880 sq. ft.
9,000 sq. ft.
4
1,600 sq. ft.
2,730 sq. ft.
+1,130 sq. ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
5
2,000 sq. ft.
3,100 sq. ft.
+1,100 sq. ft.
R -5 Zoning District
Parcel Size
Units*
Current (200 sq. ft/unit)
Proposed **
0 from current
4,000 sq. ft.
2
400 sq. ft.
1,240 sq. ft.
+840 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
2
400 sq. ft.
1,490 sq. ft.
+1,090 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
3
600 sq. ft.
1,860 sq. ft.
+1,260 sq. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.
3
600 sq. ft.
2,110 sq. ft.
+1,510 sq. ft.
8,000 sq. ft.
4
800 sq. ft.
2,480 sq. ft.
+1,680 sq. ft.
9,000 sq. ft.
4
800 sq. ft.
2,730 sq. ft.
+1,930 sq. ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
5
1,000 sq. ft.
3,100 sq. ft.
+2,100 sq. ft.
R -6 Zoning District
Parcel Size
Units*
Current (120 sq. ft/unit)
Proposed **
0 from current
4,000 sq. ft.
2
240 sq. ft.
1,240 sq. ft.
+1,000 sq. ft.
5,000 sq. ft.
2
240 sq. ft.
1,490 sq. ft.
+1,250 sq. ft.
6,000 sq. ft.
3
360 sq. ft.
1,860 sq. ft.
+1,500 sq. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.
3
360 sq. ft.
2,110 sq. ft.
+1,750 sq. ft.
8,000 sq. ft.
4
480 sq. ft.
2,480 sq. ft.
+2,000 sq. ft.
9,000 sq. ft.
4
480 sq. ft.
2,730 sq. ft.
+2,250 sq. ft.
10,000 sq. ft.
5
600 sq. ft.
3,100 sq. ft.
+2,500 sq. ft.
*Maximum Permitted Units based on 1 unit per 2,000 square feet.
** 25% of parcel area plus 120 sq. ft. of private open space per unit
GAPLANNING\ZOU\table- openspace.doc
Attachment #2
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY
AMENDING VARIOUS SECTION OF CHAPTER XXX
(DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. Section 30 -2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning Districts and
Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) are hereby amended by
adding or revising the following definitions:
30 -2 DEFINITIONS.
Add a new definition to Section 30 -2:
Bay Window shall mean an architectural projection built out from a wall, with
windows and without any, or very limited, solid wall area on the longest wall of the
projection itself.
Conditioned Space shall mean that portion of a residential structure, measured
as floor area, which is defined as "conditioned space" by the California State Energy
Regulations (i.e. all floor areas included in Title 24 calculations).
Day care center shall mean a non - residential business or institution that
provides care for persons on less than a twenty -four (24) hour basis, that is licensed by
the State of California, and includes nursery schools, preschools and day care centers
for children or adults, but excludes smaller residential facilities conforming to the
Family day care, Large and Family day care, Small definitions.
Dormer shall mean an architectural projection built out from a sloping roof and
typically houses a vertical window or ventilation louver. A dormer can be further
defined by the type of roof on the projection itself, and includes the terms gable
dormer, hip dormer, shed dormer (which is also known as a "monitor ") and eyebrow
dormer.
Driveway shall mean a paved, or alternate all weather surface as approved by
the City Engineer, that provides access from a publicly accessible travel way to parking
and/or loading spaces that are located in conformance with subsection 30 -7.8: Location
of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Area.
Family day care, Large shall mean the care and supervision of more than six (6)
but less than fifteen (15) children in a provider's own home, on a less- than- twenty -four
(24) hour basis and includes only those facilities licensed by the State of California,
(but excludes smaller facilities that conform to the definition of "Family Day Care,
Small " - which may provide care for up to eight (8) children, if certain conditions are
met). Large family day care homes are mid -scale operations, intended to provide
service for a limited number of children in a residential setting, as prescribed by the
State of California. Such limits to number of children are as follows, or as prescribed
by changes to State code subsequent to [date of code adoption]: A "Large family
day care home" — H &SC 1596.78(b)) provides family day care for seven (7) to twelve
Introduction of Ordinance # 5 -B
1 03 -16 -04
(12) children, and up to fourteen (14) children, if all the following conditions are met
(H &SC 1597.465): a) at least two (2) of the children are at least six (6) years of age; b)
No more than three (3) infants are cared for during any time when more than twelve
(12) children are being cared for; c) The licensee notifies each parent that the facility is
caring for two (2) additional school age children at the time there may be up to thirteen
(13) or fourteen (14) children in the home at one (1) time; d) The licensee obtains
written consent of the property owner when the family day care home is operated on the
property that is leased or rented. These limits are inclusive of children under the age of
ten (10) years who reside at the home.
Family day care, Small shall mean the care and supervision of a very limited
number of children in a provider's own home, on a less- than- twenty -four (24) hour
basis and includes only those facilities licensed by the State of California, (but excludes
larger facilities that conform to the definition of "Family Day Care, Large "). Such
limits to number of children are as follows, or as prescribed by changes to State code
subsequent to [date of code adoption]: A "small family day care home" — H &SC
1596.78(c)) is limited to six (6) children; but may serve up to eight (8) children, without
an additional adult attendant, if all the following conditions are met (H &SC1596.44): a)
at least two (2) of the children are at least six (6) years of age; b) No more than two (2)
infants are cared for during any time when more than six (6) children are being cared
for; c) The licensee notifies each parent that the facility is caring for two (2) additional
school -age children at the time there may be up to seven (7) or eight (8) children in the
home at one time; d) The licensee obtains written consent of the property owner when
the family day care home is operated on the property that is leased or rented. These
limits are inclusive of children under the age of ten (10) years who reside at the home.
Habitable Space shall mean a space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or
cooking, and that complies with the applicable A.B.C.'s minimum requirements for
habitable space, which include but are not limited to requirements for insulation,
heating, egress and minimum ceiling height. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets,
halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas, are not considered habitable space.
Landscaped shall mean an expanse of natural scenery including lawns, trees,
plants, and other natural materials, and decorative features, including sculpture,
patterned walks and fountains. Driveways, parking and storage areas, decks and patio
shall not be considered as required landscaped areas. Container plantings on top of
paved surfaces or rooftops are not considered as part of a landscaped area.
Main Building(s) shall mean a building, or buildings, which typically contains
the principal use(s) of any lot. There may be more than one main building on a lot.
Psychic services shall mean businesses or establishments which provide psychic
services, which include but is not limited to the practice of: astrology, palmistry,
phrenology, life - reading, fortunetelling, cartomancy, clairvoyance, clairaudience,
crystal- gazing, mediumship, prophesy, augury, divination, mind reading or
necromancy.
Structure shall mean that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of
any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed or parts joined together
in some definite manner.
2
Sunroom shall mean a non - habitable area attached to a main building that is
enclosed with glazing, and is primarily used for recreational and outdoor living
proposes.
Revise the current definition in Section 30 -2 to read as follows:
Accessory building shall mean a detached subordinate building, any part of
which is within a required minimum yard of the subject Zoning District, and the use of
which is incidental to that of the main building on the same lot, or to the use of the land.
For properties within a Residential zone, or with a Residential use, the use of such
accessory buildings is restricted to garages, carports, storage sheds, and similar
buildings which are found by the Building Official to conform to the "U" (utility)
occupancy classification.
Historic Structure shall mean a building listed on the Historic Building Study
List or one that was built before 1942.
Patio Structure shall mean a one (1) story structure unenclosed by walls on and
partially or fully roofed, including but not limited to sunshades, trellises pergolas,
gazebos, and lath houses, which may be attached to or detached from the main building
or accessory building. The definition of Patio Structure excludes structures partially or
fully enclosed by solid walls and/or glazing, such as sunrooms or greenhouses. For the
purpose of this definition, the walls of adjoining main and/or accessory building(s) shall
not be considered as having "enclosed" the patio structure, providing that such walls do
not constitute a) more than tow (2) of the four (4) sides of the patio structure and b)
more than fifty (50 %) percent of the patio structure's perimeter.
Yard, front shall mean a yard extending across the full width of the lot measured
between the front property line (or the lot line connected to a street by legal access) and
the nearest point of the wall of a building or enclosed or covered porch on such lot.
The front yard of a corner lot is the yard adjacent to the shorter street frontage of such
lots.
Yards, minimum required shall mean the minimum depth, as prescribed for a
particular zoning district, of the area of land between a main building and the property's
perimeter, and which must remain free of structures and unobstructed from the ground
to sky except for such exceptions and encroachments as may be permitted by this
article which include, but is not limited to, allowances to permit accessory buildings,
patio structure's and roof eaves.
Yard, rear shall mean a yard extending across the full width of the lot measured
between the rear line of the lot and the rear line of the main building or enclosed or
covered porch nearest the rear line of the lot.
Yard, side shall mean a yard on either side of the lot extending from the front
line of the main building or enclosed or covered porch to the rear line of the main
building or enclosed or covered porch, the width of each yard being measured between
the side line of the lot and the nearest part of the main building or enclosed or covered
porch.
3
Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -3.1 (Designation of Districts) of Section 30 -3 (Zoning Districts) of
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 =3.1 Designation of Districts.
