The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-04-06 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: To: From: March 29, 2004 Honorable Mayor And Councilmembers James M. Flint City Manager Re: Regular and Special City Council Meetings, Regular Meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings of April 6, 2004 Transmitted herewith are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special City Council Meetings, Regular Meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings of April 6, 2004. HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -A Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Special meeting held February 17, 2004. The Board secretary has presented for approval the Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Special meeting held February 17, 2004. 2 -B Approving Housing Authority Budget Revision for Fiscal Year 2004. Due to changes in the projections of income and expenditures, modifications are necessary to the Housing Authority's budget for fiscal year 2004. It is recommended that these adjustments, which include carrying over some projects to the next fiscal year in order to take care of other contingencies, be approved. It is further recommended that the resolution revising the budget for the Conventional Low -Rent Housing Program for Esperanza be adopted. 2 -C Approving Housing Authority Budget for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006. It is recommended that the budget for fiscal years 2004 -2006 be approved; the resolutions for both budget years for the Conventional Low -Rent Housing Program Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Se►vice Honorable Mayor and March 29, 2004 Councilmembers Page 2 for Esperanza be adopted, and that it be recommended to the City Council to approve a waiver of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes for both fiscal years. 2 -D First Amendment to Affordable Housing Agreement by and between Housing Authority of the City of Alameda and Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. It is recommended that the Affordable Housing Agreement between the Housing Authority and the Community Improvement Commission be amended so that the tax increment fund balance be released, that the funds not needed by the Housing Authority for Independence Plaza can be utilized for other affordable housing projects outside the original project area, and that the agreement be extended for an additional year. REGULAR AGENDA 3 -A Approving Refinancing Plan for Complexes. It is recommended that the Board of Commissioners approve refinancing of bonds a notes for Parrot Village, Eagle Village and China Clipper Plaza totaling not more than $7 million, including rehabilitation and bond issuance costs, and authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute all necessary documents related to the transaction. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1 -A Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings of March 16, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings of March 16, 2004. 1 -B Recommendation to approve the First Amendment to Affordable Housing Agreement by and Between, the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. [In conjunction with Board of Commissioners Item #2 -D] It is recommended that the Affordable Housing Agreement between the Housing Authority and the Community Improvement Commission be amended so that the tax increment fund balance be released, that the funds not needed by the Housing Authority for Independence Plaza be utilized for other affordable housing projects outside the original project area, and that the agreement be extended for an additional year. Honorable Mayor and March 29, 2004 Councilmembers Page 3 1 -C Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to amend the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris and Associates by extending the contract term to December 31, 2004, and adding authority of $825,000 for professional engineering and construction support services in connection with the Bayport Project. It is recommended that the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris and Associates be amended to extend the life of the contract until December 31, 2004 and add to the consultant's compensation for services during the extension of the contract. REGULAR AGENDA 2 -A Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to initiate preparation of a Webster Street Strategic Plan. It is recommended that the Executive Director be authorized to initiate preparation of a Webster Street Strategic Plan. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation declaring April 24, 2004 as Earth Day in Alameda. At this time the Mayor will present a proclamation declaring April 24, 2004 as Earth Day. CONSENT CALENDAR 4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 16, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 16, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to waive Payment in Lieu of Taxes for Esperanza complex for Fiscal Years 2004 -2005 and 2005 -06. [In conjunction with Board of Commissioners Item #2 -C (3)] It is recommended that the Council waive the Payment in Lieu of Taxes for the Esperanza Housing Complex for Fiscal years 2004 -2006, the savings therefore would be used to cover the expenditures needed for police services. 4 -C. Recommendation to accept Annual Report on the Library Construction Project and Uses of the General Obligation Bond Proceeds for period ending February 28, 2004. Honorable Mayor and March 29, 2004 Councilmembers Page 4 In accordance with reporting requirements for expenditure of general obligation bonds, the Annual Report on the Library Construction is provided for the Council's information. 4 -D. Recommendation to authorize installation of an All -Way Stop Control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Chestnut Street. It is recommended that an all -way stop be installed at the intersection of Santa Clara and Chestnut. As noted, the intersection meets the criteria to justify this traffic regulation. 4 -E. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids for annual fuel delivery to various locations within the City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2005, No. P.W. 03- 04 -04. It is recommended that Council approve plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids for purchase and delivery of fuel to be distributed from five locations throughout the City. 4 -F. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $119,040, including contingencies, to Linear Options, Inc. for Traffic Striping Program, No. P.W. 12- 03 -19. It is recommended that the contract for traffic striping be awarded to Linear Options, Inc. the low bidder. 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Administrative Services Manager and Senior Utility Analyst. This resolution amends the MCEA salary schedule to establish classifications for an Administrative Services Manager and Senior Utility Analyst for positions at Alameda Power and Telecom. 4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Acknowledging the Role of the City Council in the Northern California Power Agency and Other Utility Joint Powers Agreements. This resolution acknowledges the City's role in NCPA and other utility joint powers agreements. 4 -1. Adoption of Resolution to Vacate and Quitclaim an Existing Easement on East Bay Municipal Utility District Property. [Requires four (4) affirmative votes] Honorable Mayor and March 29, 2004 Councilmembers Page 5 This resolution vacates an utility easement granted to the City by EBMUD; the easement is no longer needed by the City. 4 -J. Bills for ratification. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Public Hearing to consider introduction of an ordinance "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 1 -7 (Administrative Citations) of Chapter I (General)" pertaining to code enforcement. This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comment on the proposal to amend the Alameda Municipal Code to allow Administrative Citations to be served personally or by first class mail rather than certified, return - receipt requested. This change will enable staff to issue citations to absentee landlords who refuse to accept certified mail. 5 -B. Recommendation to approve Bus Shelter Site Selection Criteria. [Continued from March 16, 2004] It is recommended that Council approve the bus shelter siting criteria as outlined in the staff report of March 3, 2004. As noted, a meeting was convened with Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters, Alameda Transit Advocates, a sub- committee of the Transportation Commission, the Mayor, the City Manager and staff. A schedule for moving forward with this project is provided. 5 -C. Recommendation regarding proposals received to operate Alameda ferry services. After evaluating a proposal submitted by Blue & Gold Fleet and a separate letter from Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry, it is recommended: to not accept the Blue and Gold proposal for combined ferry service; accept the Blue and Gold proposal to operate the Alameda /Oakland Service and commence negotiations; and, to not accept the Blue and Gold proposal to operate the Harbor Bay service, but to commence open market negotiations with Blue & Gold and Harbor Bay Maritime to operate Harbor Bay service. 5 -D. Final Passage 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). Final passage of this ordinance amends the Municipal Code to allow advertising and award of Public Works projects using design -build methods which may allow award to other than the lowest bidder if the firm can provide a project with a lower life -cycle cost or best value. Honorable Mayor and March 29, 2004 Councilmembers Page 6 5 -E. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). Final passage of this ordinance amends the Municipal Code to improve customer service, streamlines review procedures, clarifies technical issues and codifies practices and decisions currently being implemented. As noted in the staff report, the section on landscaping and private open space will be brought back to Council at a future date. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS 7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Paratransit Advisory Committee. At this time the Mayor will make an appointment to the Paratransit Advisory Committee. 7 -B. Discussion on requiring a competitive bid process for all bonds /debt issued by the City. [Vice Mayor Daysog] This item has been agendized at the request of Vice Mayor Daysog in order to present his proposal for a City Charter amendment concerning issuance of bonds /debt. 7 -C. Written communication from Olivia Garcia regarding strengthening laws against sex offenders. [Vice Mayor Daysog] This written communication has been agendized at the request of Vice Mayor Daysog. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 - 7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:41 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, Torrey and Chair Johnson. Absent: None. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Torrey moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Kerr seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Items accepted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *2 -A. Minutes of the Board of Commissioner Special meeting held February 3, 2004. Minutes were accepted. 3. AGENDA 3 -A. Approving Refinancing Plan for Complexes. Executive Director Pucci explained the nine different options available regarding the three complexes. The nine options are: 1. Taxable, fixed -rate loan from private lender. 2. Tax - exempt, fixed -rate loan from private lender. 3. ARM loan from private lender. 4. HA- issued, tax - exempt bonds. 5. JPA- issuesd tax - exempt, insured bonds. 6. HA- issued bonds with City /CIC guarantee. 7. CIC -and HA- Shared bond issuance. 8. Loan from City's General Fund. 9. CIC loan to HA from bond issuance. Mr. Pucci recommended refinancing with option #9, a CIC loan of $6M from a tax increment bond issuance. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service." Minutes of February 17, J4 Special Board of Commissioners Meeting Page 2 Chair Johnson said it was a fine presentation but at a previous meeting there were concerns about cost and if there were enough funds from the bonds for the CIC't, redevelopment projects. Commissioner Daysog responded that he thought the presentation was comprehensive and the options were fully explained. The redevelopment funds could be used for this program. Commissioner Kerr complimented the Housing Authority however felt Tax Increment Bond funds should be used for City redevelopment. Chair Johnson said before going any further she needed to know the cost of redevelopment as costs keep escalating. Chief Executive Officer Flint asked the Council if they wanted to still consider the CIC loan to the Housing Authority (option #9) or to pursue one of the other options. If they did not want to pursue option #9 it would be taken off the table. Both Commissioner Daysog and Matarrese said they wanted to consider it. Commissioner Matarrese asked for more information regarding the costs of the CIC projects and to see if refinancing can be accomplished with a combination of one of the other options with option #9. Chief Executive Officer Flint said an analysis will be done and brought back to the Board in a few weeks. 3 -B. Recommending Pursuit of Additional Federal Funding for Housing Assistance Payments. Commissioner Kerr moved to authorize the Housing Authority to continue its aggressive pursuit of additional federal funding and or a transfer of additional Section 8 Vouchers to prevent termination of Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments contracts and, if additional funds are needed, to amend the Housing Authority's budget as appropriate. Commissioner Daysog seconded. Motion passed 6 -0. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS None. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:06 p.m. Attest: Beverly Johnson, Chair Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Minutes of February 17, 2 4 Special Board of Commissioners Meeting Page 3 Michael T. Pucci Executive Director / Secretary Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 March 25, 2004 To: Honorable Chair and Members Of the Board of Commissioners From: James M. Flint Chief Executive Officer RE: Approving Housing Authority Budget Revision for Fiscal Year 2004 Background: On April 2, 2002, the Board of Commissioners approved the budget for two fiscal years, which runs from July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2004. The budget has been amended as needed. Since the last revision was adopted, several issues have arisen that have an impact on the budget. The Housing Commission had the opportunity to review this recommended revision at its meeting on March 24, 2004. Discussion: Since the last budget revision, the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has advised that the Housing Authority will receive an additional $39,588 under the Capital Fund Program and $1,212 in operating subsidy. Rental income is not as high as originally anticipated due to a higher vacancy rate, lower rents at Esperanza due to lower tenant incomes, and a delay in implementing a scheduled rent increase. Adjustments have been made in all funds based on current rent projections. The net effect on income is a reduction of $134,811. This budget revision includes two expenditure increases. The Audit line item is proposed to be increased by just over $2,000 to cover the additional work resulting from implementation of the new GASB34 auditing standards. The cost for employee benefits are expected to be more than $50,000 higher than anticipated, primarily due to the rising cost of the employee pension fund. One significant reduction is to the Parrot Village mortgage expense. This revision would correct the amount by reducing it by just over $15,000. Other minor adjustments decreasing costs, primarily for Parrot Village are included in this proposed budget revision. The total change to expenditures other than Extraordinary Maintenance is an increase of $40,399. The changes to Extraordinary Maintenance Projects are outlined on the next page. Report #2 -B (HABOC) 4 -6 -04 "Dedicated to Excellence. Committed to Service " Honorable Chair and F ..inbers of Board of Commissioners March 25, 2004 Page 2 of 3 Unchanged Projects GF3 -04 Paint exterior of office building $ 22,500 $ 22,500 8,500 FY05 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 31,000 $ 22,500 Unchanged Projects 157,329 157,329 ESP1 -04 Replace -17 toilets (move to FY05) ESP3 -04 ESP5 -04 3,200 FY05 Replace kitchen sinks, faucets in -15 units 6,000 FY05 Replace 12 utility meter closets ESP6 -04 ESP7 -04 ESP9 -04 ESP14 -04 Install gate valves Install cleanouts Irrigate main entry at Third and Brush Repair dry rot in Multi -Use Center 75,000 FY05 18,000 FY05 20,000 FY05 FY05 6,500 2,000 TOTAL ESPERANZA $ 281,529 $ 163,829 Unchanged Projects PV2 -04 Upgrade landscaping PV4 -04 Replace (overlay) roofs on 6 buildings PV5 -04 Replace lamp heads on pole lights •.v$ v: J.: {•: :;:iii +: $ 36,175 $ 36,175 40,000 FY05 FY05 25,000 8,600 14,500 TOTAL PARROT VILLAGE 109,775 $ 50,675 Unchanged Projects ABD1 -04 ABD3 -04 ABD5 -04 ABD6 -04 RV2 -04 PG2 -04 CC2 -04 CC3 -04 CC4 -04 EV2 -04 EV3 -04 ' }'i4 \i::5:'i }i:S: }j; +!.i• +.