The several classes of general districts hereby provided, and which the City may
be divided, are designated as follows:
Map District Designation
Symbol
R -1 One - Family Residential District
R -2 Two - Family Residential District
R -3 Garden Residential District
R -4 Neighborhood Residential District
R -5 General Residential District
R -6 Hotel Residential District
AP Administrative- Professional District
C -1 Neighborhood Business District
C -2 Central Business District
C -C Community Commercial District
C -M Commercial Manufacturing District
M -1 Intermediate Industrial (Manufacturing) District
M -2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District
M -X Mixed Use Planned Development District
0 Open Space District
Section 3. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsections 30 -4.1b8 and 30 -4.lc of Subsection 30 -4.1 (R -1, One Family Residence
District, Uses Permitted) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Chapter
XXX (Development Codes) to read as follows:
30 -4.1 R -1, One - Family Residence District.
b. Uses Permitted.
8. Family day care homes, Large and Family, day care homes,
Small, as licensed by the State of California.
c. Uses Requiring Use Permits.
2. Private and religious schools, day care centers and churches.
Section 4. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsections 30- 4.2b8, 30 -4.2c2 and 30 -4.2d9 of Subsection 30 -4.2 (R -2, Two - Family
Residence District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
4
30 -4.2 R -2, Two - Family Residence District.
b. Uses Permitted.
8. Family day care homes, Large and Family day care homes,
Small, as licensed by the State of California.
c. Uses Requiring Use Permits.
2. Private and religious schools, day care centers and churches.
d. Minimum Height. Bulk and Space Requirements
9. Useable Open Space Requirements: Minimum Required Private
open space, shall be provided for every dwelling unit in a two- family dwelling, and
every single family dwelling on a parcel with 2 or more dwelling units, as regulated in
Subsection 30 -5.12. A minimum landscaped area of six hundred (600) square feet per
unit or 25% of the lot area whichever is greater shall be provided on each parcel.
Section 5. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsections 30- 4.3b8, 30 -4.3c2 and 30- 4.3d10 of Section 30 -4.3 (R -3, Garden
Residential District, Uses Permitted) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -4.3 R -3. Garden Residential District Uses Permitted.
b. Uses Permitted.
8. Family day care homes, Large and Family day care homes,
Small, as licensed by the State of California.
c. Uses Requiring Use Permits.
2. Private and religious schools, day care centers and churches.
d. Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
10. Useable Open Space Requirements: Minimum Required Private
open space, shall be provided for every dwelling unit in a two - family dwelling, and
every single family dwelling on a parcel with 2 or more dwelling units, as regulated in
Subsection 30 -5.12. A minimum landscaped area of five hundred (500) square feet per
unit or 25% of the lot area whichever is greater shall be provided on each parcel.
Section 6. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new subsection 30- 4.3d12 to Subsection 30 -4.3 (R -3 Garden Residential District) of
Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -4.3 R -3, Garden Residential District.
d. Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
12. Minimum Required Landscape Area: Twenty five (25 %) percent
of lot area. The minimum required landscape area applies to all permitted and
conditional uses and uses permitted with use permit.
Section 7. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30- 4.4d10 of Subsection 30 -4.4 (R -4, Neighborhood Residential District) of
5
Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Chapter XXX Development
Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -4.4 R -4, Neighborhood Residential District.
d. Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
10. Useable Open Space Requirements: Minimum Required Private
open space, shall be provided for every dwelling unit in a two- family dwelling, and
every single family dwelling on a parcel with 2 or more dwelling units, as regulated in
Subsection 30 -5.12. A minimum landscaped area of four hundred (400) square feet per
unit or 25% of the lot area whichever is greater shall be provided on each parcel.
Section 8 . The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30- 4.4d12 to Subsection 30 -4.4 (R -4, Neighborhood Residential
District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations.) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -4.4 R -4, Neighborhood Residential District.
d. Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
12. Minimum Required Landscape Area: Twenty five (25 %) percent
of lot area. The minimum required landscape area applies to all permitted and
conditional uses and uses permitted with use permit.
Section 9. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -4.5b4 and Subsection 30- 4.5d10 of Subsection 30 -4.5 (R -5 General
Residential District of Section 3 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -4.5 R -5, General Residential District.
b. Uses Permitted.
4. Parks, playgrounds, public and private schools, churches and
religious institutions, libraries, and day care centers, and public buildings.
d. Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
9. Useable Open Space Requirements: Minimum Required Private
open space, shall be provided for every dwelling unit in a two- family dwelling, and
every single family dwelling on a parcel with 2 or more dwelling units, as regulated in
Subsection 30 -5.12. A minimum landscaped area of two hundred (200) square feet per
unit or 25% of the lot area whichever is greater shall be provided on each parcel.
Section 10. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30- 4.5d12 to Subsection 30 -4.5 (R -5, General Residential District) of
Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations.) of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations) to read as follows:
6
30 -4.5 R -5, General Residential District.
d. Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
12. Minimum Required Landscape Area: Twenty five (25 %) percent
of lot area. The minimum required landscape area applies to all permitted and
conditional uses and uses permitted with use permit.
Section 11. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30- 4.6(d) of Subsection 30 -4.6 (R -6 Hotel Residential District) of Section
30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to
read as follows:
30 -4.6 R -6, Hotel Residential District.
d. Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
10 Useable Open Space Requirements: Minimum Required Private
open space, shall be provided for every dwelling unit in a two - family dwelling, and
every single family dwelling on a parcel with 2 or more dwelling units, as regulated in
Subsection 30 -5.12. A minimum landscaped area of one hundred twenty (12) square
feet per unit or 25% of the lot area whichever is greater shall be provided on each
parcel.
Section 12 . The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30- 4.6d12 to Section 30 -4.6 (R -6, Hotel Residential District) to Section
30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to
read as follows:
30 -4.6 R -6, Hotel Residential District.
d. Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements.
12. Minimum Required Landscape Area: Twenty five (25 %) of lot
area. The minimum required landscape area applies to all permitted and conditional
uses and uses permitted with use permit.
Section 13. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -4.7b (Uses Permitted) of Subsection 30 -4.7 (AP, Administrative-
Professional District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -4.7 AP Administrative - Professional District
b. Uses Permitted:
1. Offices of an administrative and professional nature including but not
limited to the following:
(a) Accountants,
(b) Architects,
(c) Artists,
(d) Attorneys,
(e) Authors,
7
(f) Doctors and dentists,
(g) Engineers,
(h) Insurance agencies,
(i) Real estate offices,
(j) Hypnotherapists and hypnotists,
(k) Optometrists.
(1) Psychic services (subject to permit requirements of section 6 -46.4 & 5 of
the Alameda Municipal Code.)
2. Medical facilities, including, but not limited to the following:
(a) Dental clinics,
(b) Hospitals,
(c) Medical clinics,
(d) Medical laboratories,
(e) Nursing and convalescent homes,
(f) Radiologist laboratories,
(g) Rest homes,
(h) Sanitariums.
Section 14. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30- 4.9A.b (Uses Permitted) of Subsection 30 -4.9A C -C, Community
Commercial Zone, of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -4.9A C -C, Community Commercial Zone.
b. Uses Permitted.
(mm) Office uses (medical and professional) not associated with permitted
retail sales use of the site, provided that for any building which is on a site adjoining a
public street, public alley or public sidewalk, fifty (50 %) percent in depth of the ground
floor space directly behind that building frontage closest to the public street, public
alley or public sidewalk shall be reserved for retail sales and/or services uses permitted
in the district.
Section 15. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30- 4.9A.c (Uses Requiring Use Permits) of Subsection 30 -4.9A C -C,
Community Commercial Zone, of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations) of
Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -4.9A C -C, Community Commercial Zone.
c. Uses Requiring Use Permits.
(bb) Office use (medical and professional) not associated with a
permitted or conditional use in this district and/or to be located on a site adjoining a
public street, public alley or public sidewalk and within fifty (50 %) of the depth of the
ground floor space directly behind that building frontage closet to the public street,
public alley or public sidewalk.
8
Section 16. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -4.19c and adding Subsection 30 -4.19d to Section 30 -4.19 (0, Open
Space District) of Section 30 -4 (District Uses and Regulations), of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -4.19 0, Open Space District.
c. Uses Permitted, Subject to Minor Design Review. Subject to the
adjacent property owner's ability to lease portion(s) of the public tidal lands within the
"0" District, minor structures that are accessory to the adjacent residential use for the
purpose of either: a) waterfront access, including but not limited to docks, and
fences /gates not to exceed 8' in height above the dock, or b) landscape amenities, such
as arbors, gazebos, and similar unenclosed structures not to exceed 10' in height, are
permitted subject to approval process for improvements requiring Minor Design
Review, as outlined in Section 30 -37 Design Review Regulations.
d. Uses Requiring Use Permit. It is the intent of this paragraph that the
following uses shall be reviewed by the Planning Board for their appropriateness in a
specific location or for such other factors as safety, sanitation, design and visual
attractiveness.
1. Any structure or building (other than those described in paragraph c)
located within areas described in paragraphs b, 1., 2. and 3.
2. Above ground utility installations for local service.
3. Publicly owned small craft marinas and related installations.
Public and commercial concessionaire activities, uses and buildings.
Section 17. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30 -5.6d to Subsection 30 -5.6 (Building Site, Areas and Easements) of
Section 30 -5 (General Provisions and Exceptions) of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -5.6 Building Site, Areas and Easements.
d. Adjustments to minimum rear yard requirements for certain waterfront
parcels. The following adjustments to the minimum required rear yards otherwise
prescribed by the subject zoning district (i.e. the minimum required setback from the
rear property line) apply to parcels which are either immediately adjacent to, or
adjacent to interceding public tidal lands (i.e. "public trust lands ") which are
immediately adjacent to, the Tidal Canal, San Leandro Bay or San Francisco Bay:
1. Additional setback requirements for parcels immediately adjacent to
water. For parcels where the rear property line is either: a) at the same elevation as the
higher high water line, or b) is at a lower elevation than the higher high water line (i.e.
the rear property line is submerged), the minimum required rear setback shall be
measured from the higher high water line as if it were the rear property line.
2. Special adjustments to setback requirements for parcels adjacent to those
interceding public lands which do not have public access. For parcels with interceding
public lands between the parcel's rear property line and the higher high water line (such
as public tidal lands owned and/or managed by Federal, State or Local agencies which
do not have public access, but portions of which may be leased to owners of adjacent
9
parcels for private use), the minimum required rear setback shall be measured from the
higher high water line (which falls within the interceding property) as if it were the
rear property line of the subject parcel, thereby reducing the minimum required rear
setback from that prescribed by the subject zoning district. However, in no case shall
the subject parcel have a rear setback from the actual rear property line of less than
three (3') feet. The above adjustment to minimum rear setback requirements does not
apply to parcels adjacent to public or private waterfront lands which have been
improved as parklands, trail easements, or similar amenities.
3. Exceptions to setback requirements for waterfront lots may be granted.
Notwithstanding the minimum rear yard requirements of the subject zoning district,
exceptions to the rear setback requirements prescribed for waterfronts regulated by this
subsection (paragraphs 1. and 2. above), may be approved subject to the notification
and approval process for improvements requiring Major Design Review, as outlined in
Section 30 -27; Design Review Requirements. Exceptions to reduce the minimum
required rear setback, but not to less than three (3') feet from the actual rear property
line, may be granted with Major Design Review approval, with the additional and
specific finding that the proposed encroachment into the setback otherwise required by
this subsection will not substantially impair the adjoining neighbors' views of the water
and hillsides beyond.
4. Exemptions for Piers and Floating Docks. Notwithstanding the
minimum rear yard requirements of the subject zoning district and the specific setback
requirements of this subsection, peers and floating docks are exempt from such
minimum yard and setback requirements, and may be built up to and across the
property line of adjacent public tidal lands, provided all permit requirements of the
A.B.C., A.M.C. and applicable governmental agencies (e.g. B.C.D.C.) are meet.
Section 18. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing
Subsection 30 -5.7 (Permitted Encroachments in Yards) of Section 30 -5 (General
Provisions and Exceptions) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) in its entirety.
Section 19. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30 -5.7 (Projections from Buildings and Roof Planes, Permitted
Encroachments, and Treatments of Minimum Required Yards) of Section 30 -5 (General
Provisions and Exceptions) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as
follows:
30 -5.7 Projections from Buildings and Roof Planes, Permitted Encroachments and
Treatments of Minimum Required Yards.
a. Minimum required front yards, and street side yards on corner lots, shall
be landscaped. Excepting walkways, and driveways and staircases as permitted by this
Article, minimum required front yards, and street side yards on corner lots, within
residential zones, and for residential uses in non - residential zones may not be paved
and shall be used exclusively for landscaping.
b. Architectural features. Canopies, eaves, cornices, sills, beltcourses,
fireplaces, galleries, sunshades and similar architectural features, but not including any
wall or window surface, may extend into any required yard a distance not exceeding
10
two (2') feet, however in no case shall such features have a setback of less than three
(3') feet from the property line.
1. Special Exemptions for Eaves. An exemption to allow a building eave
with a setback of less than three (3') feet from a property line may be granted by the
Planning & Building Director concurrently with, and subject to the required fmding for,
the approval of a residential addition with less than the required minimum side yard as
permitted by subsection "k," and subject to the approval of the Building Official.
c. Decks. Decks, and similar features such as uncovered porches and
cantilevered balconies shall conform to the standards as prescribed below:
1. Measurement of Height.
(a) The height of each level of a deck shall be calculated separately
and the required setback that correlates with the height of each level shall be applied to
the portion of the deck at that level.
(b) On sites with a slope of ten (10 %) percent or greater deck heights
may be averaged and setbacks calculated based on the average height of numerous
points. In such cases, any configuration of terraces or levels may be approved that
provides for privacy for adjoining properties, lack of impacts from shading of adjoining
properties, and safety without precisely meeting the setback requirements of this
subsection.
2. Setback requirements.
(a) Decks of up to, and including, twelve (12 ") inches in height may
encroach into any required side and rear yard.
(b) Decks over twelve (12 ") inches to not more than thirty (30 ")
inches in height may encroach into any required side and rear yard, but shall maintain a
minimum setback of three (3') feet from the side and rear property lines.
(c) No deck that exceeds thirty (30 ") inches in height at any point
shall be permitted to encroach into a required yard area.
3. Privacy screening requirement for decks exceeding thirty (30 ") inches in
height. Notwithstanding safety railing requirements prescribed by the A.B.C., and the
limitations on barrier height prescribed in Section 30 -5.14, decks above thirty (30 ")
inches in height, and all roof decks may be required as a condition of Design Review
approval to provide privacy screening barriers, and/or landscaping of sufficient height
deemed sufficient to provide adequate screening, to mitigate potential privacy impacts.
At no time, however, shall the top elevation of any railing or privacy screen for such
decks exceed the building height limit of the subject zone.
4. Decks and conformance to maximum building coverage. Decks above
thirty (30 ") inches in height and in excess of two hundred (200) square feet in size shall
be considered as part of the building coverage requirements. Decks subject to coverage
requirements shall be calculated at fifty percent (50 %) of their area in excess of two
hundred (200) square feet.
5. Exceptions to setback requirements for small decks. Decks which are
less than fifty (50) square feet, have no exterior access and are cantilevered or
supported from the structure may be allowed to extend three (3') feet into the required
front, rear or street -side yard; however, in no case shall such a deck have a setback of
less than three (3') feet from any property line. Such decks shall not project more than
six (6') feet from the supporting wall to its furthest outward extension.
11
d. Window and roof projections.
1. Window Projections. Bay, garden and greenhouse windows, and similar
features that increase either floor area or enclosed space, may extend three (3') feet into
any required front, rear, side, or street -side yard, however in no case shall such features
have a setback of less than three (3') feet from a property line, and are subject to the
following regulations and the regulations in paragraph 3, below: Bay windows shall not
encroach into yard areas at any other level than the story on which the window
openings or glazings are located except that ornamental brackets or canopies may be
required and approved through Design Review.
2. Roof Projections. Dormers may project from the roof plane, however in
no case shall such features have a setback of less than three (3') feet from the property
line or exceed the building height limit of the subject zone, and are subject to the
regulations in paragraph 3, below:
3. Minimum Separation, Spacing and Size Limitations for Projections.
Encroaching window projections, and all roof projections, are subject to the following
dimensional requirements:
(a) The maximum length of each projection shall between (10') feet
and the minimum horizontal separation between projections shall be five (5') feet.
(b) Such features shall not extend horizontally across more than one-
half (1/2) of the linear wall or roof surface to which they are affixed.
e. Stairs and Landings.
1. General Exception. Uncovered stairs and landings may encroach into
any required front and rear yard a distance not exceeding six (6') feet (i.e. for the
placement of stairs and landings, the minimum required front and rear setback is
reduced from twenty (20') feet to fourteen (14') feet): and into any required side yard
and minimum required street side yard a distance not exceeding one -half (1/2) the
width of the required side yard or three (3') feet, whichever is less.
2. Special Exception for Historic Structures. A reconstructed staircase that
is to be attached to the facade of an "historical structure," as defined in Section 30 -2,
may encroach into the minimum required front yard a distance not to exceed seventeen
(17') feet (i.e. for the placement of reconstructed stairs and landings on historic
structures, the minimum required front setback is reduced from twenty (20') feet to
three (3') feet) providing that the design of such staircase conforms to the original
historic design, allowing for minor modification to accommodate requirements
mandated by the A.B.C., or alterations in the finished floor elevation, subject to the
approval of the Planning & Building director and Building Official.
f. Accessory Buildings. Accessory buildings may be located within minimum
required side and rear yards, and shall conform to the following:
1. Height limits. Accessory buildings located in a required side or rear
yard shall not exceed one (1) story, and shall not exceed a height of ten (10') feet at the
top of a parapet or at the point where the side elevation intersects with the roof, with the
following exceptions:
(a) the height at the ridge of the roof may exceed the above height
limitation, up to a maximum height of fifteen (15') feet.
12
(b) the front and rear elevations may exceed the 10' height limit up
to the 15' height at the ridge of the roof, however, in no case shall the 15' ridge height
be extended along the entire front or rear elevation
(c) the height at the top of the front or rear elevation's parapet may
exceed the above height limitation, up to a maximum height of twelve (12') feet.
2. Maximum sizes permitted. Accessory buildings shall not exceed 400
square feet in size. As an exception to the 400 sq. ft. limit, lots that have a minimum
required rear yard of over 1000 sq. ft. may have accessory structures that exceed 400
square feet in size, but may not occupy more than forty (40 %) percent of the minimum
required rear yard as prescribed by the subject Zoning District. That portion of an
accessory building which is outside the minimum required rear yard is subject to
maximum main building coverage limitations of the subject zone.
3. Minimum setbacks from side property lines. If located less than
seventy -five (75') from the front property line, the accessory building shall observe a
five (5') foot side yard setback. If the accessory building is to be located seventy -five
(75') feet, or more, from the front property line, it may be built up to the interior side
property line(s), provided that all construction within three (3') feet of the property line
(including eaves and similar architectural features) is one hour fire resistive as required
by the A.B.C, as approved by the Building Official.