�iji{ \?' f�iiiii:>.: iiY4 : {i:ii:: }:•i:4iiiiiv!:'!.•::' v:A • \ \�i`........: }:n1 +:i: � ?: %::::}}::ii iiiiiii::jj::::}:v'ti'iii:v ":' }'i''!�•''i':i 4 -•': Seal floor (in hot water heater room) Repair exterior trim, paint, trim and seal shingles Install emergency back -up on all hallway lights Replace 50 heater control valves Replace 100 - gallon hot water heater Replace furnaces in 2 units Upgrade interior of elevator and install phone Remove and install roof on pool pump house Repair roof on cabana and patio Replace roofs on balance of buildings Replace cabinets and counter tops in 1 unit wif is $ 122,924 1$ 122,924 3,000 50,000 1,000 68,300 3,413 FY05 13,725 5,460 3,500 10,660 3,560 5,500 FY05 1,500 3,000 80,935 FY05 6,000 FY05 3,600 4,000 TOTAL HOUSING AUTHORITY -OWNED $ 305,482 $ 218,244 Unchanged Projects IP3 -04 Replace one 85- gallon hot water heaters IP5 -04 Build new 25 -car parking area IP6 -04 Bathroom door reversal on remaining 77 doors $ 34,000 6,000 150,000 $ 34,000 FY05 29,000 21,000 TOTAL INDEPENDENCE PLAZA $ 219,000 $ 55,000 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and IV .fibers of Board of Commissioners March 25, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Most of the EMP changes involve carrying over projects to next fiscal year. There are a few changes recommended in the amounts for some current year projects. Some of these changes are the result of the actual cost being lower than the budgeted amount (e.g., ABD1 -04, ABD6 -04, and IP6 -04) or bids that have come in higher than anticipated (e.g., PV5 -04, PG2 -04, CC3 -04, EV3 -04). In the case of CC4 -04, the project was expanded to include replacement of the patio cover as well as the cabana roof at China Clipper Plaza. Replacing hot water heaters (RV2 -04 and IP3 -04) were budgeted as contingencies in case these items needed to be replaced. They are proposed to be deleted from the budget. If an emergency repair is needed, it can be authorized by the Executive Director and would be budgeted after the fact per the Housing Authority's procurement policies and procedures. The proposed budget revision recommends one new project (ESP14 -04). Dry rot has been discovered in one corner of the building at the Esperanza Multi -Use Center. Staff believes that this issue needs to be addressed as soon as possible to reduce any further damage to the facility. The repair should not exceed $6,500 in cost. All EMP changes will result in a decrease in expenditures of $436,538 this fiscal year. Changes to the budget that affect Esperanza must be made by resolution. A copy of the proposed resolution is attached as Exhibit A. Fiscal Impact The proposed changes would produce a positive net change in the budget of $261,388. It is proposed to carry these savings over to next fiscal year for completion of the Extraordinary Maintenance Projects not completed this year. Recommendation The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend that the Board of Commissioners: 1. Approve the proposed 2003 -2004 revised budget; and 2. Adopt the proposed resolution revising the budget for the Conventional Low -Rent Housing Program No. CA -062 (Esperanza). MTP:ED Attachment u:IBOCIBudget Rev4 FY2004 Respectfully subm Michael T. Pucci Executive Director Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service PHA/IHA Board Resolutio' Approving Operating Budget or Calculation of Performance Funding System Operating Subsidy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing OMB Approval No. 2577 -0026 (Exp. 6/30/20( EXHIBIT A Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the timefor reviewing instructions, s..archi existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may n idi or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless that collecton displays a valid OMB control number. This information is required by Section 6(c)(4) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The information is the operating budget for the low- income housing progri and provides a summary of proposed/budgeted receipts and expenditures, approval of budgeted receipts and expenditures, and justification of certain specifi amounts. HUD reviews the information to determine if the operating plan adopted by the PHA and the amounts are reasonable and that the PHA is in complian with procedures prescribed by HUD. Responses are required to obtain benefits. This information does not lend itself to confidentiality. Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the below -named Public Housing Agency (PHA) /Indian Housing Authority (IHH as its Chairman, I make the following certifications and agreements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HU: regarding the Board's approval of (check one or more as applicable): X Operating Budget Submitted on: Operating Budget Revision Submitted on: Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: Revised Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: (date) April 6, 2004 I certify on behalf of the: (PHtUIHA Name) Housing Authority of the City of Alameda that: 1. All regulatory and statutory requirements have been met; 2. The PHA has sufficient operating reserves to meet the working capital needs of its developments; 3. Proposed budget expenditures are necessary in the efficient and economical operation of the housing for the purpose of servii low- income residents; 4. The budget indicates a source of funds adequate to cover all proposed expenditures; 5. The calculation of eligibility for Federal funding is in accordance with the provisions of the regulations; 6. All proposed rental charges and expenditures will be consistent with provisions of law; 7. The PHA /IHA will comply with the wage rate requirements under 24 CFR 968.110(e) and (f) or 24 CFR 905.120(c) and (d); 8. The PHA /IHA will comply with the requirements for access to records and audits under 24 CFR 968.110(i) or 24 CFR 905.120(g and 9. The PHA /IHA will comply with the requirements for the reexamination of family income and composition under 24 CFR 960.20 990.115 and 905.315. I hereby certify that all the information stated within, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and /or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3i 80 Board Chairman's Name (type) Beverly Johnson, Chair Signature Date Previous edition is obsolete form HUD -52574 (10/9 ref. Handbook 7575 Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 March 25, 2004 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners FROM: James M. Flint Chief Executive Officer RE: Approving Housing Authority Budget for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006 Background: The Housing Authority must submit its budget to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in April, prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year. This is the second year in which the Authority will submit a two -year budget for the approval of the Board of Commissioners. The Housing Commission had the opportunity to review the proposed budget at its meeting of March 24, 2004. Discussion: The Housing Authority's budget for housing program activities is consolidated into six funds. Exhibit A is the proposed budget for the next two fiscal years, July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2005 (FY2005) and July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2006 (FY2006). The comparison pages show both years next to the current fiscal year; this comparison assumes approval of the budget revision proposed in a separate report. The proposed FY2005 budget totals $27,290,004 for FY2005 and $27,374,949 for FY2006,. The increase in the operating budget for FY2005 over the current year is only 1.8 percent ($92,169). This modest increase is a reflection of the cautious approach being taken with this budget. A significant increase is proposed for Extraordinary Maintenance Projects (EMPs) but only when there are reserves adequate to cover the cost. OPERATING INCOME Operating income is derived from a variety of sources, including: o Housing Assistance Payments for Playa del Alameda (General Fund) and the Section 8 Program, an operating subsidy and federal grant funding (Capital Fund Program) for Esperanza. o Rental income from residents and commercial tenants. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #2 -C (HABOC) 4 -6 -04 Honorable Chair and Mc1nbers March 25, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 8 o Interest income. o Other income, including a contribution from the Community Improvement Commission for Independence Plaza; fees from the Filipino - American Community Services Agency (FACSA) for managing two complexes; land trust rents for the Regent Street and Santa Clara Avenue properties; and miscellaneous income from late fees, maintenance charges, laundry commissions, etc. The following chart demonstrates that the Housing Authority's major funding source (83 %) is the federal government. Major changes in the Housing Choice Voucher Program have been proposed. If the proposed Flexible Voucher Program is implemented, the Housing Authority can expect to lose approximately $2 million in funding, and 197 fewer families could be assisted. Whether this change will occur is unknown. If it does, it will likely affect the budget for FY2006. Admin. Fees & Rents 16% Interest Other Income INCOM E Federal Funding 83% Because of the uncertainty about the level of federal funding of the Housing Choice Voucher Program, the proposed budget anticipates little change in funding next fiscal year for this tenant -based Section 8 program. The Authority anticipates receiving $19,616,500 in Housing Assistance Payments that are offset, dollar for dollar, by payment to Alameda's landlords. An additional $1,417,361 in fees to administer this program also is expected. The operating subsidy for Esperanza ($94,335) is based on a formula; an increase should be received next year. The Capital Fund grant is budgeted at $240,000, approximately the same amount being received this fiscal year. This grant funding helps to offset the operating deficit at Esperanza and enables the Housing Authority to make a few repairs and improvements. For all funds, rental income is expected to increase slightly. Interest income is expected to stay the same or increase slightly depending on the fund. Other miscellaneous sources of income are expected to increase slightly in most funds. EXPENDITURES: The majority of expenditures are for Housing Assistance Payments to landlords participating in the Housing Choice Voucher program. These payments subsidize the rents paid by their tenants that have vouchers. This public/private partnership works to Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Mt.., lbers of the Board of Commissioners March 25, 2004 Page 3 of 8 house more than 1600 families in Alameda and pumps more than $20 million into the local economy every year. As you can see by the chart, the Operating Budget makes up nearly 20 percent of the budget. This is the portion that enables the Authority to administer its managed housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs. Capital Improvements (i.e., capital equipment and Extraordinary Maintenance Projects [EMPs]) make up only 3 percent of the proposed budget. For the next two years, only EMPs are budgeted. EXPENSES Operating Budget 19% Mortgage payments and payments into equipment and building replacement reserves make up 6 percent of the budget. As previously mentioned, the vast majority (73 %) of the budget is used to pay Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) to Alameda's landlords who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. OPERATING BUDGET: Operating expenses are broken down into five broad categories. These include: 1. Administrative Expenses: Salaries, legal expenses, and sundry are included in this category. Due to the ongoing State budget crisis and the impact it might have on the City of Alameda, no salary increases are anticipated next fiscal year. Based on an evaluation of actual expenditures, legal expenses are expected to change only slightly next year. The Sundry line item includes office supplies and equipment (e.g., computers, printers); travel and training; audit fees; telephone expenses; and publications costs. The Housing Authority has replaced nearly all of its computer equipment over the last few years with equipment that is capable of running modern programs. There are only a few computers that may need to be replaced on an as- needed basis next fiscal year. The process of updating the basic software program (e.g., word processing, spreadsheets, presentations) will begin next year. Most employees are using software from the original 1995 purchase. Current govemment pricing, reveals that the cost for software upgrades for all 30 users would be just under $10,000. Purchases, therefore, will be phased in over the next two or three years as funds are available. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Mwmbers March 25, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 4 of 8 Administrative contract costs (e.g., maintenance contracts on office equipment, contracts for services with the City Manager's Office, Information Technology and Human Resources Departments, temporary labor, software maintenance, etc.) also are included in this line item. Travel and training includes attendance at National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) conferences as well as other training. The following shows the out -of -state training locations and the number of persons proposed to attend: Summer NAHRO Conference Detroit, Michigan National NAHRO Conference Baltimore, Maryland Fall Regional NAHRO Conference Scottsdale, Arizona NAHRO Legislative Conference Hsg. & Dev. Law Institute Annual Conference Washington, D.C. Housing Finance Workshop Labor Standards & Section 3 Workshop Location to be determined One Commissioner and one staff One Commissioner and one staff One Commissioner and one staff One Staff One Staff One Staff One Staff The last two training sessions are generally held in Las Vegas or Reno, Nevada, because of lower facilities cost. Occasionally, these sessions are held in California. 2. Tenant Services: The salaries for program staff, resident managers, resident custodians, the Esperanza Youth Program and other tenant - related activities are included in this category. No salary increases are anticipated. This budget proposes continuing the Esperanza Youth Program at a modest level ($30,000). The Boys and Girls Club generally is able to supplement this budget with grant funding. This program provides a valuable service for children and youth at Esperanza. Other activities include the Landlord Outreach Program, Town Hall meetings, etc. 3. Utilities: The amounts budgeted for utilities are based on actual utilities expenditures in the current fiscal year and anticipated changes. The water /sewer rate is expected to increase somewhat while electricity and gas rates are expected to remain fairly stable. 4. Maintenance: Maintenance expenditures include salaries for maintenance employees, maintenance materials (e.g., tools, cleaning supplies, faucets, light bulbs, etc.), and contract costs. No salary increases are anticipated. The projected cost for maintenance materials is based on actual expenditures this year, which are not expected to change appreciably. The contract cost estimate is based upon actual contract amounts for Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Meg i ibers March 25, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 5 of 8 landscape maintenance, tree trimming, etc., and projected new contracts in the upcoming fiscal year. 5. General: This line item includes the cost of the community- policing program, insurance (i.e., property, liability, workers' compensation), employee benefits, and collection losses. The budget for the community - policing program increased from $150,000 in FY2003 to $170,000 this year. The cost to continue this program will be $190,000 in FY2005 and $210,000 in FY2006. The cost of insurance, employee benefits and collection losses have been adjusted to reflect projected actual expenditures over the next two fiscal years. As mentioned in the proposed budget revision for the current fiscal year, employee benefits costs have risen, primarily due to the increasing cost of the employee pension plan. The three remaining expense categories are entitled Mortgage /HAP /Reserves, Capital Expenses and Other Expenses: Mortgage /HAP /Reserves: This category includes mortgage payments for the various complexes, Housing Assistance Payments (HAP), and reserves for equipment (e.g., computers, copy machines) and buildings, which includes associated machinery (e.g., roofs, boilers). Generally, the mortgage holder has established the amounts deposited into the building reserve accounts for each complex. The Housing Authority, however, has established reserve accounts for those buildings where there is no mortgage or the mortgage holder has not set the amount (e.g., office building and some complexes under HA- Owned). Mortgage costs will decrease if the Board of Commissioners approves the proposed refinancing plan for China Clipper Plaza, Parrot Village and Eagle Village. These decreases are not reflected in the proposed budget but will be reflected in a later revision if approval is received and when the exact timing and cost are known. The Section 8 HAP expense ($19,207,500), which is the most significant expenditure, is offset dollar for dollar by HAP income from HUD. Capital Expenses: No capital items, defined as durable items with a value of $10,000 or more, are proposed for FY2005 or FY2006. Other Expenses: This category includes Extraordinary Maintenance Projects (EMPs) and Predevelopment Costs. The proposed budget includes a small amount ($10,000) for pre - development because no projects are anticipated for FY2005 or FY2006. If a new development project comes up in the next two years, the budget will be revised accordingly. EMPs for FY2005 and FY2006 are shown on the Schedule of Extraordinary Maintenance Projects, the last two pages of the budget (Exhibit A). Several projects are Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Mwinbers March 25, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 6 of 8 not expected to be completed this fiscal year and are included in the EMP Schedule for FY2005 or will be added if the Board of Commissioners approves the refinancing plan. Under the General Fund, the project being carried over from FY2004 (i.e., painting the office building) is expected to cost $30,300. This is a substantial increase over the $8,500 proposed for this project last year, but is based on current estimates. No new projects are proposed for FY2005. Three projects for the Housing Authority office are proposed for FY2006, replacing the carpeting ($40,250), overhauling the HVAC system ($40,000), and replacing the flat portion of the roof ($15,000). Six of the Esperanza projects that will not be completed this fiscal year are being carried over to FY2005. They include replacing 17 toilets, replacing kitchen sinks and faucets in 15 units, replacing 12 utility meter closets, installing gate valves and cleanouts, and installing an irrigation system for the landscaped area at the main entry. There are three new projects proposed for Esperanza in FY2005. These projects include continuing the replacement of kitchen cabinets and countertops ($59,410), replacing bathroom vanity and sinks ($9,750), and painting the exterior of all 22 buildings at this complex ($165,000). In FY2006, three projects are proposed that will continue the upgrades to kitchen cabinets and countertops ($61,200) and to bathroom toilets, vanities and sinks ($13,200). Two FY2004 projects at Parrot Village are not included in next year's budget; however, they will be added if the refinancing plan is approved. They include upgrading the landscaping and replacing the roof overlay on six buildings. No projects are budgeted for FY2006. Under the Housing Authority -Owned Fund, three projects will not be completed this fiscal year. One project, installing emergency back up lighting in all hallways at Anne B. Diament Plaza, is included in the proposed budget. The remaining two projects, upgrading the interior and adding a phone to the elevator at China Clipper Plaza, and replacing the roofs on the remaining buildings at Eagle Village, will be added if the refinancing plan is approved. Nine new projects are proposed for Housing Authority -Owned complexes. These projects include continuing the replacement of kitchen cabinets ($26,500), upgrading interior Tight fixtures ($6,500), refurbishing the elevator ($4,000), replacing the roof ($85,000), and filling cracks and sealing the balconies ($23,000) at Anne B. Diament Plaza. The kitchen cabinet replacement ($27,300) will continue in FY2006. At Rosefield Village, only the continuation of furnace replacements will continue in both FY2005 ($10,800) and FY2006 ($11,500). The same is true for Parrot Gardens in FY2005, which will complete the replacements of furnaces ($4,000) and kitchen cabinets ($8,500). The Lincoln/Willow complex is scheduled to be painted ($8,000) in FY2005. At Independence Plaza, only one project (adding a 25-car parking area) is being carried over to FY2005. Three new projects are proposed in FY2005 and FY2006. This budget, if approved, will allow the process of recarpeting ($12,500 in FY2005 and $12,800 in FY2006) and repainting ($26,000 in FY2005 and $26,500 in FY2006) the Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Me, I ibers March 25, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 7 of 8 corridors to continue. Painting two of the five buildings ($132,000) is slated for FY2005, and painting the remaining three buildings in FY2006 ($176,000). The overall cost for EMPs next year is expected to be $892,973, an increase over the proposed budget revision total of $510,248 for the current year. Several projects may be added to FY2005 if approval of the refinancing plan is obtained. In FY2006, the total cost for EMPs is expected to be $434,950. TOTAL BUDGET If approved by the Board of Commissioners, the budget for FY2005 will be $27,095,004. Under the proposed budget, deficits would appear in the General Fund and the funds for Esperanza, Parrot Village, and Independence Plaza. A surplus would be realized in the Housing Authority -Owned ($374,509 in FY2005 and $535,429 in FY2006) and Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Fund ($234,352 in FY2005 and $27,411 in FY2006). Operating reserves would cover the projected General Fund deficit of $14,755 and the Esperanza deficit of $288,569. In both cases, these deficits are the result of extraordinary maintenance projects. The same is true in FY2006. Parrot Village is expected to have a deficit of $38,509. With no extraordinary maintenance projects budgeted for FY2005 or FY2006, this reveals a problem. It is a problem that should be resolved if the proposed refinancing of this complex and conversion to tenant -based Section 8 assistance proceed as planned. Independence Plaza will end the year with a deficit of $272,107 in FY2005 and $160,092 in FY2006. These deficits are the result of extraordinary maintenance projects and will be covered by replacement reserves. Overall, the budget for FY2005 anticipates a small deficit of $5,079. In FY2006, the Housing Authority expects to realize a surplus of $299,646. PILOT This budget assumes that the City Council will waive the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) for FY2005 and FY2006 as it has in the past. The City of Alameda and the Housing Authority have a cooperation agreement for the Esperanza complex. This agreement exempts the complex from real and personal taxes and calls for a PILOT equivalent to 10 percent of rents collected, less utilities and collection losses. PILOT for FY2005 is estimated to be approximately $46,590 and $47,988 for FY2006. About $12,486 of the FY2005 amount and $12,861 of the FY2006 amount would go to the City of Alameda. The balance would be distributed among local taxing agencies according to the same formula as property taxes. The Housing Authority and the City of Alameda have previously justified the waiving of PILOT based on the Authority's payment to the City for direct and indirect services rendered, including the provision of police services, which is scheduled to increase in cost to $190,000 in FY2005 and $210,000 in FY2006. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners March 25, 2004 Page 8 of 8 Based on past practice, the budget proposes that the Housing Commission recommend to the Board of Commissioners to recommend to the City Council to waive PILOT for FY2005 and FY2006. HUD requires that the Board of Commissioners adopt a resolution to approve the budget for the Conventional Low -Rent Housing Program, Project No. CA062 (Esperanza) for each of the two budget years. Copies of the proposed resolutions are attached as Exhibits B and C. DEVELOPMENT FUND The Development Fund is not included on the detail pages of the attached budget. There is only a small balance in this fund and no development activities are planned. The only income to the fund will be interest. No other activity and, therefore, no other expenses are expected or budgeted. Recommendation: The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend that the Board of Commissioners: 1. Adopt the proposed budget, including the Extraordinary Maintenance Projects line item, for fiscal years 2004 -2005 and 2005 -2006; 2. Adopt the proposed resolutions for both budget years for the Conventional Low -Rent Housing Program No. CA062 (Esperanza); and 3. Recommend to the City Council to waive the Payment in Lieu of Taxes for both fiscal years. MTP: ED Attachments ed (UABOCIBudget FY2005 and FY2006) Respectfully submi Michael T. Pucci Executive Director Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Exhibit A HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004 - 2005 AND FISCAL YEAR 2005 - 2006 FY2005 AND FY2006 BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Description of Budget Funds 1 Budget Comparison Spreadsheets (FY2004 vs. FY2005 and FY2006) General Fund 2 Esperanza 2 Parrot Village 3 Housing Authority -Owned 3 Independence Plaza 4 Section 8 4 TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS 5 Schedule of Authorized Positions 6 Schedule of Extraordinary Maintenance Projects 7, 8 General Fund Budget — Page 1 DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET FUNDS This fund is for operations not otherwise chargeable to other funds, including expenses related to legal services and housing development services. It also includes income and expenses related to the FACSA -owned properties located on Sherman Street and Lincoln Avenue and management of the Housing Assistance Payments contracts for Playa del Alameda and the Shelter Plus Care Program. Esperanza This fund is for the operations of the Esperanza complex, a conventional public housing complex. Parrot Village This fund is for the operations of Parrot Village, a Section 8 New Construction complex. Housing Authority- This fund includes the complexes where the residents are Owned Housing Choice Voucher holders, including Anne B. Diament Plaza, Rosefield Village, Parrot Gardens and Eagle Village. It also includes the operations of the condominiums, the Lincoln/Willow complex, Stanford House, China Clipper Plaza and any expenses related to land ownership of the Regent Street and Santa Clara properties. Independence Plaza This fund is for the operations of Independence Plaza. This fund receives tax increment funds under the Affordable Housing Agreement between the Authority and the Community Improvement Commission, which makes 128 of the 186 units available for very -low and low - income seniors. Housing Choice Voucher This fund is for the operations of the Housing Choice Program Voucher (Section 8) and Moderate Rehabilitation Programs. Budget - Page 2 DESCRIPTION: GENERAL FUND ESPERANZA CURRENT PROPOSED PROPOSES 2004 I 2005 1 2006 CURRENT PROPOSED OPOSED 2004 I 2005 I PR 2006 OPERATING INCOME: 409,000 421,000 433,209 20,151 24,500 25,235 15,914 15,914 15,914 43,975 44,310 44,510 67,468 94,335 97,165 569,638 580,958 592,474 ? 12,731 12,731 12,731 ? 243,229 245,000 245,000 HAP /Operating Subsidy Admin Fee /Rents Interest Other Income TOTAL INCOME 489,040 505,724 518,868 893,066 933,024 947,370 6 b1 RAT1IVTEXPENUES: -_ ADMINISTRATIVE: 11,666 30,129 31,033 5,983 0 0 36,999 0 0 120,280 137,251 141,369. 7,343 8,127 8,371 46,350 61,211 63,047; 173,973 206,589 212,787' Total Admin. Salaries Legal Sundry TOTAL 54,648 30,129 31,033 TENANT SERVICES 485 1,608 1,656 0 0 0 40,898 21,172 21,807 45,000 30,000 30,000 Salaries Tenant Activities TOTAL 485 1,608 1,656 85,898 51,172 51,807 UTILITIES: 690 0 0 212 0 0 1,697 0 0 76,385 75,893 78,170 12,731 12,970 13,359 2,122 2,299 2,368 Water & Sewer Electricity Gas TOTAL 2,599 0 0 91,238 91,162 93,897 MAINTENANCE: 15,369 4,082 4,204 1,646 0 0 4,744 0 0 ` 142,533 150,226 154,733 30,339 30,339 31,249 166,080 151,459 156,003 Salaries Materials Contract Costs TOTAL : 21,759 4,082 4,204: 338,952 332,024 341,984 GENERAL: 0 0 0 1,061 0 0 15,000 15,000 15,000 6,394 9,159 9,434 0 0 0 66,356 71,060 71,0 23,340 23,450 24,154 :: 0 0 0 69,481 78,294 80,643 > 3,183 3,183 3,278 Police Services Insurance Claims Account Employee Benefits Collection Losses TOTAL 22,455 24,159 24,434 162,360 175,987 179,135 TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES 'NfORTGAUEIHAPIR ENVES _ - _ ' 101,946 59,978 61,327 409,000 409,000 409,000 0 0 0 1,200 1,200 1,200 10,000 10,000 10,000 852,421 856,933 879,610 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 2,200 2,200 2,200 0 0 0 HAP Mortgage Replacement Reserve(Equip.) Replacement Reserve(Bld.) TOTAL 420,200 420,200 420,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 CAPITAL EXPENSES: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Replacement Equipment Additions TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER EXPENSES: 22,500 30,300 95,250 10,609 10,000 10,000 163,829 362,460 74,400 0 0 0 Extraordinary Maint. Pre - development / Admin costs TOTAL 33,109 40,300 105,250 163,829 362,460 74,400 TOTAL EXPENSES 555,255 520,478 586,777 1,018,450 1,221,593 956,210 TRANSFERS (IN) /OUT (66,215) (14,755) (67,910) ` (125,384) (288,569) (8,840) BUDGET 05 -06 Riitlnat nptail nn1 DESCRIPTION: PARROT VILLAGE Budget - Page 3 HA OWNED • CURRENT 2004 PROPOSED I PROPOSED 1 2005 1 2006 CURRENT 2004 PROPOSED I PROPOSED 1 2005 1 2006 OPERATING INCOME: HAP/Operating Subsidy 431,341 449,185 467,152 1,515,430 1,546,000 1,576,920 Admin Fee/Rents 254,184 257,057 259,885 874,596 901,422 928,391 Interest 3,183 3,183 3,183 42,745 42,745 42,745 Other Income 2,122 2,122 2,122 12,360 12,360 12,360 TOTAL INCOME 690,830 711,547 732,342 2,445,131 2,502,527 2,560,416 6 3515E1TATINUTXPENTgES: . __ ADMINISTRATIVE: Total Admin. Salaries 71,089 74,639 76,878 248,697 262,465 270,339 Legal 1,825 2,476 2,550 6,180 7,762 7,995 Sundry 27,707 43,128 44,422 123,154 156,347 161,037 TOTAL i: 100,621 120,243 123,850 378,031 426,574 439,371 TENANT SERVICES Salaries 7,851 7,618 7,847 29,274 26,838 27,643 Tenant Activities .. 0 100 100 1,030 100 100 TOTAL 7,851 7,718 7,947 30,304 26,938 27,743 UTILITIES: Water & Sewer 45,619 56,000 57,680 70,040 72,300 74,469 Electricity 7,426 7,490 7,715 42,230 42,390 43,662 Gas 318 475 489 26,935 27,320 28,140 TOTAL 53,363 63,965 65,884 139,205 142,010 146,270 MAINTENANCE: Salaries 121,570 138,123 142,267 :1- 305,617 331,906 341,863 Materials 16,343 16,343 16,833 61,898 61,898 63,755 Contract Costs 97,532 76,869 79,175 r. 213,738 205,251 211,409 TOTAL 235,445 231,335 238,275 581,253 599,055 617,026 GENERAL: Police Services 37,970 41,420 41,420 44,140 55,670 55,670 Insurance 12,731 12,831 13,216 36,050 36,290 37,379 Claims Account 0 0 0 0 0 0 Employee Benefits 46,970 64,698 66,639 134,778 171,380 176,521 Collection Losses 100 1,061 -1,093 2,575 2,575 2,652 TOTAL • 97,771 120,010 122,368 :• 217,543 265,915 272,222 TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES 495,051 543,271 558,323 :: 1,346,335 1,460,492 1,502,634 MORTGAUE7R7C151FfEgERVEg- .. HAP 0 0 0 ::: 0 0 0 Mortgage 195,000 195,000 195,000 i: 420,240 420,240 420,240 Replacement Reserve(Equip.) 0 0 0 ::: 5,600 5,600 5,600 Replacement Reserve(BId.) 11,200 11,785 11,785 ::::: 61,973 61,973 61,973 TOTAL 206,200 206,785 206,785 :., 487,813 487,813 487,813 CAPITAL EXPENSES: .. Replacement Equipment 0 0 0 is'! 0 0 0 Additions 0 0 0 :::. 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 o 0 0 0 OTHER EXPENSES: Extraordinary Maint. 50,675 0 0 :::. 218,244 179,713 50,000 Pre-development/Admin costs 0 0 o :., o 0 0 TOTAL 50,675 0 0 ::: .:: 218,244 179,713 50,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 751,926 750,056 765,108 i 2,052,392 2,128,018 2,040,447 TRANSFERS (IN)/OUT (61,096) (38,509) (32,767) i: 392,739 374,509 519,969 BUDGET 05-06 pi Irina+ Ileat.if nn1 Budget - Page 4 DESCRIPTION: INDEPENDENCE PLAZA SECTION 8 VOUCHER PROGRAM 4 CURRENT 2004 PROPOSED I 2005 ` PROPOSED 2006 CURRENT 2004 PROPOSED I PROPOSE►' 1 2005 I 2006 ` OPERATING INCOME: HAP /Operating Subsidy 574,188 574,188 574,188 18,124,030 19,207,500 19,599,165 Admin Fee /Rents 1,185,568 1,195,000 1,204,560 1,391,446 1,392,861 1,420,718 Interest 12,731 12,731 12,731 31,827 25,000 26,000 Other Income 16,974 16,974 16,974 12,731 12,850 13,100 TOTAL INCOME 1,789,461 1,798,893 1,808,453 19,560,034 20,638,211 21,058,98 O. . 6 ADMINISTRATIVE: Total Admin. Salaries 186,616 169,003 174,073 858,128 807,809 832,043 Legal 3,904 4,821 4,966 17,019 20,085 20,688 Sundry 63,232 74,972 77,221 222,975 196,637 202,536 TOTAL 253,752 248,796 256,260 1,098,122 1,024,531 1,055,267 TENANT SERVICES Salaries 31,790 28,397 29,249 47,032 68,235 70,2823.