4. Minimum setback from rear property line. If located within that portion
of the minimum required rear yard that adjoins the neighbors' required minimum rear
yard(s), the accessory building may be built up to the rear property line, provided that
all construction within three (3') feet of the property line (including eaves and similar
architectural features) is one hour fire resistive as required by the A.B.C, as approved
by the Building Official. If the proposed accessory building is to be located within that
portion of the minimum required rear yard that does not adjoin the neighbors' required
minimum rear yard(s) (i.e. adjacent to that part of the neighbor's side property line not
within his/hers minimum required rear yard), a minimum five (5') foot setback from the
rear property line shall be maintained.
5. Minimum separation from neighboring structures. There shall be a
minimum of six (6') feet separating all construction (including eaves and similar
architectural features) of the accessory building(s) from the main building(s) or other
accessory building(s). The separation requirements of this paragraph may be reduced
by the Planning & Building Director and Building Official if one hour fire resistive
construction is utilized and/or occupancy classification of the subject buildings allow
for a lesser separation, as specified by the A.B.C.
6. Reconstruction of legally nonconforming buildings. Notwithstanding
the limitations prescribed by Section 30 -20; Nonconforming Buildings and Uses,
legally nonconforming accessory building(s) with conforming residential uses in
Residential zoning districts, may be reconstructed, with an equal or lesser
nonconformity to the size, and location requirements of this sub - section (i.e. paragraphs
2, through 4), subject to the approval process for improvements, as outlined in Section
30 -37; Design Review Requirements, and allowing for modifications to the height
and/or roof configuration, provided that the resulting design does not exceed the height
limitation prescribed by paragraph 1 of this subsection) Such reconstruction may occur
13
as part of any duly permitted project to repair, remodel or replace the existing non-
conforming structure.
g. Patio Structures. Patio structures attached to or detached from a main or
accessory building may encroach into any minimum required side yard or rear yard.
But shall:
1. not exceed a maximum height of twelve (12') feet, as measured from
grade. A detached patio structure, if not located within a minimum required yard, may
be permitted to a height not to exceed fifteen (15') feet, subject to approval of the
Planning & Building Director and Building Official.
2. conform to the building coverage requirements prescribed for accessory
buildings in subsection 30 -5.7 (f.2), regardless of whether the patio structure is attached
to or detached from a main or accessory building.
3. observe a minimum five (5') feet setback from the side and rear property
lines. No part of the patio cover may extend within three (3') of the property line.
4. have a minimum (6') foot distance separating all elements of a detached
patio structure (including eaves and similar architectural features) from the main
building(s) or accessory building(s). The separation requirements of this paragraph
may be reduced by the Planning & Building Director and Building Official if the
occupancy classification of the subject buildings allow for a lesser separation, as
specified by the A.B.C.
5. not occupy any portion of the front half of a corner lot.
6. not be enclosed by any walls, partial solid panel wainscoting, and/or
glazing, excepting for those walls of the adjoining main and/or accessory building(s),
which may not constitute a) more than two (2) of the four (4) sides of the patio structure
and b) more than fifty (50 %) percent of the patio structure's perimeter. Patio structures
may be fitted with removable clear plastic or screen mesh panels and/or retractable
shade screens, as regulated under the A.B.C.
h. Pools and Spas.
1. pools or spas that are constructed and/or permanently located "in-
ground," and any mechanical equipment for such pools or spas, may be located within a
minimum required rear and side yard, providing that a minimum five (5') foot setback
is maintained from any property line.
2. portable pools, spas, hot tubs, and similar features which are determined
by the Building Official not to be structures, are not subject to either the setback
requirements for accessory buildings prescribed in subsection f, or those setback
requirements for permanent "in ground" spa prescribed in paragraph 1, above, except
that no mechanical equipment for such portable pools or spas shall be placed within
five (5') feet of any property line.
i. Driveways. Driveways may be located within minimum required front yards,
and minimum required street side yards of corner lots, subject to the regulations
prescribed in subsection 30- 7.9.(f.1) (remainder of this subsection relocated to 30 -7.9)
j. Structures for Disabled Access. Uncovered wheelchair ramps or other
structures providing disabled access may encroach into any required front, side or rear
yard as long as the access structure provides continuous access from the street or
parking area to an entrance of the building. The encroachment shall be the minimum
necessary to provide safe and adequate access and shall be subject to Design Review.
14
k. Exceptions to Allow Continuation of Noncomplying Sideyard Setback
In exception to the setback requirements of this article, one (1) and two (2) story room
additions may be approved that observe the same sideyard setback as the existing main
building, or none if none exists, on lots where the existing main building is constructed
with noncomplying sideyard setbacks if the following finding can be made: No adverse
effects such as shading or view blockage would occur on adjoining properties.
1. Exceptions to Allow Vertical Extensions of Noncomplying Sideyard Setbacks
In exception to the setback requirements of this chapter for stories above the ground
floor, an addition at the second floor level may be approved with exterior walls in the
same plane as the walls of the existing building below if the finding of paragraph k.
above can be made.
Section 20. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -5.8 (Height Exceptions) of Section 30 -5 (General Provisions and
Exceptions) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -5.8 Height Exceptions.
Towers, spires, chimneys, machinery, penthouses, scenery lofts, cupolas, radio
aerials, television antennas and similar architectural and utility structures and necessary
mechanical appurtenances may be built and used to a height not more than twenty-five
(25') feet above the height limit established for the district in which the structures are
located; provided, however, that no such architectural or utility structure in excess of
the allowable building height shall be used for sleeping or eating quarters or for any
commercial or advertising purposes. Additional heights for public utility structures may
be permitted upon approval by the Planning Board. Height limitations provided herein
shall not apply to electric transmission lines and towers, unless they encroach on any
officially designated aircraft approach zone.
Section 21. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing
Subsection 30 -5.12 (Open Space; Schedule of Required Residential Open Space) of
Section 30 -5 (General Provisions and Exceptions) of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations) in its entirety.
Section 22. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30 -5.12 (Minimum Required Private Open Space) to Section 30 -5
(General Provision and Exceptions) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to
read as follows:
30 -5.12 Minimum Required Private Open Space.
a. Every dwelling unit in a two- family dwelling, and every single family dwelling
on a parcel with 2 or more dwelling units, shall be provided with a minimum private
open space area, conforming to standards prescribed below:
1. Minimum Size. The minimum of 120 sq. ft. shall be provided, with a minimum
horizontal dimension of 8' and no more than three sides enclosed by the adjacent
building. The minimum area shall be improved as either a deck patio, and shall not be
counted as a "landscaped area" for purposes of meeting the Minimum Required
15
Landscape Area requirements of the subject zoning district. Alternatively, the
minimum size requirements of this paragraph may be fulfilled by providing a
contiguous landscaped area (e.g. a lawn and ground covers with no hardscape areas) of
at least 500 sq. ft., with a minimum horizontal dimension of 20'.
2. Vertical Clearance. Open space areas with either a story, staircase, porch or
deck directly above shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum area
requirements prescribed in paragraph (a) above.
3. Location. The required open space may not be constructed in either the
minimum required front yard, or the minimum required side yard on the street side of a
corner lot. Existing non - conforming porches may however be used if all other
standards of this section can be met.
4. Privacy and Access. All dwelling units shall be provided with an exclusive and
directly accessible open space area (e.g. there shall be no commonly accessible areas
between a dwelling unit and its own private open space).
5. Screening. Private open space areas, other than existing porches, shall be
screened with a barrier of at least 3' in height, but not to exceed the limits prescribed in
Section 30 -5.14.
b. Open space areas for dwelling units in pre- existing multi - family building, as
regulated by Article III, shall be provided and maintained as per code requirements
applicable immediately prior to <date new code is adopted >. If such pre - existing
multi - family buildings are damaged or destroyed, they shall be reconstructed to the
open space standards of the zoning code that was applicable, if any, at the time of
permitted construction.
Section 23. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -7.2b of Subsection 30 -7.2 (Accessory Parking Spaces Required) of
Section 30 -7 (Off - Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -7.2 Accessory Parking Spaces Required.
b. For all dwelling units and floor area added to existing buildings.
Section 24. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsections al, a2 and a3 (Residential Uses), Subsection b2 (Institutions and Places of
Assembly) and Subsection c2 (Commercial Office Uses) of Subsection 30 -7.6
(Schedule of Required Minimum Off - Street Parking Space) of Section 30 -7 (Off - Street
Parking and Loading Space Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations)
to read as follows:
30 -7.6 Schedule of Required Minimum Off - Street Parking Space
a. Residential Uses
1. Dwelling Units with 3,000 sq. ft. or less, of conditioned space — 2 spaces
per unit.
2. Dwelling Units with over 3,000 sq. ft. of conditioned space — 3 spaces
per unit.
16
3. Notwithstanding the allowances of subsection 30 -20:
"Nonconforming Buildings and Uses," additional parking spaces, at the
rate of 1 per 500 sq. ft of newly added conditioned space, shall be provided when a
dwelling unit which is without the parking spaces required by paragraphs 1 or 2 is to be
enlarged.
(a) No additional spaces, as otherwise required by this paragraph,
are required once compliance with paragraphs 1 or 2 is achieved.
(b) Notwithstanding the requirements for perimeter landscaping
prescribed by subsection 30- 7.10a.2., existing driveways may be considered as parking
space(s) if the proposed space(s) will be in conformance to the location requirements of
subsection 30- 7.8a.1, and the dimensional requirements of subsection 30 -7.9.
b. Institutions and Places of Assembly.