• Tenant Activities 0 100 100 0 100 100 ,, . �'€ TOTAL 31,790 28,497 29,349 47,032 68,335 70,382 s; UTILITIES: Water & Sewer 63,654 65,650 67,620 1,379 4,490 4,625 42,436 42,470 43,744 7,426 536 552 Gas 19,096 19,320 19,900 106 850 876 t: TOTAL 125,186 127,440 131,263 8,911 5,8T6 6,052.. MAINTENANCE: .. Salaries 207,022 194,262 200,090 8,827 3,392 3,494 Materials 34,805 34,805 35,849 1,108 1,108 1,142 Contract Costs 190,611 190,870 196,596 7,161 10,792 11,116 e< TOTAL 432,438 419,937 432,535 17,096 15,292 15,751 GENERAL: Police Services 3,514 2,850 2,850 18,020 19,000 19,00, Insurance 31,827 31,970 32,929 32,888 33,353 34,354.,: Claims Account 0 0 0 0 0 0 ::; Employee Benefits 97,621 110,886 114,213 192,290 220,972 227,601 Collection Losses 424 424 437 0 0 0 TOTAL 133,386 146,130 150,429 243,198 273,325 280,955 TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES 976,552 970,800 999,836 1,414,359 1,387,359 1,428,407 HAP 0 0 0 18,124,030 19,207,500 19,599,165 Mortgage 730,000 730,000 730,000 0 0 0 :. Replacement Reserve(Equip.) 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 ., Replacement Reserve(BId.) 44,700 44,700 44,700 0 0 0 , TOTAL 779,700 779,700 779,700 18,128,030 19,211,500 19,603,165 ,:, CAPITAL EXPENSES: Replacement Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Additions 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0� OTHER EXPENSES:. Extraordinary Maint. 55,000 320,500 215,300 0 0 0 Pre- development/Admin costs 0 0 0 0 0 0' TOTAL 55,000 320,500 215,300 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,811,252 2,071,000 1,994,836 19,542,389 20,598,859 21,031,572 TRANSFERS (IN) /OUT (21,791) (272,107) (186,382) 17,645 39,352 27,411 P. BUDGET 05 -06 DESCRIPTION: w TOTAL ALL PROGRAMS CURRENT PROPOSED 2004 1 2005 I PROPOSED `> 1 2006 OPERATING INCOME: ;f %i 21,121,457 22,292,208 22,747,799 4,295 583 4,351,798 4,431,262 119,131 112,303 113,303 331,391 333,616 334,066 HAP /Operating Subsidy Admin Fee /Rents Interest Other Income TOTAL INCOME - 25,867,562 27,089,925 27,626,430 6 6 1 5 WTAT1Nt MO ES : ADMINISTRATIVE: 1 1,496,476 1,481,296 1,525,735 42,254 43,271 44,569 520,417 532,295 548,264 Total Admin. Salaries --�S,u�.,ndry ,s •,14 ,056,: • , :, TENANT SERVICES 157,330 153,868 158,484 46,030 30,400 30,400 Salaries Tenant Activities OT AL • ' 3,360 • , • • 1: 8, : • s {° UTILITIES: 257,767 274,333 282,563 112,461 105,856 109,032: 50,274 50,264 51,7724 420,502 , 3 I , • 44 ,367 Water & Sewer Electricity Gas TOTAL MAINTENANCE: 800,938 821,991 846,651 146,139 144,493 148,827 679,866 635,241 654,29.8 1,6 6,9.3 1,601, 1,• • 9,7 6 Salaries Materials Contract Costs TOTAL GENERAL: 170,000 190,000 190,000'x€ :r 137,897 137,894 142,031 15,000 15,000 15,000 r 547,534 655,389 675,051 6,282 7,243 7,460 Police Services Insurance Claims Account Employee Benefits Collection Losses TOTAL 6, 1,005,526 , ' • , TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES MORTGAGE /HANKME VES- -- 5,186,664 5,278,833 5,430,136? 18,533,030 19,616,500 20,008,165; 1,345,240 1,345,240 1,345,240 18,000 18,000 18,000 127,873 128,458 128,458 HAP Mortgage Replacement Reserve(Equip.) Replacement Reserve(Bld.) TOTAL 20,024,143 21,108,198 21,499,863 CAPITAL EXPENSES: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Replacement Equipment Additions TOTAL :'= 0 0 0 OTHER EXPENSES: 510,248 892,973 434,950 ke . 10,609 10,000 10,000 Extraordinary Maint. costs TOTAL : 20,: 902,9 44 • ,9 0 TOTAL EXPENSES w 25,731,664 27,290,004 27,374,949 TRANSFERS (IN) /OUT <4z 135,898 (200,079) 251,481 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AUTHORIZED POSITIONS -- FY2005 and FY2006 ADMINISTRATION Executive Director Housing Authority Manager (for Admin. Operations) Departmental Secretary Sub -total FINANCE DIVISION Finance Manager Accounting Officer Senior Account Clerk Account Clerk Intermediate Clerk Sub -total HOUSING PROGRAMS DIVISION Housing Authority Manager (for Housing Programs) Housing Specialist III Housing Manager Housing Specialist II Housing Specialist I Intermediate Clerk Sub -total TOTAL ADMINISTRATION TENANT SERVICES Program Services Coordinator Independence Plaza Resident Manager Independence Plaza Assistant Resident Manager Anne B. Diament Resident Manager Anne B. Diament Assistant Resident Manager Esperanza Resident Manager Esperanza Assistant Resident Manager Eagle Village /Rosefield Village Resident Custodian Parrot Village Resident Custodian China Clipper Resident Manager TOTAL TENANT SERVICES MAINTENANCE DIVISION Housing Facilities Manager Reconstruction Specialist I Maintenance Services Coordinator Maintenance Worker II Maintenance Worker I Laborer Senior Clerk Custodian TOTAL MAINTENANCE GRAND TOTAL ed (3/18/04) u:IFY2005 & 6 BudgeMuthorized positions APPROVED FY2004 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 7.50 18.50 Budget - Page 6 PROPOSED FY2005 & 6 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 7.50 18.50 26.50 26.50 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.15 0.26 0.46 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.20 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.15 0.26 0.46 0.50 5.72 5.72 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 14.00 46.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 14.00 46.221 Budget - Page 7 SCHEDULE OF EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS PROPOSED FY2005 GF1-05 Paint exterior of office building $ 30,300 TOTAL 22,500 Atiolpippipmplithanionffilli.0:::agangfign 30,300 :•:•:::•••••••:* ESP1-05 ESP2-05 ESP3-05 ESP4-05 ESP5-05 ESP6-05 ESP7-05 ESP8-05 ESP9-05 Replace about 13 toilets 3,200 Replace kitchen cabinets and countertops in about 15 units 59,410 Replace kitchen sinks & faucets in about 30 units 10,000 Install gate valves 18,000 Install cleanouts 20,000 Irrigate main entry at Third and Brush 2,100 Replace bathroom vanity and sink in about 15 units Replace 12 utility meter closets 9,750 75,000 Paint exterior of all buildings 165,000 TOTAL $ 163,829 $ 362,460 TOTAL 50,675 NONE ABD1-05 Replace wall and base cabinets in about 10 units 26,500 ABD2-05 ABD3-05 ABD4-05 ABD5-05 Install emergency back-up on all hallway lights Upgrade interior light fixtures in all units Refurbish interior of elevator 3,413 6,500 4,000 Replace roof 85,000 ABD6-05 RV1-05 PG1-05 Fill cracks and seal balcony decks 23,000 Replace wall furnaces/central units in about 8 units Replace wall and base cabinets in 2 units 10,800 8,500 PG2-05 LW1-05 Replace furnaces in 2 units 4,000 Paint exterior of building 8,000 TOTAL $ 218,244 $ 179,713 . . IP1-05 IP2-05 I P3 -05 Replace carpeting in corridors of one building Build new parking area for 25 cars Paint exterior of two buildings 12,500 150,000 132,000 IP4-05 Paint interior corridor of one building 26,000 TOTAL 55,000 $ 320,500 ••.•/::::x:::4•• • •••• • Budget - Page 8 SCHEDULE OF EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS PROPOSED FY2006 GF1-06 GF2-06 GF3-06 TOTAL ESPI-06 ESP2-06 ESP3-06 TOTAL Replace carpeting in Office at 701 Atlantic Avenue Overhaul HVAC system in Office at 701 Atlantic Avenue Replace flat portion of roof at Office at 701 Atlantic Avenue 30,300 40,250 40,000 15,000 95,250 Replace about 13 toilets 3,200 Replace kitchen cabinets, replace countertops in about 15 units Replace bathroom vanity and sink in about 15 units 362,460 $ 61,200 10,000 74,400 +3. NONE TOTAL „ MEM ABD2-06 Replace wall and base cabinets in about 10 units 27,300 RVI-06 Replace wall furnaces/central units in about 8 units 11,500 CC1-06 Replace tub surrounds in about 5 units 7,7e EV1-06 Replace central forced-air furnace in two units 3,50 TOTAL 179,713 $ 50,000 IPI-06 Replace carpeting in corridors of one building IP2-06 Paint interior corridors in one building I P3 -06 Paint exterior of remaining three buildings TOTAL 320,500 12,800 26,500 176,000 215,300 PHA/IHA Board Resolution Approving Operating Budget or Calculation of Performance Funding System Operating Subsidy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing EXHIBIT B OMB Approval No. 2577 -0026 (Exp. 6/30/2001) Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated toaverage 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless that collecton displays a valid OMB control number. This information is required by Section 6(c)(4) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The information is the operating budget for the low- income housing program and provides a summary of proposed /budgeted receipts and expenditures, approval of budgeted receipts and expenditures, and justification of certain specified amounts. HUD reviews the information to determine if the operating plan adopted by the PHA and the amounts are reasonable and that the PHA is in compliance with procedures prescribed by HUD. Responses are required to obtain benefits. This information does not lend itself to confidentiality. Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the below -named Public Housing Agency (PHA) /Indian Housing Authority (IHA), as its Chairman, I make the following certifications and agreements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the Board's approval of (check one or more as applicable): Operating Budget Submitted on: (for FY2004 -2005 Budget) Operating Budget Revision Submitted on: Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: Revised Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: (date) April 6, 2004 Housing Authority of the City of Alameda I certify on behalf of the: (PHA /IHA Name) that: 1. All regulatory and statutory requirements have been met; 2. The PHA has sufficient operating reserves to meet the working capital needs of its developments; 3. Proposed budget expenditures are necessary in the efficient and economical operation of the housing for the purpose of serving low - income residents; 4. The budget indicates a source of funds adequate to cover all proposed expenditures; 5. The calculation of eligibility for Federal funding is in accordance with the provisions of the regulations; 6. All proposed rental charges and expenditures will be consistent with provisions of law; 7. The PHA/IHA will comply with the wage rate requirements under 24 CFR 968.110(e) and (f) or 24 CFR 905.120(c) and (d); 8. The PHA /IHA will comply with the requirements for access to records and audits under 24 CFR 968.110(i) or 24 CFR 905.120(g); and 9. The PHA /IHA will comply with the requirements for the reexamination of family income and composition under 24 CFR 960.209, 990.115 and 905.315. I hereby certify that all the information stated within, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802) Board Chairman's Name (type) Beverly Johnson Signature Date Previous edition is obsolete form HUD -52574 (10/95) ref. Handbook 7575.1 PHA/IHA Board Resolution Approving Operating Budget or Calculation of Performance Funding System Operating Subsidy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing EXHIBIT C OMB Approval No. 2577 -0026 (Exp. 6/30/2001) Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing Instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless that collecton displays a valid OMB control number. This information is required by Section 6(c)(4) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The information is the operating budget for the low- income housing program and provides a summary of proposed /budgeted receipts and expenditures, approval of budgeted receipts and expenditures, and justification of certain specified amounts. HUD reviews the information to determine if the operating plan adopted by the PHA and the amounts are reasonable and that the PHA is in compliance with procedures prescribed by HUD. Responses are required to obtain benefits. This information does not lend itself to confidentiality. Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the below -named Public Housing Agency (PHA) /Indian Housing Authority (IHA), as its Chairman, I snake the following certifications and agreements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the Board's approval of (check one or more as applicable): gOperating Budget Submitted on: (for FY2005 -2006 Budget) Operating Budget Revision Submitted on: i Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: Revised Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: (date) April 6, 2004 I certify on behalf of the: (PHA/IHA Name) Housing Authority of the City of Alameda that: 1. All regulatory and statutory requirements have been met; 2. The PHA has sufficient operating reserves to meet the working capital needs of its developments; 3. Proposed budget expenditures are necessary in the efficient and economical operation of the housing for the purpose of serving low - income residents: 4. The budget indicates a source of funds adequate to cover all proposed expenditures; 5. The calculation of eligibility for Federal funding is in accordance with the provisions of the regulations; 6. All proposed rental charges and expenditures will be consistent with provisions of law; 7. The PHA /IHA will comply with the wage rate requirements under 24 CFR 968.110(e) and (f) or 24 CFR 905.120(c) and (d); 8. The PHA /IHA will comply with the requirements for access to records and audits under 24 CFR 968.110(i) or 24 CFR 905.120(g); and 9. The PHA/IHA will comply with the requirements for the reexamination of family income and composition under 24 CFR 960.209, 990.115 and 905.315. I hereby certify that all the information stated within, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and /or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802) Board Chairman's Name (type) Beverly Johnson, Chair Signature Date Previous edition is obsolete form HUD - 52574 (10/95) ref. Handbook 7575.1 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Chief Executive Officer /Executive Director Date: March 24, 2004 Re: First Amendment to Affordable Housing Agreement by and between Housing Authority of the City of Alameda and Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda Background On January 18, 1989, the Housing Authority and Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (CIC) entered into an Affordable Housing Agreement. Under the terms of this Agreement, the 20 percent set -aside tax increment generated in the West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) remaining after the CIC has met its debt service obligation is made available to the Housing Authority to subsidize rent and operating expenses for Independence Plaza. Every year, the Housing Authority submits disbursement requests to the CIC for the actual amount of rent and operating subsidy required. These disbursement requests have been for amounts less than the total tax increment remaining after debt service. Consequently, the WECIP 20 percent set -aside fund has accumulated a fund balance, which stands at $674,852 as of June 30, 2003. The attached Amendment to the 1989 Agreement releases the June 30, 2003, fund balance and any future years' fund balances that might accumulate. The Housing Commission will review the Amendment to Agreement on March 24, 2004, and a recommendation will be provided to the Board of Commissioners before the meeting of April 6, 2004. Discussion /Analysis The 1989 Agreement required the Housing Authority to construct a 186 -unit senior housing project (Independence Plaza). Once the project was completed and occupied, the Housing Authority was to submit a Plan to the CIC projecting the need for future tax Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\ HOUSING \WECIP \I P \BOC_ClCreport.doc F: Redevelopment Housing \WECIP \Independence Plaza Report #2 -D (HABOC) and #1 -B (CIC) 4 -6 -04 Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission March 24, 2004 Page 2 increment for the term of the Agreement. The purpose of the Plan was to "permit the COMMISSION to recognize and redirect for other eligible uses any excess Tax Increment Set -Aside not needed by the HOUSING AUTHORITY for the Affordable Units [at Independence Plaza]" (Section 7.6). The Housing Authority submitted a Plan in 1993, projecting that Independence Plaza would require all available increment for the remainder of the term of the agreement; however, the actual subsidy needed at Independence Plaza on an annual basis has been less than originally projected, generating a fund balance. The City of Alameda and Housing Authority are currently involved in a partnership to develop 101 units of affordable housing in three projects at Bayport, and have identified this fund balance as a potential funding source for the projects. In support of this, the CIC made a finding to allow the use of the WECIP 20 percent set -aside funds outside of the project area. The proposed Amendment releases the June 30, 2003, fund balance. It also allows future WECIP 20 percent set -aside tax increment not needed for Independence Plaza to be programmed for other affordable housing purposes. Finally, the Amendment to Agreement extends the term of the Agreement by one year. The term of the 1989 Agreement was defined as the life of the WECIP, or until July 5, 2023, unless extended. Last year, the State passed special legislation, which required cities to shift more of their tax increment funds into the State's Education Relief Augmentation Fund (ERAF). In consideration of this ERAF shift, cities were allowed to extend the life of their redevelopment districts for one year. In November 2003, the term to the WECIP was extended until July 5, 2024. Fiscal Impact There is no impact on the Housing Authority fund that supports Independence Plaza. The Housing Authority receives approximately $600,000 per year from the CIC to subsidize rents and operating expenses at Independence Plaza and will continue to receive WECIP 20 percent set -aside funds for this purpose for the life of the WECIP. There is no adverse impact on the WECIP Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. WECIP 20 percent set - aside funds not needed for Independence Plaza may be programmed for other affordable housing purposes. Recommendation The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend that the Board of Commissioners authorize the execution of the First Amendment to Affordable Housing Agreement by and between Housing Authority of the City of Alameda and Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service U: \Board of Commissioners Reports \BOC_ClCreport.doc F: Redevelopment Housing \WECIP \Independence Plaza Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission March 24, 2004 Page 3 The Executive Director recommends that the Community Improvement Commission authorize the execution of the First Amendment to Affordable Housing Agreement by and between Housing Authority of the City of Alameda and Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. Respectfully submitted, ul Benoit ssistant ,ity Manag velopment Services Director Michael T. Pucci Housing Authority Executive Director By: Rachel Silver Development Manager, Housing JMFIPB \MTP\RS Attachment Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\ HOUSING \WECIP \IP \BOC_ClCreport.doc F: Redevelopment Housing \WECIP \Independence Plaza FIRST AMENDMENT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT • • DATED • . . 