2. Churches, theatres, auditoriums, lodges and
mortuaries:
1. Assembly areas - 1 space per 50 sq. ft.
(As ALT: 1 space per 50 sq. ft. in R- Zones; 1
space per 75 sq. ft. in C- Zones; 1 space per 100
sq. ft in the C -M and M- Zones)
Administrative Office areas - 1 space per 400 sq.
ft. (all zones).
c. Commercial Offices Uses.
2. • General retail, banks, minor repair services, 1
space per 200 sq. ft. of ground floor area; 1 space
per 400 sq. ft. of upper floor space including
mezzanines,
Professional office, doctor and dentist offices
(including hospital outpatient services, 1 space per
250 sq. ft.
Restaurants,
Less than 4,000 sq. ft gross area- a space per 100
sq. ft. of gross floor area.
4000 sq. ft. or more — 40 spaces, plus 1 for each
50 sq. ft. of seating area over 4,000 sq. ft.
Section 25. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing
Subsection 30 -7.8 (Location of Parking Spaces) of Section 30 -7 (Off - Street Parking
and Loading Space Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) in its
entirety.
Section 26. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30 -7.8 (Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Areas) to
Section 30.7 (Off Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
17
30 -7.8 Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Parking Areas
All parking spaces, whether required or in excess of this section, shall be
provided on the same parcel as the use which is generating the parking demand, except
as provided by subsection 30 -7.6, and subject to the following additional requirements:
a. Residential Zones, and Residential Uses in Non - residential Zones:
1. No parking space may be located in any minimum required front
yard, or in any minimum required side yard on the street side of any corner lot. Parking
spaces may be located within minimum required side and rear yards, subject to the
requirements of subsection 30- 7.10.a: "Perimeter Landscaping Required."
2. The parking of vehicles within any minimum required front yard,
or in any minimum required side yard on the street side of any corner lot, is prohibited.
(a) Exception to parking prohibition: Driveways used to provide
access to required parking spaces may be used to provide ancillary parking. Driveways
used for such ancillary parking may not exceed the maximum permitted widths as
prescribed by subsection 30- 7.9.f.1.(a). Such ancillary parking shall not be considered
toward meeting the requirements of Subsection 30 -7.6; "Schedule of Required
Minimum Off - Street Parking Spaces."
3. See subsection 30 -5.7.h for additional provisions related to the
located of garages.
a. Non - residential Uses in Non - residential Zones. Parking spaces may be
located between the main building(s) and the street frontage(s), subject to the
requirements of Subsection 30- 7.10.a: "Perimeter Landscaping Required."
b. Non - residential Parking in Residential Zones. Parking for uses not
allowed in a residential zone shall not be located in that residential zone.
c. Non - residential Parking in Residential Zones. Parking for uses not
allowed in a residential zone shall not be located in that residential zone.
Section 27. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30 -7.9c (Adjustments to Parking Space Dimensions), revised
Subsection 30 -7.9f (Driveways), and revised Subsection 30 -7.9g. (Handicapped
Parking) to Section 30 -7 (Off - Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations) of
Chapter III (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -7.9 Parking Dimensions and Access.
c. Adjustments to Parking Space Dimensions. The parking space lengths
specified in paragraphs a. and b. above may, for nonparallel spaces, be reduced by up to
one and one -half (1 %2') feet, with the curb to serve as a tire stop. The one and one -half
(1 %2') feet wide area that would otherwise be paved as part of the parking space (i.e.
the "overhang" area), shall either be landscaped (with lawn or ground covers not
exceeding six (6 ") inches in height), or if abutting a walkway, shall be paved with
material similar to that of the walkway. The landscaping of the "overhang" area shall be
in addition to, and not considered a part of, any minimum landscape requirements of
this Code. When paved as part of an adjacent walkway, the "overhang" area shall not
be included in the required width for walkways or handicapped access.
18
f. Driveways.
1. Minimum and Maximum Driveway Widths.
(a) In residential zones and for Residential Uses in Non - residential
Zones a minimum driveway width of eight and one -half (8 %z') feet and a maximum of
ten (10') feet may be permitted. Driveways that provide access to 2 or more adjacent
single car garages, if separated from each other by a landscaped strip not less than three
(3') feet wide, are measured as individual driveways when determining compliance
with this subsection.
(b) Exceptions to exceed the 10' feet limitation for driveways in
residential zones and for residential uses in non - residential zones may be permitted to:
(i) allow a maximum width of up to sixteen (16') feet in order to provide access to a
two (2) car garage located no further than (50') feet from the lot's street frontage(s);or
(ii) allow a "flare out" that provides adequate maneuvering area to a multi car garage
located more than (50') feet from the lot's street frontage(s), subject to approval by the
Planning & Building and Public Works Directors.
(c) On Non - residential Uses in Non - residential Zones On
commercially and industrially zoned lots and to serve commercial and industrial uses, a
driveway occupying no more than forty (40 %) percent or twenty (20') feet in width
(whichever is less) may be For service stations a maximum driveway width of forty
(40') may be permitted.
2. Curb Cuts. No more than one (1) curb cut per lot shall be allowed,
except for service stations where access shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) curb
cuts, unless otherwise approved by the Planning & Building and Public Works
Directors. These service station access points may be directionalized (i.e. one way, no
left turn etc.) at the discretion of the Public Works Director. Existing service stations
shall be brought into compliance whenever modifications requiring a permit are
approved.
3. The centerline of an access driveway where it connects to a street shall
be at least thirty -five (35') feet from the nearest street right -of -way line of an
intersection, unless otherwise permitted by the Planning & Building and Public Works
Directors. Residential developments shall have only one (1) driveway per parcel per
frontage, unless otherwise permitted by the Planning and Public Works Directors.
4. Residential developments shall have only one (1) driveway per parcel
per frontage, unless otherwise permitted by the Planning and Public Works Director.
g. Handicapped Parking Handicapped parking spaces shall be provided, in
quantity and dimensions necessary for conformance with the A.C.B.
Section 28. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30- 7.10a, and Subsection 30 -7.1Oc and deleting Subsections 30- 7.10d,e,f,
and g of Subsection 30 -7.10 (Landscaping) of Section 30 -7 (Off - Street Parking and
Loading Space Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as
follows:
19
30 -7.10 Landscaping.
a. Perimeter Landscaping Required:
1. Any unenclosed parking space or backup area which is adjacent
to
2. Unenclosed parking spaces next to either: walls of adjacent
buildings, fences, buildings or property lines shall be separated from such structures or
property lines by a minimum three (3') feet of landscaped area, except for areas needed
for automobile and pedestrian access.
3. Backup areas and driveways shall have a minimum of one (1')
foot of landscape separation from walls, fences, buildings and property lines.
c. All landscape plans shall conform to the landscape and irrigation
requirements in Article IV of this chapter.
Section 29. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -7.12 (Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities) of
Section 30 -7 (Off - Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -7.12 Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities.
a. One (1) parking space per parcel serving existing facilities may be
eliminated under the following circumstances:
1. The electrical service for the facility is converted from overhead
to underground, and both the Planning & Building Director and the Bureau of
Electricity determine the best location for the required pedestal mounted transformer
requires the removal of a parking space.
2. Recycling bins are proposed for existing facilities and the
Planning & Building Director determines the best location requires the removal of a
parking space.
b. Additional parking spaces serving existing facilities may be eliminated
from properties with non - residential uses, with the approval of the Planning & Building
and Public Works Directors, as needed to conform to current A.B.C. standards, which
include but not limited to changes in the number of handicapped parking spaces that are
required for specific non - residential uses.
Section 30. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing
Subsection 30 -7.17 (Illumination of Parking Areas) of Section 30 -7 (Off - Street
Parking and Loading Space Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations)
in its entirety.
Section 31. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30 -7.17 (Illumination of Parking Areas) to Section 30 -7 (Off - Street
Parking and Loading Space Regulations) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations)
to read as follows:
20
30 -7.17 Illumination of Parking Areas.
a. Parking areas shall be adequately illuminated whenever necessary to
protect the public safety, subject to the regulations in subsections b., c., and d. below:
b. The illumination of parking areas shall be so designed and located that
light sources are shielded from adjoining properties and shall not cause a glare
hazardous to pedestrians or auto drivers. All light fixtures in residential zones, or on
parcels adjacent to any residential use, shall be limited to "full cut -off' type
illumination, or as approved by the Planning & Building Director.
c. The maximum height of any parking lot light standard is twenty five
(25') feet, unless a use permit to allow a height in excess of twenty five (25') feet is
approved by the Planning Board.
d. The ground level illumination shall not exceed a "minimum standard" of
two (2) foot candles, with a ratio no greater than 15 to 1 between the highest and lowest
areas of illumination. In a residential zone, or on a parcel adjacent to any residential
use, the permitted "minimum standard" is reduced to one -half (1/2) foot candles. Any
proposal for parking lot lighting that would provide illumination at ground level in
excess of the above standards is subject to approval of a Use Permit by the Planning
Board.
Section 32. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a
new Subsection 30 -7.18 (Use and Extension of Non - Conforming Driveways and
Perimeter Landscaping and new Subsection 30 -9.19 (Adjustments for Senior and
Affordable Housing Developments)) to Section 30 -7 (Off - Street Parking and Loading
Space Regulations) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -7.18 Use and Extension of Non - Conforming Driveways and Perimeter
Landscaping.
Existing residential driveways that are non - conforming to the minimum widths
prescribed by subsection 30- 7.9.f.1, and/or the minimum perimeter landscaping
prescribed by subsection 30- 10.a.3, may remain and may be extended with the existing
non - conforming dimensions at such time the property is further improved with small
scale development, which includes but is not limited to additions to existing single
family uses or the construction of an additional dwelling, subject to the approval of the
Planning & Building and Public Works Directors.
30 -7.19 Adjustments for Senior and Affordable Housing Developments
Notwithstanding the minimum required parking space requirements prescribed
in Section 30 -7.6, developments providing housing for residents that are to have a
lesser dependence on personal vehicles, may be allowed to reduce such off - street
parking requirements at time such projects are given Design Review, Use Permit and/or
Planned Development approvals. Such projects may include, but are not limited to
housing exclusively for Senior Citizens and housing deemed affordable to those with
low to moderate incomes, as defined by the applicable City and Federal HUD
requirements. As part of any request to reduce off - street parking requirements, the
21
applicant(s) of the subject housing developments shall provide parking and traffic
study(s) as deemed necessary to document the reduced need for off - street parking.
Section 33. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by deleting the
definition "Fortunetelling establishment" from Subsection 30 -9.2 (Definitions) of
Section 30 -9 (Adult Entertainment Activity) of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations) in its entirety.
Section 34. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -21.2c (Appeal) of Section 30 -21 -2 (Administrative Variance) of
Subsection (Variances, Use Permit: Procedures) of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -21 VARIANCES, USE PERMITS; PROCEDURE.
30 -21.2 Administrative Variance
c. Appeal. The applicant, a member of the public or a member of the City
Council or Planning Board may appeal the decision of the Zoning Administrator within
ten (10) days after the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Appeals shall be heard by
the Planning Board pursuant to Section 30 -25.
Section 35. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -21.8 (Limitations on New Applications) of Section 30 -21 (Variances,
Use Permits: Procedure) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as
follows:
30 -21.8 Limitation on New Application
In case an application is denied by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Board,
or, on appeal, by the City Council, it shall not be eligible for resubmittal for three (3)
years from the date of the denial, unless, in the opinion of the Zoning Administrator,
new evidence is submitted in writing or conditions have changed to an extent that
further consideration is warranted.
Section 36. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -21.9 (Termination and Transferability) of Section 30 -21 (Variances, Use
Permits: Procedure) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -21.9 Termination Due to Inaction.
A Variance or Use Permit shall, if granted, terminate two (2) years from the
effective date of its granting unless actual construction or alteration, or actual
commencement of the authorized activities in the case of a Variance or Use Permit not
involving construction or alteration, has begun under valid permits within such period.
When a Variance is associated with an approved parcel map or tentative subdivision
map the Variance shall remain valid for the same period of time as the approved parcel
22
map or tentative subdivision map, to the maximum time allowed by the State of
California Subdivision Map Act for the land division approvals.
Section 37. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -21.10 (Time Extensions) of Section 30 -21 (Variances, Use Permits:
Procedure) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -21.10 Time Extensions.
Prior to the expiration of the time limit within which Variances or Use Permits
must be first exercised, the grantee may apply for additional time period(s) within
which to exercise the approval, which may be granted on a case by case basis for any
length of time; up to a total of a two (2) year extension from the expiration date for the
original permit approval. Such applications for extension shall be ruled upon by the
Zoning Administrator after public hearing, or by the Planning Board for those
approvals including a reduction in the number of required vehicular parking spaces.
Section 38. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -21.11 (Reports to Planning Board) of Section 30 -21 (Variances, Use
Permits: Procedure.) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -21.11 Reports to Planning Board.
The Zoning Administrator shall report, for informational purposes only, all
approvals or disapprovals of Administrative Variances or Administrative Use Permits
and conditions imposed thereon to the Planning Board at the next regular meeting
hereof following the decisions.
Section 39. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30-25.1a and b (Purpose and Authorization for Appeals and Calls for
Review) of Section 30 -25 (Appeals or Calls for Review) of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -25.1 Purpose and Authorization for Appeals and Calls for Review
a. Appeals. To avoid results inconsistent with the purposes of this chapter,
decisions of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the
Planning Board and decisions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board may
be appealed to the City Council by any person aggrieved or by any officer, agency or
department of the City affected by any decision, determination or requirement.
b. Calls for Review. As an additional safeguard to avoid results inconsistent
with the purposes of this chapter, decisions of the Planning Director or Zoning
Administrator may be called up for review to the Planning Board by the Planning
Board or by the City Council and decisions of the Planning Board or Historical
Advisory Board may be called up for review to the City Council by the City Council or
a member of the City Council.
23
Section 40. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -25.2b (Final Decisions) of Section 30 -25 (Appeals or Calls for Review)
of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as follows:
30 -25.2 Final Decisions.
b. Final Decision of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board.
Any decision of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board shall be fmal on the
date of the decision, unless any person aggrieved or by any officer, agency, or
department of the City affected by any decision of the Planning Board or Historical
Advisory Board, files a Notice of Appeal with the Planning Department no later than
ten (10) days following the decision or a City councilmember files a call for review
with the Planning Department no later than ten (10) days following the decision.
Decisions that are appealed or called for review shall not become effective until the
appeal or call for review is resolved by the appropriate City body.
Section 41. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -25.3b (Time Limits for Appeals or Calls for Review) of Section 30 -25
(Appeals or Calls for Review) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as
follows:
30 -25.3 Time Limits for Appeals or Calls for Review
b. Appeals of Actions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board.
Appeals to the City Council concerning actions of the Planning Board or Historical
Advisory Board may be taken from any person aggrieved or from any officer, agency
or department of the City affected by any decision, determination or requirement of the
Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board. Such appeal shall be filed no later than
ten (10) days following the decision of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory
Board.
Section 42. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -25.4c (Initiation of Appeals and Calls for Review) of Section 30 -25
(Appeals or Calls for Review) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to read as
follows:
30 -25.4 Initiation of Appeals and Calls for Review
c. Appeals of Actions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board.
An appeal to the City Council concerning actions of the Planning Board or Historical
Advisory Board decision shall be filed in writing with the Planning Department and
shall be accompanied by the required fees. In filing an appeal, the applicant shall
specifically state the reasons or justification for an appeal.
Section 43. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 30 -37.6 (Expiration and Extension) of Section 30 -37 (Design Review
Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) thereof to read:
24
30 -37 DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS.
30 -37.6 Expiration and Extension
Design Review approval shall expire one (1) year from the initial date of
approval unless construction has commenced under valid permits. When a Design
Review approval is associated with a use permit or variance, the Design Review
approval shall remain valid for the same period of time as the use permit or variance, as
regulated by Section 30 -21. Prior to the expiration of the Design Review approval the
applicant may apply to the Design Review staff for one one (1) year extension by prior
to said expiration.
Section 44. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Presiding Officer of the Council
25
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 , 2004, 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 , 2004.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
Memorandum
March 9, 2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
FROM: James M. Flint
City Manager
RE:
Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's conditioned approval
of Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review for 3241 Garfield
Avenue to allow: 1) the construction of a 150 square -foot single -story rear addition;
2) the construction of a maximum 24 -inch tall deck with an attached hot tub; and 3)
the construction of a six -foot fence around the side and rear property lines. This site
is located within the R -1 -PD, One Family Residence Planned Development District.
To be continued to the meeting of April 20, 2004.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Board unanimously approved the project on January 12, 2004, and the adjacent side
and rear neighbors subsequently filed an appeal. A request to continue the Council hearing from the
originally scheduled March 2" hearing date to March 16th was filed by the applicants and appellants
to provide additional time to conduct mediation meetings. However, after three meetings, the
applicants and appellants were unable to reach an agreement on the rear addition portion of the
project and are now willing to proceed with the public hearing process. The applicants and
appellants have requested another continuance to April 20, 2004 so that all parties can be present at
the public hearing.
Mediation meetings:
Planning staff scheduled a meeting on February 12, 2004 for the appellants and applicants to discuss
the project. Two subsequent meetings were held on February 17 and February 25 to resolve issues
and discuss potential alternatives. As a result of these discussions, the applicants have agreed to
remove the deck, hot tub, and fence from their proposal if the proposed rear addition can be
approved. The remaining issue of disagreement is the location and size of the rear addition.
DISCUSSION
Alternatives discussed at the meetings:
Various alternatives for the addition were discussed during the meetings. These alternatives include
the following.
1. Narrowing the addition and lowering the height of the proposed roof.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Re: Public Hearing and
Resolution #5 -C
3 -16 -04
2. Requiring increased yard setbacks for the addition.
3. Relocate the addition to the front of the building.
4. Revising the project to only include a storage shed along the side of the building.
5. Excavation of a partial basement for laundry and storage.
6. Revising the project to only include space necessary for two laundry machines.
7. Reconstruction of the previous 54 sq. ft. laundry shed in the rear yard.
In summary, the applicants noted that their primary need was to replace the laundry and storage
space that the previous shed provided, and the 150 square foot addition would accomplish that goal
while adding the convenience of an interior laundry area and space for storage and a second
bathroom. The appellants suggested that the applicants' needs for laundry and storage areas may be
achieved through a substantially smaller addition and without continuation of the roofline at eighteen
feet tall. However, the discussion of the alternatives raised questions of design and architectural
integrity if the addition was located on the side or on the front of the building. Planning staff
suggested the use of story poles on site to outline the addition, but no consensus was reached on
which alternative the story poles should be established for.
RECOMMENDATION
This is provided for your information only. The item will be continued to the meeting of April 20,
2004.