2004 . BY AND BETWEEN HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda, a public body, corporate and politic (hereinafter, "HOUSING AUTHORITY") and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda, a public body corporate and politic (hereinafter, "COMMISSION ") entered into that certain agreement dated January 18, 1989 to allow the HOUSING AUTHORITY to use available low- and moderate- income housing set -aside funds accruing to the COMMISSION with respect to the West End Community Improvement Project Area (hereinafter, "Project Area," "Project Area Set Aside Funds," and "the 1989 Agreement," respectively); and WHEREAS, Section 7.6 of the 1989 Agreement obligated the HOUSING AUTHORITY, upon occupancy of the housing project described in the 1989 Agreement, to submit to the COMMISSION a demonstration of the portion of available Project Area Set -Aside Funds necessary to maintain the affordable housing units the 1989 Agreement obligates the HOUSING AUTHORITY to maintain and the HOUSING AUTHORITY did so in 1993, concluding that all available Project Area Set -Aside Funds were needed to do so (hereinafter, "the 1993 Plan "); and WHEREAS, the HOUSING AUTHORITY and the COMMISSION (hereinafter, "Parties" and, individually, "Party") have determined that the 1993 Plan overstated the funds needed to maintain the affordable housing units and that as of June 30, 2003 some $674,852 of available Project Area Set -Aside Funds remain unspent for the maintenance of those units; and WHEREAS, the COMMISSION is proceeding with developments to meet the affordable housing needs of the City and the Project Area in compliance with the Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq., and the Housing Element Statute, Government Code Sections 65580 et seq., to which Project Area Set -Aside Funds can be productively devoted; WHEREAS, pursuant to City Council Ordinance 2910, as authorized by Senate Bill 1045, on November 5, 2003, the City Council of the City of Alameda amended the Community Improvement Plan for the West End Community Improvement Project Area ( "the Plan"), by extending by one year the time limit on the effectiveness of the Plan and the time limit to repay indebtedness, thereby extending the Plan until July 5, 2024; NOWTHEREFORE, the Parties hereby agree to amend the 1989 Agreement as follows: SECTION 1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. The Parties agree that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporate them into this Amendment to the 1989 Agreement (hereinafter, "this Amendment "). - 1 — g: \colantuono \aha- cick.doc SECTION 2. TERM. Section 2 ( "Term ") of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: "The term of this Agreement shall be the duration of the Plan for the West End Community Improvement Project Area ( "the Plan ") adopted by the City Council of the City of Alameda on July 5, 1983, by Ordinance No. 2141, as amended by the City Council on November 5, 2003 by Ordinance No. 2910, or as may be otherwise extended. The duration of the Plan covers a period which is scheduled to end on July 5, 2024, unless extended. In no event, however, shall the term of this Agreement be less than the period required under California Health & Safety Code Section 33334.3, as such code section may be amended or superseded from time to time." SECTION 3. RELEASE OF JUNE 30, 2003 BALANCE. The HOUSING AUTHORITY hereby relinquishes any claim it might have under the 1989 Agreement or otherwise to the $674,852 in unused Project Area Set -Aside Funds that existed as of June 30, 2003 and the Parties agree that the COMMISSION may use those funds for any lawful purpose of the COMMISSION. SECTION 4. DISBURSEMENT OF FUTURE TAX INCREMENT. Notwithstanding Section 7.6 or any other provision of the 1989 Agreement, the HOUSING AUTHORITY shall submit semi - annually to the COMMISSION a written request for disbursement of available Project Area Set -Aside Funds which request shall document the basis of the HOUSING AUTHORITY's conclusion that the amount of funding requested will actually be needed by the AUTHORITY in the six -month period for which the request is made for the purposes specified in the 1989 AGREEMENT. Any available Project Area Set -Aside funds in excess of those requested by the HOUSING AUTHORITY with respect to a fiscal year shall, upon the closing of the COMMISSION's books for that fiscal year, be deemed unencumbered by the 1989 Agreement as amended by this Amendment and may thereafter be expended by the COMMISSION for any lawful purpose of the COMMISSION. SECTION 5. INTEGRATION. This Amendment and the 1989 Agreement, together with Exhibits A and B thereto, constitute the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Amendment and the 1989 Agreement and no other promise of the Parties, whether oral or written, made prior to the effective date set forth on the cover of this Agreement, shall be of any force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the HOUSING AUTHORITY and the COMMISSION have caused their duly authorized officers to execute this Amendment to the 1989 Agreement on the day and year set forth on the cover page of this Amendment. - 2 — g:\ colantuono\ ahacicaffordablehousingagramd .doc HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA By: Title: Approved as to form: By: ��/ %G / / @telZ Title: CSISD w 12- COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA By: Title: Appr as t. fo By: Title: ( Out_ w 52.1 - 3 — g:\ colantuono\ ahacicaffordablehousingagramd .doc Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 March 25, 2004 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: James M. Flint Chief Executive Officer RE: Approving Refinancing Plan for Complexes Background: At the February 17, 2004, Board of Commissioners meeting, staff presented the Board with nine options for refinancing Parrot Village, Eagle Village, and China Clipper Plaza as follows: 1. Taxable, fixed -rate loan from private lender 2. Tax- exempt, fixed -rate loan from private lender. 3. ARM loan from private lender. 4. Housing Authority- issued, tax - exempt bonds. 5. JPA- issued, tax - exempt, insured bonds. 6. Housing Authority- issued bonds with City /CIC guarantee. 7. CIC and Housing Authority shared bond issuance. 8. Loan from City's General Fund. 9. CIC loan to Housing Authority from bond issuance. Opt Financing Cost Interest Rate Term (years) Monthly Payment 1 $ 243,500 6.75% 30 $39,695 2 $ 348,500 5.01% 15 ** $33,456 3 $ 243,500 4.05% to 10.0 %* 15 *** $32,473 to $55,613* 4 $ 373,500 5.50% 30 $35,487 5 $ 848,500 4.75% 30 $35,081 6 $ 373,500 5.00% 30 $33,552 7 $ 198,500 5.00% 30 $32,612 8 $ 123,500 2.0% - 6.0 %**** 30 $23,102 to $37,472 9 $ 123,500 5.00% 30 $32,209 ARM range based on 15 -year history. ** Loan amortized over 30 years; balloon payment of $4.2 million after 15 years. * ** Loan amortized over 25 years; assuming no increase in interest rate, balloon payment of $3.2 million after 15 years. * * ** Floor and ceiling limits would be established, linked to LAIF rate. Report #3 -A (HABOC) 4 -6 -04 "Dedicated to Excellence. Committed to Service " Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners March 25, 2004 Page 2 of 4 The Housing Commission and staff had recommended option 9 as the most beneficial to the Housing Authority. Some Board members expressed concerns about the use of bond proceeds for Housing Authority projects when these funds might be needed for redevelopment projects. Commissioner Matarrese asked staff for more information regarding the costs for the redevelopment projects and to see if refinancing could be accomplished with a combination of the CIC loan and one of the other options. Housing Authority and Development Services staff met to evaluate more closely the funds available from the bond issuance and their intended uses for the redevelopment projects. Because many of the redevelopment projects are in their preliminary stages and not yet ready to have a detailed project budget, staff did not think they could assure the Board that all or some portion of these funds would be available for a loan to the Housing Authority. This information was presented to the Housing Commission at its March 24, 2004, meeting and a revised recommendation is now provided. Discussion: Staff has reevaluated the other eight financing options. Here are the results of that evaluation: Option 1: Taxable, fixed -rate loan from private lender. . This option has the highest interest rate and would produce the least amount of savings. Option 2: Tax - exempt, fixed rate loan from private lender. Though the interest rate was low and the monthly savings good, it would only be a 15 -year loan making it necessary to refinance again in 15 years. Option 3: ARM loan from private lender. The risks are too high with this type of loan. The interest rate may be low now, but it might not be in future years. This loan also is only for 15 years, which would require refinancing. Option 4: Housing Authority- issued, tax- exempt bonds. The interest rate is low, the term is 30 years and the savings would be substantial. This was originally based upon a negotiated sale issuance by private lender. There also are other options that fall within this category including the same type of negotiated sale issuance by Federal National Mortgage Association (Le., Fannie Mae) as well as an open market sale. With any of these types of bond issuance, the Housing Authority would be the issuer and the City of Alameda or the Community Improvement Commission would not be involved. Option 5: Joint Powers Authority- issued, tax - exempt, insured bonds. There are several advantages to this option as well, including a low interest rate, 30 -year term, Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Honorable Chair and Members March 25, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 3 of 4 and substantial monthly savings. The higher up front cost makes this option less favorable than Option 4. Option 6: Housing Authority- issued bonds with City /CIC guarantee. This option -would be complicated to implement. It also would require that the City or CIC set aside a substantial amount of funds to guarantee the bonds. This option is not recommended. Option 7: CIC- and Housing Authority- shared bond issuance. It does not appear that the CIC is planning another bond issuance in the foreseeable future; therefore, this option is no longer viable. Option 8: Loan from City's General Fund. A loan of this type can be favorable to both the City and Housing Authority, especially short -term loans. A long -term loan of this type, however, is not recommended at this time. Tying up this much of the City's liquid assets when State actions might have a negative impact on the City' General Fund is not wise. This would not be considered a prudent choice. The Housing Commission and staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners give the Chief Executive Officer the flexibility to explore various methods of issuing Housing Authority bonds (Option 4) and to select the method that would be most advantageous to the Housing Authority. Before bringing a definitive recommendation, in the form of a resolution, before the Board for consideration, staff would like to obtain the Board's approval for this refinancing plan. If that approval is received, staff would decide the most cost effect method and would contact the lender to start the process, which would involve a review of the financial records on these complexes as well the preparation of a resolution by bond counsel for the Board's approval. This resolution would outline the parameters of the bond issuance and would have to be presented to the Board of Commissioners for adoption. Because the cost of issuing bonds is high, the Housing Authority would like to expand the list of rehabilitation projects that could be funded through this bond issuance. Under the original plan, the Housing Authority would have borrowed $6 million of which approximately $670,000 would have been used for rehabilitation. Staff is now recommending up to a $7 million issuance and using about $1,100,000 on rehabilitation projects. Increasing the amount of rehabilitation work would ensure long- term viability of the complexes and reduce annual maintenance costs. Fiscal Impact: Option 4, which appears to be the preferred choice would reduce the Housing Authority's monthly operating costs by at least $11,475 ($137,700 per year). There also would be additional funds available to make some much - needed renovations to the three complexes. Such renovations ensure the continued viability of these complexes thus meeting the affordable housing needs of many Alameda residents. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. Honorable Chair and Members March 25, 2004 of the Board of Commissioners Page 4 of 4 Recommendation: The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend that the Board of Commissioners authorize the: 1. Refinancing of the Bonds and notes for Parrot Village, Eagle Village, and China Clipper Plaza; 2. A bond issuance totaling no more than $7 million, including rehabilitation and bond issuance costs, with the authorizing resolution to follow; and 3. Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to execute all documents related to this transaction. MTP:ED u :blousing Commission reports refi Respectfully submitted, Michael T. Pucci Executive Director Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - - MARCH 16, 2004 - - - 7:10 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:25 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 Property Negotiator - Property: Alameda Theatre; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Cocores Development Company; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Chair Johnson announced that Commissioners obtained briefing from the Real Property Negotiator. Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:40 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 Marc 16, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -MARCH 16, 2004- -7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the special meeting at 7:47 p.m. Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. MINUTES (04- ) 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. Approved. Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM (04- ) Recommendation to enter into an extension of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Movie TECS for the Redevelopment of the Alameda Theatre. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), urged approval of staff recommendation; stated that the PSBA Board hopes that this would be the last extension; that the Board expects that a plan for the parking structure and movie theatre would be in place by the end of the extension. Commissioner Matarrese stated that the Commission would do everything possible to meet the requirements; that the project is extremely important for all of Alameda. Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of staff recommendation. Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission March 16, 2004 1 Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 8:51 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 16, 2004 2 City of Alameda Inter - office Memorandum March 15, 2004 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint, Executive Director Subj: Authorize the Executive Director to amend the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris Associates by extending the contract term to December 31, 2004, and adding authority of $825,000.00 for professional engineering and construction support services in connection with the Bayport Project Background Harris & Associates ( "Harris ") was selected in 2001 through a formal competitive selection process and has been retained as the City Engineer for the FISC Catellus Project. The decision to hire an outside Public Works consultant was based upon the City's need to expedite the Catellus project without impacting Public Works (e.g., requiring additional Public Works staff, or deferring other key City projects). As the designated City Engineer for the Project, Harris is responsible for plan review and making sure all development approvals and all City Public Works standards are adhered to. Harris is also tasked with resolving any non - standard issues or exemptions with Public Works as required and also serves as the City's construction inspector for both intract and backbone improvements on the Project. On June 1, 2001, the original Master Consulting Agreement was entered into by and between the CIC and Harris for a one -year term and an initial authorization of $500,000. On June 1, 2002, a first amendment to the Agreement was entered into to extend the term to December 31, 2003 and authorize an additional $1.4 million in funding. On December 1, 2003, a second amendment to the Agreement was entered into to extend the term to March 31, 2004. The purpose of the third amendment to the. Agreement (on file with the City Clerk) is to modify the terms and compensation under the Master Consulting Agreement, in order to continue with implementing the CIC's public backbone infrastructure requirements to support.the build -out of the Bayport Project. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #1 -C (CIC) 4 -6 -04 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission Discussion /Analysis March 15, 2004 Page 2 The term of the existing Agreement expires March 31, 2004. The term of the Third Amendment to the Agreement would commence on the 7th day of April 2004 and continue through to December 31, 2004. Also under the terms of the Agreement, Harris would be compensated pursuant to costs estimated based on the Project schedule for various task order activities. The various task orders activities include: Program Management, Technical Reviews for Public Improvements and Construction Services, Technical Reviews for Intact Improvements, Final Map Review and Construction Services, and Special Assignments. It is important to note that as the Project progresses through to build -out in 2007/08, Harris' role on the Project will decrease significantly as Residential Phase 2 Backbone Infrastructure Improvements are to be completed by the end of December 2004, and intract improvements by the end of 2005, under the current Project schedule. As discussed below, Catellus ( "Developer ") will continue to pay for all engineering services required for intract improvements. The total compensation to complete all of the task orders pursuant to the third amendment to the Agreement shall not exceed a total authority of $822,557.00 for the specified term. In accordance with the Disposition and Development Agreement ( "DDA ") by and between the CIC and Catellus Development Corporation ( "Developer "), as amended, consultant services related to the CIC's Project obligations shall be paid from revenues generated from the Project, whereas that portion of the consultant services related to the Developer's intract improvements, shall be paid for by the Developer. As a result, services that Harris performs for intract improvements, estimated at approximately $255,000, effectively reduces the CIC's contract obligation from $822,557.00 to $567,557. This amount ($567,557) also includes an approximately thirty percent contingency for fees for services charged by Public Works for coordination. The third amendment to the Agreement will increase the total Harris contract by $567,557 from $1.9 million to approximately $2.4 million, which represents approximately 3.3 percent of the CIC's $72 million Residential Infrastructure Project Budget. As a percentage of the total Residential Infrastructure Project Budget, the proposed Harris contract amendment amount is close to the 3- percent city administration assessment added on to projects funded through the citywide development fees and is deemed reasonable, especially given the complexity of the overall Project. Fiscal Impact Under the terms of the DDA, as amended, by and between the CIC, and Developer, the CIC is required to fund demolition and public backbone (major streets and utilities) infrastructure improvements from Project generated revenues. Project generated revenues include residential land sales proceeds, residential profit- participation and residential tax increment funds. As directed, no general fund monies will be used for implementation of the Project. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\DougCole \Coucil Reports\Harris Contract\2004 Harris Contract\ CIC. StaftReport .HamContract_040604.doc Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission Recommendation March 15, 2004 Page 3 The Executive Director recommends that the CIC authorize the Executive Director to amend the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris Associates by extending the contract term to December 31, 2004, and adding authority of $825,000.00 for professional engineering and construction support services in connection with the Bayport Project. JF/PB/DC:dc Respectfully submitted, aul Benoit Assistant City Manager By: 1 oug Cole Redevelopment Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\DougCole \Coucil Reports\Harris Contract\2004 Harris Contract \CIC.StaffReportHarriContract 040604.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Date: March 24, 2004 Re: Recommendation to Direct the Executive Director to Initiate Preparation of a Webster Street Strategic Plan BACKGROUND The goal of the City's recent retail Community Engagement Forums was to provide a set of recommendations to strengthen the retail policies contained in the City's General Plan and the Economic Development Strategic Plan. The existing 1990 General Plan contains an implementing policy 2.5g that calls for preparation of a Specific Plan for the Webster Street Business District. The Draft Citywide Retail Policy Report contains a specific recommendation (MS -13) to change the existing General Plan implementing policy and provide for the preparation of a strategic plan, tailored to local conditions, rather than preparation of a Specific Plan, whose content and form is defined by State Law. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS A strategic plan would have far greater flexibility to meet local needs. It could also address specific recommendations for the Webster Street Business District that came out of the Retail Forums, such as pursuing a second anchor catalyst retail project in conjunction with the ongoing Webster Renaissance Streetscape project. Policy recommendation MS -13 also states that an analysis of possible retail opportunities should include matching new retail to meet the underserved retailing needs of the residential population and demographic mix of the area. The West Alameda Business Association (WABA) requested as early as last fall, that the City begin a Webster Street Strategic Plan process. The Economic Development Commission (EDC) Retail Task Force and WABA have requested that the Webster Street Strategic Plan process begin without waiting for completion and formal acceptance of the Citywide Retail Policy Report. The Executive Director concurs with both WABA and the EDC in their belief that there has been a long - standing desire to focus City resources on preparing a Webster Street Strategic planning effort and that it would be appropriate to expeditiously begin such an effort now that the Retail Forum process is completed and a draft report prepared. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #2 -A (CIC) 4 -6 -04 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission March 24, 2004 Page 2 WABA also believes that it is important to complete this process as soon as possible considering other potential new West End retail projects. One of the most interesting comments made during the Retail Forum Advisory Panel was to consider locating a full service grocery store on Webster Street, because Webster Street would most benefit from the high levels of daily shoppers served by a grocery store. The feasibility of this concept should be tested while there is still untapped demand in the West End. Strategic Economics was jointly selected by WABA and staff to prepare a draft scope of work (Attachment) due to Strategic Economics unique knowledge and qualifications. Strategic Economics has prepared closely related work when they were hired by the Community Improvement Commission to prepare an analysis of a potential retail project for Enterprise Landing. Strategic Economics also has relevant prior Alameda experience through a prior contract to complete commercial building rehab case studies for the Park Street business district. Strategic Economics has demonstrated an ability to meld numerical economic analysis with creative and pragmatic analysis of market conditions and market opportunities, which is the type of approach that is currently needed for the Webster Street business district. The EDC, the WABA Board, and staff have jointly reviewed and refined the draft scope of work. The schedule would be updated by the EDC Task Force and the consultant prior to execution of the contract. At their February 19, 2004 meeting, the EDC reviewed the draft Strategic Economics Scope of Work and appointed a new EDC Webster Street Strategic Plan Task Force to guide the Webster Street Business District Strategic Plan process. The new Task Force is comprised of three EDC members including Doug deHaan, Chair of the EDC; Gail Wetzork, Chair of the EDC Retail Task Force; EDC Commissioner Pattianne Parker; and three WABA representatives designated by WABA, including Ed Clark, President of WABA; Sherri Stieg, WABA Executive Director; and WABA Board Member and Economic Development Committee Co- Chair, Tricia Collins. Status of Citywide Retail Policy Report. At their meeting of February 19, 2004, the Economic Development Commission voted unanimously to accept the Citywide Retail Forum Report and forward it to the City Council and Community Improvement Commission. The Planning Board was scheduled to consider the Report at their meeting of March 8, 2004, but a heavy agenda caused them to hold the item over to their meeting of April 12, 2004. The final step will involve presentation of the Citywide Retail Policy Report to the City Council and the Community Improvement Commission for acceptance, upon which it would be referred back to the Planning Board for consideration of potential General Plan and/or Zoning revision and to the Economic Development Commission regarding implementation of economic development initiatives. The original plan had been to present the Strategic Economics contract to the City Council and Community Improvement Commission on the same April 6, 2004 meeting agenda as the Citywide Retail Policy Report. Given that the Citywide Retail Policy Report will not come to Council until May, the Webster Street Strategic Plan item is being presented Council now in order to provide Council and the CIC the option of proceeding with the Webster Street Strategic Plan as expeditiously as possible. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Webster St. Strategic Plan \Council Reports \CC WSSP 4- 6- 2004.doc F: Econdev /Strategy/Webster Street Business District Strategic Plan/Staff Reports and Resolutions Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission FINANCIAL IMPACT March 24, 2004 Page 3 There is no impact to the General Fund. There are sufficient funds available in Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) Bond Proceeds Projects line item to cover the estimated $55,000 cost, including a $45,000 Strategic Economics contract plus $10,000 of related public outreach and meeting facility costs. Depending on the nature of recommendations in the final work product, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis may be required prior to approval. Additional information obtained later in the process will be needed in order to estimate the cost of such work. RECOMMENDATION The Executive Director recommends that the Community Improvement Commission direct the Executive Director to initiate preparation of a Webster Street Strategic Plan. JMF/PB/MJF/BJMK:ry Attachment cc: ectfully submitted, a l Benoit - Development Services Di ector By: ce J. M. Sherri Stieg, WABA Executive Director Economic Development Commission Redevelopme "t M Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \econdev\STRATEGY\Webster St. Strategic Plan \Council Reports \CC WSSP 4- 6- 2004.doc F: Econdev /Strategy/Webster Street Business District Strategic Plan/Staff Reports and Resolutions er Proposed Scope of Work Webster Street Strategic Plan February 2, 2004 prepared for: City of Alameda Economic Development /Redevelopment 'Aft STRATEGIC ECONOMICS PROPOSED WORK SCOPE I. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS The Existing Conditions Analysis will serve as the baseline inventory and overview of economic conditions on Webster Street. Through this task Strategic Economics will profile the existing conditions on Webster Street with the following: Task 1.1 Kick -Off Meeting Strategic Economics will meet with the client, WABA representative(s), and other invested city officials to initiate the project through a review of the scope and a discussion of any key issues. Task 1.2 Meeting with City Officials Political support from the appropriate city officials will be critical to the success of the Strategic Plan. Through this initial meeting with either city council member(s) or other appropriate officials whose interests are closely aligned with the performance of the district, Strategic Economics will elicit concerns and priorities, and garner political support for the project. Task 1.3 Overview of Webster Street: Historic Evolution and Current Conditions The consultant will give a brief historical overview of the changing role of Webster Street over time and the factors that led to its current market position in Alameda. The current physical conditions and major issues for the street will also generally be described in this task. Task 1.4 Business Inventory Strategic Economics will oversee the collection of key information about the current businesses on Webster Street, which will be compiled into a Microsoft Excel database created by Strategic Economics and maintained by WABA members. Strategic Economics will use the MBIA City of Alameda sales tax information with the complete list of businesses as a starting point. This task also includes a letter of solicitation to business owners describing the project and the role of their participation in the success of the strategic planning process. Information to be collected will specifically include: business name, business type/ product or service sold, hours of operation, independent or chain, years at this location, years in business (at any location), target customer base (local, destination, any relevant demographic information), square footage, parking availability, and any plans for the business, and lease term. Task 1.5 Property Inventory and Preliminary Opportunity Site Information Task 1.5a Property Inventory: Strategic Economics will oversee the collection of property information such as owner name, square feet, age, current use /occupant, absentee versus local, and any current or long -term plans, and lease term of current tenants (as available). The initial data for this inventory will be the Alameda County Tax Assessor's information, which will be augmented by additional information collected by WABA. This task also includes a letter of solicitation to property owners describing the project and the role of their participation in the success of the strategic planning process. Task 1.5b Identification of Properties w/ Potential for Change: Vacancies, tenant turnover, planned or anticipated changes to the current retail use, and development plans for properties will be compiled as a subset of the Property Inventory. Information will focus on a property's major physical attributes, development plans, and any tenant attraction efforts, tenant proposals or commitments. This information will provide an understanding of the types of businesses that are currently interested in Webster Street and Webster Street Strategic Plan Proposal -)- Strategic Economics help to define the opportunities. This database will provide a preliminary assessment of priority vacancies and potential opportunity sites. Task 1.6 Interview Key Stakeholders A selection of key stakeholders such as major property owners, business owners, developers, realtors and other area experts will be interviewed to air any concerns and priorities for Webster Street. The priority for these meetings will be the compilation of a list of opportunities for, and barriers to success in the district, and individual recommendations about appropriate actions to deal with issues. Task1.7 Profile Current Business Mix This task will utilize the business inventory database to