Respectfully submitted,
Gregory Fuz
Planning and Building Director
By:
Allen Tai
Planner I
Cc: Lawrence Henderson and Susan Corlett, Applicants
Ayala Lonzisero and Tony Vesta, Appellant
Thea Mixon, Appellant
G: \PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004 \fMar 16 \Garfield3241appeal continue2.doc
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Re: Agenda Item 5 -D
03 -16 -04
Alameda Ferry Services
Request for Proposals
This matter has been withdrawn and
will be placed on the agenda for the
Regular City Council Meeting of
April 6, 2004.
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 3, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Approve Bus Shelter Siting Criteria
BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2003, the City Council approved a motion authorizing the City Manager to
sign the Joint Powers Agreement to join AC Transit's bus shelter advertising program. In lieu of
participating in the program, the Park and Webster Street business districts were given one year
to develop a plan and find funding sources to install non - advertising shelters in their respective
districts.
The Transportation Commission (TC) and Planning Board recommended criteria for the
appropriate location of advertising shelters and presented the criteria to Council on December 16,
2003. After a number of residents expressed concerns about the bus shelter siting criteria,
Council asked that the TC receive additional input from the public regarding the criteria, and also
that alternative funding options for shelters be further investigated. A subcommittee of the TC
(which was represented by Chair Knox White, and Commissioners Krueger and Ratto) met with
several members of the public on January 15 to discuss these issues in detail. The full TC
discussed the criteria further on January 28 and recommended a revised set of criteria.
Regarding alternative funding options, residents participating in the meeting indicated that they
would research potential options and report back to the subcommittee.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Council directed that staff be instructed to determine the various steps and the amount of time
required for shelters to be installed by the next rainy season. While there are a number of factors
that could vary, AC Transit's contractor, Lamar Transit Advertising, has indicated that
installation will take approximately six months from the time that the interlocal agreement
between the City and Lamar is completed. To have shelters installed by the next rainy season,
some tasks will have to be undertaken simultaneously. The City Manager recommended that
staff continue to work on reaching an agreement with Lamar, while alternative funding sources
are also being investigated.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GlyafAlartwda
.ubIicWorks
Department
Public Wad Works for Yom!
Report #5 -E
3 -16 -04
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers March 3, 2004
Should Council approve the recommended criteria, staff will develop a list of recommended bus
shelter locations and present it to the Transportation Technical Team (TTT). The TTT will
review the list and forward its recommended location list to the City Council for final approval.
While the shelter location list (master plan) is being finalized, shelter design options will be
brought to the Planning Board for review. Also at this time, staff will work with Lamar to reach
a mutually acceptable agreement regarding the specifics of installing the shelters.
Based on the time required by Lamar to install the shelters, as well as the steps required for the
City's approval process, staff has developed the approximate timeline below. The timeline is
aggressive, and indicates the minimum amount of time required for each step in the process to
begin shelter installation before the next rainy season. For example, if contract negotiations take
longer than anticipated or the City selects an unusual shelter design, the process could be delayed
until early 2005.
City Council votes to approve criteria
Public Works staff prepares master plan of shelter locations
Transportation Technical Team (TTT) approves locations
Planning Board reviews shelter design
City Council approves shelter locations, shelter design, and
contract with Lamar Transit Advertising
Site plan development, review and approval
Shelter manufacture
Shelter installation
March 16
March 31
April 14
April 26
May 18
May -July
July- September
October
Criteria
At its December 16 meeting, Council addressed the bus shelter siting criteria recommended by
the TC and the Planning Board. During the public comment period, Mr. Christopher Buckley
presented his recommended changes to the criteria. On January 15, 2004 the TC subcommittee
met with a number of residents, including Mr. Buckley, to review the criteria. The TC
subcommittee discussed Mr. Buckley's recommendations, and incorporated some of his
proposed changes (see Attachment 1 for the TC's responses to Mr. Buckley's recommendations).
On January 28, the full TC discussed and voted on the revised criteria. After discussions with
TC Chair, John Knox White, one of the final criteria approved by the TC was slightly modified
to ensure that the wording was clear and reflected the intent of the TC. The final recommended
criteria are as follows:
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtvofAlarneda
PublicWorks
Department
Public Works Works /r,!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
March 3, 2004
Bus Shelter Siting Criteria Recommended by the Transportation Commission
1) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be bus stops with the highest passenger
boardings.
2) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be those that serve origins and
destinations for transit - dependent populations.
3) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be those that are major bus transfer points
between bus lines.
4) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be those that provide access to
commercial and mixed use areas.
5) No advertising shelters shall be located in the R -1 (One - Family Residence), R -2 (Two -
Family Residence), R -3 (Garden Residential) R -4 (Neighborhood Residential), and R -5
(General Residential) zoning districts unless the location is immediately adjacent to or
across the street from a nonresidential use or the proposed location is on a street with more
than two travel lanes.
6) Advertising shelters may be installed at locations that would otherwise not be permitted
under criteria (5) above if approved by 67 percent of the residential property owners within
300 feet of the proposed location.
7) Advertising shelters shall be permitted in the R -6 and all non - residential zones with the
exception of locations within PSBA and WABA boundaries if those entities have adopted a
plan for installing and financing bus shelters. In the event no plans are adopted by
September 2004, the exemption shall no longer apply.
8) All advertising shelter locations must be within the top 100 bus stops in Alameda based on
boardings, using the best available data.
9) No advertising shelters shall be located in front of buildings on the City's or state's list of
historic monuments unless the City Council finds the advertising shelters is necessary based
on boardings and would not be detrimental to the character of the historic monument.
10) Advertising shelters shall be permitted in front of schools, but the City must approve
advertisements at these locations prior to installation.
11) No bus shelters shall be placed between a roadway and water on those roads with shoreline
access or which abut public parks.
12) In lieu of bus shelters provided through the bus shelter advertising program, private funds
may be used to purchase, install and maintain non - advertising shelters at specified locations,
pending City approval of shelter locations, shelter design, and the funding strategy.
Funding Issues
The January 15 subcommittee meeting also addressed funding options for bus shelters that would
not involve advertising. The staff report for the September 16 Council meeting included a
discussion of the potential use of City revenue sources — Community Development Block Grants,
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GNofAlanwda
tublicWorks
DDepartment
Public Works x6„kf rn!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 4
March 3, 2004
Redevelopment Funds, and Measure B — for bus shelters, but these funds are already committed
to other projects.
At the subcommittee meeting, the approximate timeline (see above) was discussed, and staff
indicated that any proposals for alternative funding options for a bus shelter program would have
to be submitted by the beginning of April, as the goal is to have the Council approve the contract
with Lamar in May. Any proposals will have to include both capital and ongoing maintenance
costs.
The following information was provided to the residents participating in the meeting:
• Proposed timeline for bus shelter program implementation (provided January 15)
• List of the 10 bus stops with the highest number of boardings, excluding stops in the
WABA and PSBA districts (provided January 16)
• AC Transit's 1998 boarding data for all bus stops in Alameda (provided January 16)
• A copy of the Joint Powers Agreement and Transit Shelter Implementation agreement
were provided to a member of the group (provided in November 2003, approximately)
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS/FISCAL IMPACT
The City will receive advertising revenues, estimated at $30.00 per advertising shelter per month,
through the regional bus shelter advertising program. If the City installed 40 shelters, we could
receive a bus shelter program valued at over $200,000 for capital outlay (shelters) and
approximately $14,400 annually. This would allow the City to repair an additional 17 sidewalk
locations annually (a 6% increase in our annual repair average).
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, approve the bus shelter siting
criteria.
By:
MTN/BB:dl
Attachment 1: TC Responses to Mr. C. Buckley
Resp mitt
M tthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
G:\PUB WORKS\P WADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \031604 \bus shelter criteria.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Give( Alameda
uubliCWod s
Department
Public Works Works for You!
Attachment 1
TC Responses to Christopher Buckley's Comments on
Proposed Bus Shelter Siting Criteria Presented
at December 16, 2003 City Council Meeting
NOTE: Mr. Buckley's recommended additions are underlined, and his recommended deletions
are indicated with a line through the text. The responses of the TC to each point are in italics.
Mr. Buckley recommended numbering the criteria to facilitate discussion. These numbers are
included below.
Generally the TC expressed concerns about making the criteria too restrictive, as this might
preclude the City being able to receive any shelters through the bus shelter program. Since the
criteria only limit the potential locations of the shelters, and all locations must ultimately be
approved by the City Council, the TC attempted to develop criteria with some flexibility.
1) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be located at bus stops with the highest
passenger boardings.
2) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be those that serve origins and
destinations for transit - dependent populations.
3) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be those that are major bus transfer
points between bus lines.
4) Highest priority locations for all bus shelters shall be those that provide access to
commercial and mixed use areas.
5) No advertising shelters shall be located in the R -1 (One - Family Residence), R -2 (Two -
Family Residence), and R -3 (Garden Residential) zoning districts unless the location is
immediately adjacent to or directly across the street from a nonresidential use or the
proposed location is on a street with more than two travel lanes other than parks or open
space.
The TC determined that the word "directly" and the prohibition on locations
across from parks or open space would make the siting criteria too restrictive.
The TC also agreed with the recommendation of the Planning Board to permit
advertising shelters on streets with more than two travel lanes.
6) Advertising shelters shall be considered in R -4 and R -5 zoning districts in areas where
use permits have been issued to permit immediately adjacent to or directly across the
street from nonresidential uses.
The TC determined that this change would make the siting criteria too restrictive.
7) Advertising shelters may be installed at locations that would otherwise not be permitted
under criteria (5) and (6) above if approved by 67 percent of the residential property
owners within 300 feet of the proposed location.
The TC supported this recommendation. The TC also supported Mr. Buckley 's
recommendation that this item be moved up in the list from number 8 to number 7.
7)8) Advertising shelters shall be permitted in the R -6 and all non - residential zones
with the exception of locations within PSBA and WABA boundaries if those entities
have adopted a plan for installing and financing bus shelters. In the event no plans are
adopted by September 2004, the exemption shall no longer apply.
9) All advertising shelter locations must be within the top 100 bus stops in Alameda based
on boardings, using the best available data.
The TC accepted this recommendation.
10) No advertising shelters shall be located in front of buildings on the City's or state's list of
historic monuments unless the City Council finds the advertising shelters is necessary
based on boardings and would not be detrimental to the character of the historic
monument,
The TC preferred to give the City Council the discretion to place advertising
shelters at these locations if appropriate.
11) Advertising shelters shall be permitted in front of schools, but advertisements at these
locations must be approved by the City prior to installation. .[Buckley comment: Who in
the City? I recommend the Planning Board. The School District should also be
involved.]
Rather than specify who at the City needed to approve the advertisements, the TC
preferred to leave this decision to the City.
12) No bus shelters shall be placed between a roadway and water on those roads with
shoreline access or which abut public parks.
13) All shelters will be placed to allow at least ? feet of clear sidewalk width.
The TC felt that this it was unnecessary to specify a minimum sidewalk clearance,
as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) establishes a minimum sidewalk
width requirement to enable safe wheelchair access.
14) No advertising shelter shall be placed at gateway locations, i.e. Webster Street and
Constitution Way, north of Eagle Avenue; Tilden Way; High Street north of Bayo Vista
Avenue; and Doolittle Drive. The restriction on advertising shelters along the foregoing
gateway streets shall also apply to any intersecting cross streets within 100 feet of the
gateway street.
The TC rejected this recommendation, as it felt that there were examples of
appropriate advertising shelter locations, such as northbound at Webster and
Atlantic, that would be excluded as the result of this change.
15) Criteria for appropriate and inappropriate advertising should be developed for all
advertising shelter locations (not just schools) and incorporated into any contract with
Lamar Transit Advertising.
The TC felt that the language of the Transit Shelter Implementation Agreement,
which includes a description of the types of advertising that are prohibited, was
sufficient for non - school locations.
G:\ PUBWORKS \LANDTRN \TRANSPORTATION\Transit \buses \bus shelter advertising program \TC responses to Buckley.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 3, 2004
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: James M. Flint
City Manager
Re: Discussion of Boat Speeding Issues on the Estuary
BACKGROUND
The California Harbors and Navigation Code (CHNC), which regulates marine vessels, specifies
that any vessel operating at speeds in excess of five miles per hour in the following four areas is
guilty of a misdemeanor.
1) Within 100 feet of any person who is engaged in the act of bathing
2) Within 200 feet of a beach frequented by bathers
3) Within 200 feet of a swimming float, diving platform, or lifeline
4) Within 200 feet of a boat landing
The United States Coast Guard (USCG), Alameda County, and the cities of Alameda and
Oakland have concurrent jurisdiction in the estuary. The USCG is the primary maritime agency
charged with the enforcement of all applicable federal laws including customs, illegal drugs,
immigration, marine pollution, etc. They are also responsible for aiding navigation and
removing hazards to navigation, and marine search and rescue. The USCG may also assist local
authorities in the execution of their responsibilities.
The role of the USCG does not preempt local law enforcement. Alameda County, and the cities
of Alameda and Oakland are the local law enforcement agencies for state and local laws. Local
police officers have the same authority and responsibilities in the estuary as anywhere else in
their respective cities, e.g. enforcement of the Municipal Code, the Penal Code, and the Harbors
and Navigation Code. (Every peace officer of any city or county is authorized to enforce the
CHNC).
Currently, only the Alameda Police Department (APD) patrols the estuary to enforce violations
of the CHNC including the no wake rules and the speed limit. An APD boat patrols ten hours a
day on Saturdays from the end of September to the end of March and Saturdays and Sundays
from the end of March to the end of September. The Oakland Police Department (OPD) does not
patrol the estuary, although it has in the past. The Alameda County Sheriff's Department
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtyofArlwda
PpubIi(Works
epaI ment
Public Works W kvf Yu!
Report #5 -F
3 -16 -04
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
March 3, 2004
(ACSD) recently purchased a boat; however, it is used for homeland security enforcement
purposes and enforcement of CHNC violations is not their primary role. The boat is kept at the
Port of Oakland and used to patrol the entire Alameda County coastline. The USGC does not
enforce the CHNC.
Within the last 5 years APD has issued 10 citations to boaters, 2 were for the speeding /no wake
rule (CHNC), 6 were for not displaying the boat number on the boat (CVC), 2 were for operating
a power boat in the lagoon (AMC). In addition, APD has made 6 arrests for driving under the
influence (DUI). A CHNC speeding violation results in a $180 fine, $9 of which is returned to
the City of Alameda.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Multi- jurisdictional Task Force:
At the August 2003 Transportation Commission (TC) meeting, nine citizens and marina
managers expressed concerns about the large wakes caused by speeding boats in the Oakland
Estuary. The speakers requested the City's help in obtaining increased enforcement of and
compliance with the speed limit and the no wake rules in the Oakland Estuary. These wakes
have serious safety consequences for both boat passengers and people on the docks and have
caused property damage to docks and boats.
At the October 29, 2003 TC meeting, the following motion was passed:
The Transportation Commission requests that the City Council direct staff to work with the City
of Oakland, the U.S. Coast Guard and Alameda County to establish a multi jurisdictional task
force (that allows for citizen involvement) to prepare an inter jurisdictional Plan of Action to
resolve the safety problems in the Oakland Estuary.
An interagency task force on Oakland Estuary safety issues could help coordinate enforcement
efforts, ensure more uniform enforcement, and formulate a uniform ordinance for the entire
estuary. The sharing of enforcement responsibilities among several agencies would spread the
costs and result in an increased enforcement presence with the goal being to work toward
providing enforcement seven days per week. This task force would include members of all
agencies with jurisdiction on the estuary and members of the boating community.
In response to the TC's motion, the APD called each of the agencies that have jurisdiction in the
estuary. Both OPD and ACSD indicated that due to potential budget cuts in the next fiscal year,
the likelihood of expanding or starting a new program to fill the gaps in enforcement is very
slim. They also declined to commit to an interagency task force at this time. The feedback from
USCG was that since this is not their primary responsibility, they were not interested in being
part of the task force.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
thvillineda
PibHCWorks
I
leparh"ent
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
March 3, 2004
Staff presented the results of APD's attempts to convene a multi jurisdictional task force to the
TC at their February 25, 2004 meeting. Marina representatives and the TC reiterated their desire
for an interagency task force and expressed the importance that all pertinent agencies be involved
in the solution so that the City of Alameda is not saddled with all the costs and responsibilities.
The TC also raised the issue of shared liability given that the City of Alameda is the sole
enforcement agency at present.
At the March 2, 2004 City Council meeting representatives of the marina community reiterated
the need for a multi jurisdictional task force.
While the USCG, ACSD and OPD cannot commit to a task force at this time, a letter from the
Council stressing the need for enforcement and recommending the creation of the task force
could be an effective measure in persuading those agencies to meet and discuss the issues and
roles involved. This would not involve a commitment of funds at this time.
Education Program:
Public Works staff is also pursuing a strategy to educate boaters using the public launch pad and
marinas of the no wake rules, speed limits and potential fines. This education program would
consist of signs and flyers. Staff would fabricate signs to advise boaters of the no wake rules,
speed limits and potential fines. The City will install these signs at the two public boat launches
and provide signs to the eight private marinas for them to install. In addition, staff would
develop an informational flyer regarding the no wake rules, speed limits and potential fines to be
signed by the Police Chief and Fire Chief. These flyers would be provided to the marinas for
distribution.
Other Options:
If the Alameda Police Department were to enforce 7 days per week, 12 hours per day, the
additional cost would be approximately $750,000 for a second boat, staff time, and boat
operations and maintenance. The cost of increased enforcement to a minimum of the sunrise and
sunset time periods on holidays, summer weekends and both weekend days during the winter is
estimated to be approximately $125,000 in staff time and boat operations /maintenance. While
the General Fund can not support increases of this amount, one option for increased revenues for
the purposes of waterway enforcement and education is to adopt a fee or surcharge on the rental
of the boat slips and landing fees that would go directly to paying for educational materials and
for enforcement efforts.
The Department of Boating and Waterways has a grant program for capital equipment (including
boats) for local law enforcement agencies conducting marine patrol. (The next grant application
deadline is April 30, 2004). It also has a program for funding enforcement of the waterways, but
no new agencies have been added to the program since 1996 due to lack of funding.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
tublicWois
cnvoru.
uepartment
Public Wo. k Wagon!. nu!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Page 4
March 3, 2004
This report is provided for informational purposes only and there is no effect on the General
Fund.
RECOMMMENDATION
This report is provided as a basis for Council discussion.
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Res s - • 1 ily submitted,
r
4011 � .aril
Burnh. atth: Jim Christiansen
Chief of Police Fire Chief
By: Michelle DeRobertis By: Sgt. Ted Horlbeck By: Captain Ken Rankin
Associate Engineer
MTN/MD:dl
cc: Transportation Commission
G :\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \031604 \Oakland Estuary.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
• Givofillarnedi
tublicWorl s
Department
wtr Wods xb,* sw,r