classify all current business both according to the type of goods or services provided, and other factors such as the function as either primarily local - serving or destination- oriented, years of operation, or any other useful ways of distilling the data. The character of the current mix will be a springboard for identifying key assets and weaknesses, and business categories that could be strengthened or expanded. Task 1.8 Profile Existing and Planned Competitive Supply Current and planned competing retail areas in the city will be profiled in terms of their business mix, the markets they serve, and their competitive position in relation to Webster Street. Task1.9 Identify Current Competitive Position Webster's major economic indicators such as typical rents, property values, current vacancy rate, anecdotal information on business turnover, and recent arrivals will present a picture of the street's competitive position. Webster Street's commercial function will be compared to Alameda's other main street retail district, Park Street, as well as proposed and planned future retail at the former FISC site and Alameda Point. This brief comparison will highlight the factors that have led to the relative success of Park Street, while Webster Street has languished in recent years. Task 1.10 EDC Webster Task Force Meeting #1 Strategic Economics will meet with the EDC Task Force to review preliminary existing conditions findings prior to Community Engagement Meeting #1. Task 1.11 Community Engagement Meeting #1 A community meeting will be held to present Existing Conditions findings. The City/ WABA will be responsible for publicizing and logistical coordination of the meeting. Task 1.12 Draft Existing Conditions Memorandum The preceding tasks will be detailed in a draft memorandum. Task 1.13 EDC Webster Task Force Meeting #2 Strategic Economics will meet with the EDC Task Force to discuss the draft Existing Conditions Memorandum. Webster Street Strategic Plan Proposal _2_ Strategic Economics Task 1.14 Final Existing Conditions Memorandum Existing Conditions Deliverables: • Business and Property Database in Excel Format • Stakeholder and Key Informant Interviews • EDC Task Force Meetings #1 and #2 • Community Engagement Meeting #1 • Existing Conditions Memo Webster Street Strategic Plan Proposal Strategic Economics I1. RETAIL DEMAND ANALYSIS The Strategic Plan will need to identify major local - serving and destination retail opportunities for Webster Street before devising appropriate attraction strategies. The Existing Conditions Report and stakeholder input will provide the information to generate a list of prospective tenant types, either because they have broad community support or because they fit in with the mix on the street. Task 2.1 Demographic Analysis This task will profile the demographic characteristics of the households in the neighborhoods surrounding Webster Street who comprise the primary source of demand for goods and services on the street. Statistics will be provided for both the current and projected population of the primary market area as well as the greater West End. Task 2.2 Local- Serving Retail Buying Power Analysis For local - serving retail types such as a grocery store, florist, or video store, a quantitative buying power analysis can be used to assess the market support that exists in the area. Strategic Economics will test various local - serving retail types that have already shown preliminary promise or support from the community. The buying power analysis will take into account both current and projected households in the area. If insufficient market support exists, an estimate of the additional households that would be needed to support a given business type will also be provided. Task 2.3 Destination Retail Demand Analysis Unlike local - serving retail, assessing demand for destination retail opportunities on an older retail strip such as Webster Street is `more art than science.' The nuances of gauging demand generally depend upon a clear physical and intuitive picture of retail in the local area, the city and neighboring cities. Pinpointing opportunities for expanding the regional attraction of Webster Street will first of all require an identification of the businesses that that currently attract primarily destination customers (Task 2). New businesses can potentially expand the area's regional draw while complementing existing businesses. In the case of Webster Street, the first priority will be to increase the offerings and functionality of the district for local residents. However, if there also exist opportunities to expand the street's destination customer draw, business types with expansion or attraction potential will be identified. For this task an expert in main street retail tenanting and attraction will be called upon to review the existing conditions information and give a quick assessment of the potential for Webster Street. Task 2.4 Summarize Market Potential and Define Optimum Near -Term Business • Mix This task summarizes the market potential of each of the previously identified local and region - serving retail types. This task also outlines the near -term (next 5 years) optimum business mix to pursue on Webster Street. Task 2.5 EDC Webster Task Force Meeting #3 Strategic Economics will meet with the EDC Task Force to review the findings of the preceding market demand analysis in preparation for the Community Engagement Meeting #2. Task 2.6 Community Engagement Meeting #2 The consultant will present the outcomes of the demand analysis to the community during this second community engagement meeting. Task 2.7 EDC Webster Task Force Meeting #4 Webster Street Strategic Plan Proposal Strategic Economics -4- Strategic Economics will meet with the EDC Task Force to review the results of Community Engagement Meeting #2. Demand Analysis Deliverables: • Demand Analysis Memo • Community Engagement Meeting #2 III. CASE STUDIES Strategic Economics will provide up to two relevant case studies of business districts that have used regulatory interventions (e.g. streetscapes, loan programs, BID's) in order to successfully improve the economic performance of the area. Before proceeding with the case studies the selected areas of comparison will be reviewed for approval by WABA representative and the EDC Task Force. IV. GIS MAPPING A comprehensive and clear picture of Webster Street can be best achieved through maps that spatially depict current conditions as they relate to future opportunities. The GIS mapping tool is particularly useful for identifying adjacencies that could collectively add up to opportunities, e.g. a cluster of vacant and underutilized properties would be an identifiable development opportunity, or a series of storefronts with leases coming up for renewal could represent an opportunity for attracting a critical mass of complementary tenants. Depending upon the availability of data, Strategic Economics will produce up to three maps that will assist in the characterization of opportunities for improvement to the district. GIS Mapping Deliverables: • Three parcel -based maps displaying factors influencing potential changes to Webster Street V. POTENTIAL CATALYST PROJECTS AND OPPORTUNITY SITES The preceding tasks are geared towards identifying the market potential of different business types on Webster Street. Using the market information already gathered, Strategic Economics will identify any major development projects that would both enjoy strong market support and serve to jumpstart other economic gains on the street. Typically, a catalyst project can attract new consumers to the area, thus producing economic spillover effects for other businesses, and increasing the area's profile. Task 5.1 Identify Potential Catalyst Projects Using the market information already collected, Strategic Economic will identify catalyst projects for Webster Street. The identification of potential projects will have already been initiated in previous tasks through interviews with developers, market experts and property owners. Non - retail uses such as residential or institutional development will also be considered. Task 5.2 Identify Opportunity Sites In consultation with property owners, developers, and retailers, opportunity sites for catalyst projects will be identified. Opportunity sites will be assessed primarily in terms of potential spillover benefits to the whole district and development feasibility. Specific evaluation criteria of opportunity sites will include size, current use, land cost, and property owner willingness to develop, sell, or partner with a developer. VI. STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS Task 6.1 Strategic Recommendations Summary This final task will provide recommendations for implementing improvements to Webster Street. Areas to be covered include physical improvements to public areas, catalyst project(s), incentives for business Webster Street Strategic Plan Proposal _5_ Strategic Economics owners and property owners, business attraction and retention, residential development, strategies for working with Enterprise Landing and Alameda Point, marketing the district, and others. Recommendations will also be systematically rated in terms of recommended timeframe, responsible party, projected cost and outcomes. Recommendations will be summarized in tabular form. Task 6.2 EDC Webster Task Force Meeting #4 Strategic Economics will meet with the Task Force to review the strategic recommendations and to prepare for Community Engagement Meeting #3. Task 6.3 Community Engagement Meeting #3 Strategic recommendations will be presented in this third community engagement meeting. Strategic Recommendations Deliverables: • Summary Recommendations Table • Community Engagement Meeting #3 VII. DRAFT REPORT Task 7.1 All research and analysis will be summarized in a draft report. Task 7.2 The client and the EDC Task Force will review and comment upon the draft report, including one meeting with the EDC Task Force. VIII. FINAL REPORT Webster Street Strategic Plan Proposal Strategic Economics -6- BUDGET AND SCHEDULE PROJECT TASKS Dena Belzer Joanna Davis Abby Thorne- Lyman Total Completion Date Hours $175 Hours $85 Hour $65 Hours Cost 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS 28 $4,900 169 $14,365 14 $910 211 $20,175 1.1 Kick -Off Meeting 2 $350 2 $170 0 $0 4 $520 27 -Jan 1.2 Meeting with City Officials 2 $350 2 $170 0 $0 4 $520 early Feb. 1.3 Overview of Webster Street 0 $0 15 $1,275 0 $0 15 $1,275 1.4 Business Inventory 1.5 (a) Property Inventory 1 1 $175 $175 20 20 $1,700 $1,700 0 0 $0 $0 21 21 $1,875 $1,875 29 -Feb (b) Planned Changes to Current Properties 1 $175 10 $850 0 $0 11 $1,025 1.6 Interview Key Stakeholders 6 $1,050 12 $1,020 0 $0 18 $2,070 1.7 Profile Current Business Mix 1.8 Existing & Planned Competitive Supply 1 0 $175 $0 18 4 $1,530 $340 0 12 $0 $780 19 16 $1,705 $1,120 15 -Mar 1.9 Identify Current Competitive Position 2 $350 12 $1,020 0 $0 14 $1,370 1.10 EDC Webster Task Force Meeting #1 2 $350 2 $170 0 $0 4 $520 16 -Mar 1.11 Community Engagement Meeting #1 2 $350 10 $850 2 $130 14 $1,330 25-Mar 1.12 Draft Existing Conditions Memorandum 3 $525 30 $2,550 0 $0 33 $3,075 23-Mar 1.13 EDC Webster Task Force Meeting #2 2 $350 2 $170 0 $0 4 $520 30 -Mar 1.14 Final Existing Conditions Memorandum 3 $525 10 $850 0 $0 13 $1,375 1 -Apr 2. RETAIL DEMAND ANALYSIS 9 $1,575 71 $6,035 18 $1,170 80 $8,780 2.1 Demographic Analysis 0 $0 2 $170 8 $520 2 $690 2.2 Local- Serving Retail Buying Power Analysis 2.3 Destination Retail Demand Analysis 1 1 $175 $175 20 20 $1,700 $1,700 4 4 $260 $260 21 21 $2,135 $2,135 14 -Apr 2.4 Summarize Market Potential & Optimum Busines 1 $175 15 $1,275 0 $0 16 $1,450 2.5 EDC Webster Task Force Meeting #3 2 $350 2 $170 0 $0 4 $520 22 -Apr 2.6 Community Engagement Meeting #2 2 $350 10 $850 2 $130 12 $1,330 29 -Apr 2.7 EDC Webster Task Force Meeting #4 2 $350 2 $170 0 $0 4 $520 4 -May 3. CASE STUDIES 2 $350 8 $680 20 $1,300 30 $2,330 7 -May 4. GIS MAPS 0 $0 2 8170 30 $1,950 32 $2,120 7 -May 5. CATALYST PROJECTS AND OPPORTUNITY SITE 6 $1,050 28 $2,380 0 80 34 $3,430 5.1 Identify Potential Catalyst Projects 5.2 Identify Opportunity Sites 4 2 $700 $350 18 10 $1,530 $850 0 0 $0 $0 22 12 $2,230 $1,200 14 -May 6. STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS 8 $1,400 37 $3,145 4 $260 45 $4,805 6.1 Strategic Recommendations Summary 4 $700 25 $2,125 4 $260 29 $3,085 27 -May 6.2 EDC Webster Task Force Meeting #4 2 $350 2 $170 0 $0 4 $520 4 -Jun 6.3 Community Engagement Meeting #3 2 $350 10 $850 0 $0 12 $1,200 10-Jun 7. DRAFT REPORT 6 $1,750 32 $4,420 0 $0 38 $6,170 7.1 Draft Report 4 $700 30 $2,550 0 $0 34 $3,250 15 -Jun 7.2 EDC Webster Task Force Meeting #5 2 $350 2 $170 0 $0 4 $520 22 -May 8. FINAL REPORT 4 $700 20 $1,700 0 $0 24 $2,400 30-Jun TOTAL PROJECT HOURS and COST 63 $11,025 367 $31,195 86 $5,590 494 $47,810 Meetings beyond those included in the above budget will be billed at the appropriate hourly rate. Webster Street Strategic Plan Proposal Strategic Economics -7- City of AlameL.... California Proclamation WHEREAS, April 26, 2003 will be the 34th annual celebration of Earth Day, and the month of April will find many events to express environmental concern; and WHEREAS, Earth Day began in 1970 as a long term endeavor to build a planet that would be clean, healthy, prosperous and sustainable; and WHEREAS, cities and communities can and must make major contributions to solving our environmental and natural resource problems through land use, transportation, solid waste, wastewater treatment, and zoning decisions that shape our environment; and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, local governments currently operate numerous ride - sharing, recycling, energy and water conservation, and hazardous waste programs that depend on widespread understanding and participation in order to be successful; and it is time for everyone to increase their understanding of the importance for participating in these programs and in general respect for all our natural resources; and Earth Day will reach beyond existing environmental constituencies to involve the broadest possible cross - section of society including business, media, religious, political, youth, academic and cultural leaders; and the CITY OF ALAMEDA, together with the community, can continue to meet the challenges sustaining our environment; and Public Works Department, Alameda Recreation and Park Department and Alameda Power & Telecom, are jointly sponsoring Earth Day festivities on April 24, 2004 at Washington Park, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim April 24, EARTH DAY ALAMEDA 2004 and pledge the City's support and invite all Alameda citizens, businesses, civic groups, government agencies, and other organizations to participate in local . id regional celebratory and educational activities. Office of the Mayor 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room #320 Alameda; California 94501 -4477 510.747.4701 Office • Fax 510.747.4704 • TDD 510.522.7538 Bev Mayo Proclamation #3 -A UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MARCH 16, 2004- - 6:50 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjournment to Closed Session to consider: (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 Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9. Following the Closed Session on Initiation of litigation, the Special - Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, the Council obtained briefing from Legal Counsel and gave direction. * * * Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:25 p.m. to hold the regular Council meeting and the special meeting was reconvened at 11:30 p.m. * * * Following the Closed Session on Significant exposure to litigation, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, the Council obtained briefing from Legal Counsel and gave direction. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 11:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - MARCH 16, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:54 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- ) Proclamation honoring Frederica von Stade on winning a 2004 Grammy Award and expressing appreciation for her contributions to music in Alameda's schools; and (04- A) Presentation by the Mayor of Certificates of Appreciation to Alameda Schools' Music Teachers. Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Ms. Von Stade. Ms. von Stade expressed her appreciation in receiving the Proclamation and her gratitude for Alameda offering music programs through the schools; stated that the real heros are the teachers. Mayor Johnson presented certificates of appreciation to Kathy Burigsay, Kim Orzell, and Lynn Tousey and recognized Fred Chacon and Bonnie Nelson, who were not present to accept certificates. Ms. Orzell expressed appreciation for constant support of the Alameda Education Foundation. (04- ) Mayor Johnson presented a Proclamation commending Sandre Swanson for his dedication to Alameda. Mr. Swanson thanked the Council and introduced his family. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing Application to CalTrans for a Safe Routes to School Program Grant [paragraph Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 1 no. 04- ] and the Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Subsection 2 -61.8 [paragraph no 04- ] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Kerr 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 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. Approved. ( *04- ) Recommendation to accept the work of P &J Utility Company for Alameda Point Water Upgrades, No. P.W. 02- 01 -04. Accepted. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13692, "Authorizing Application for Block Grant Funds from the California Department of Conservation, Division of Recycling." Adopted. (04- ) Resolution No. 13693, "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." Adopted. Vice Mayor Daysog requested a report on the pedestrian - oriented milestones achieved during the last three years; stated that injuries have gone down. Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13694, "Setting Public Hearing on Delinquent Real Property Transfer Tax." Adopted. (04- ) 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). Introduced. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 2 Councilmember Gilmore inquired what are the perceived benefits of the Ordinance and whether design control would be given up. The Supervising Civil Engineer responded that the level of detail in the proposal would determine the level of control over the project. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there would be a cost savings; to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated that time would also be saved; that in order for the State to accept the package from the architect for the Library Project, a design -build ordinance would be needed. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether other cities are incorporating the design -build method. The City Attorney stated that design -build method is an option only available to Charter cities; the Ordinance is enabling legislation that allows Council to chose the design -build method the process would be approved prior to any large project. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are degrees of design -build on a project. The Supervising Civil Engineer responded design -build could be phased; stated that in negotiations with the architect for the Golf Club House, design -build was chosen for the mechanical, electrical and plumbing features. The Acting Assistant City Manager stated that design -build projects are reviewed by different departments throughout various phases. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the process could be brought back to Council for evaluation, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore moved introduction of the Ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,412,037.02. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 3 REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (04- ) Adoption of Resolution Honoring Sandre R. Swanson for His Contributions to the City of Alameda. [Note: A proclamation was issued under Special Orders of the Day.] (04- ) 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; and (04- A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). The Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation. Councilmember Kerr stated that there was confusion because the current open space requirement is specific to square footage of open space per dwelling unit; the Ordinance does not provide more space, excludes side yards, and other areas having a width of 8 feet or less, and requires front yards; the old and new definition cannot be compared; suggested incorporating an alternative of allowable building footprint; suggested passing the rest of the zoning code changes [excluding open space requirement] and forming of a small committee, which would be subject to Mayor's approval, to work with staff on an acceptable [open space] solution. The Supervising Planner concurred with Councilmember Kerr regarding definition comparison; stated that current regulations are byzantine; that a solution could be to state that any area less than 8 feet wide would not be considered landscaped area. Councilmember Kerr suggested that residents who understand R -2 through R -6 districts provide input. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are time constraints involved, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the tandem parking issue could be reviewed; stated that there was no enforcement of maintenance for landscaped areas; that she believes that many areas that would be referred to as landscaped areas would not end up landscaped. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she would not like to see pedestrian pathways within a lot be counted as part of the open space requirement. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 4 The Development Review Manager suggested that the landscaping and open space requirement portion be brought back to Council as a separate item. Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing. Jim Sweeney, Alameda, urged support for open space; stated that R -2 and R -3 districts are in danger; that he has concerns with shoehorning in more infill. Jean Sweeney, Alameda, stated that she endorses Councilmember Kerr's suggestion for allowing people to come up with a better solution; stated that open space should not be cut down for R -2 and R -3 districts. They're being no further speaker, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Kerr moved introduction of the Ordinance, excluding the section on open space, and approval of directing that a citizen committee, with the membership subject to the Mayor's approval, be formed to address issues of concern, including Councilmember Gilmore's suggestion regarding pedestrian pathways. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports using the building footprint to determine usable open space. On call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (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. Not heard. [Continued to April 20, 2004.] (04- ) Recommendation regarding Alameda Ferry Services Request for Proposals. Not heard. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 5 (04- ) Recommendation to approve Bus Shelter Site Selection Criteria. Continued to April 6, 2004. Mayor Johnson stated that a number of meetings have been held over the last few days with interested residents; that she would like to suggest that the public testimony be heard and the item be continued to April 6, 2004; in the interim, a meeting would be held with all parties to ensure that the community was represented. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what postponement would do to the timeline. The Public Works Director responded that postponement to the April 6 Council Meeting would result in a three -week delay; that he would like to have the shelters by mid October; that the schedule was aggressive; a lot depends on the shelter design and how long it would take to finalizing the provisions of the agreement with Lamar. The City Manager stated that presently there was no agreement with Lamar; Council has not made any advertising decisions. The Public Works Director stated that the criteria was for shelters with and without advertising; the locations of shelters with advertising would not be determined until May; Council action tonight would not necessarily mean shelters with advertising would be installed. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. The following speakers spoke in favor of adoption of the Bus Shelter Site Selection Criteria: Diane Foster, Alameda; Mark Irons, Alameda; Audrey Lord - Hausman, Pedestrian Friendly Alameda; William Smith, Northern California Sierra Club; Kelley Jackson, Alameda; H.E. Christian Peeples, AC Transit; Stephen Irwin, Alameda; Bill Smith, Alameda; Jonathan Soglin, Alameda; Alana Dill, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda Transit Advocates; Christopher Buckley, Alameda; Golda Mason, Alameda Transit Advocates; Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates; C.R. Saikley, Alameda; Robb Ratto; Lucy Gigli, Alameda; John Knox White, Transportation Commission; Michael Krueger, Alameda. The following speakers spoke in opposition to advertising at bus shelters: Reyla Graberm, Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters (ARTS); Charles Thoss, Alameda; Normal Wall, ARTS, Patricia Gannon, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Joe Cloren, ARTS; and Bob Sikora, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 6 There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Vice Mayor Daysog requested an explanation of Criteria #5, "No advertising shelters shall be located in the R -1, R -2, R -3, R -4 and R -5 zoning districts_". The Public Works Director responded that Criteria #5 states that bus shelters with advertising would not be allowed in a strictly residential block; however, if within that block, there was some non - residential use, there would be potential for a shelter with advertising. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether Washington School, being in a residential area with a non - residential use, would qualify for a potential bus shelter site; to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated that adopting the criteria tonight would not imply that all locations meeting the criteria would have shelters with advertising. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired what could be done to control the size of advertisement. The Public Works Director responded that reducing the 4' x 6' size has been presented to Lamar; that the response was not an immediate "no "; staff would have to negotiate with Lamar. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the contract allows buyout of specific bus shelters if funding sources were found. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; that although the agreement was for seven years, there was a provision for a buyout at any time; stated that meetings have been scheduled with ARTS for the end of March and middle of April to evaluate their negotiations with donors; that a parallel track could be pursued ton determine what locations meet the criteria and work with the vendor on acceptable locations from an advertising prospective. Mayor Johnson stated that the reason for postponing the item until the April 6 Council Meeting was a result of meeting with representatives from ARTS; postponement would not change the schedule of having bus shelters in place for next winter; stated that there was a difference in the cost for buying out versus installation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 7 Councilmember Kerr stated that some of the criteria are shelter dependent; a canopy shelter without advertising might be acceptable in a residential zone, whereas an advertised shelter would not; stated that although the criteria states that no advertising shelters shall be located in the R -5 district, advertisement could become widely eligible due to adjacent non - residential uses; stated that she wants to explore canopy shelters. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what happens to the schedule for having bus shelters in place by mid - October if item was postponed, to which the Public Works Director responded the schedule would be moved to the beginning of November. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the schedule assumes that the Council would use Lamar, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether design decisions are being made tonight; to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated shelter design would be considered by the Planning Board on April 26; the Design Review team would provide input as well. Councilmember Matarrese thanked everyone for the healthy debate; thanked the Transportation Commission and Pubic Works Department; stated that the Council was committed to having bus shelters in place before the next rainy season; stated the criteria satisfies his concern about advertising in the residential areas with the exception of siting shelters with ads across from schools; the shelter program deliverable was $200,000 with approximately $14,400 annually; inquired whether said amount was over and above the cost of maintaining and installing the bus shelters. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; costs are based upon 40 shelters; there would be a monthly stipend of approximately $30 per shelter per month that the City would be receiving from the vendor. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he assumed that the shelter advertising would pay for the shelters and maintenance; inquired whether a zero balance could be reached; with the fewest shelters with advertising paying for installation and maintenance of the remainder. The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would be in favor of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 8 approving the criteria tonight if there was a zero sum balance to have the ads only pay for the shelters; that an alternative would be that the City pays for the shelter program, which would require other service cuts. Vice Mayor Daysog stated since there was community discomfort, that he supports the Mayor's suggestion for postponement. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Kerr in that criteria could change based upon type of shelter. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that bus shelters at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street and Santa Clara Avenue and Grand Street are terribly maintained. Mayor Johnson stated that Council has made a commitment to have shelters installed by the next rainy season. Councilmember Gilmore stated discussion was on bus shelter siting criteria, not design guidelines; that there was a buyout option; that through the budget sessions in May, the Council, with input from residents, could discuss funding bus shelters at the expense of other City services. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the bus shelter siting criteria. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore and Matarrese - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog, Kerr and Mayor Johnson - 3. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of closing the public portion of the Hearing and having the matter return for Council action on April 6, 2004. Under discussion Councilmember Kerr stated that she would like to give the citizens group a chance to come up with other options; the siting criteria was very design dependent. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Kerr and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Gilmore and Matarrese - 2. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 9 (04- ) Discussion of boat speeding issues on the estuary. The City Manager stated that the item was being presented for discussion only; no action was being recommended; there would be opportunity to provide direction. Councilmember Gilmore stated that a staff option was to adopt a fee or surcharge on the rental of the boat slips and landing fees; inquired whether that would apply to people putting boats in the water or Marina residents. The Public Works Director responded both Marina residents and casual day users. Councilmember Gilmore stated that charging Marina residents for enforcement would be comparable to charging homeowners a surcharge because of burglaries in their neighborhoods. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. The following speakers urged Council to take action regarding estuary speeding: David Chamberlin, Alameda; John Knox White, Transportation Commission; Bill Chase, Ballena Isle Marina; Gerry Greth, Oakland Yacht Club; Chris Gaskill, Alameda; Scott Fossum, Alameda; John Beery, Alameda; Elaine Lutz, Grand Marina; Jamie Rosman, Alameda; Tim Simon, Alameda; Dan DeBardeleben, Alameda; Bill Smith, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Anne DeBardeleben, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Matarrese suggested contacting the Oakland Police Chief regarding the matter; stated that the Coast Guard Patrol was among the offenders of the wake; protection of waterways and the shoreline was needed; stated safety on the waterfront was priority. Captain Ojala stated that in the last fifteen months there have been 53 citations issued; that in addition, there have been 15 warnings; stated that biggest problem at the Police Department was the ability to staff the boat on a regular basis; that staff currently attempts to get the boat out at least once a week on Saturday, and during the summertime, on Saturdays and Sundays for 10 hours a day; that cooperation was needed with other representatives; stated that education was the key; that efforts would be made to try to manipulate schedule as staffing permits. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 10 Mayor Johnson stated enforcement does not generate revenue; requested that staff find out what the fine was and whether the fine could be increased. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the speed limit was five miles per hour; if not, inquired whether the City could make the speed limit five miles per hour from the turning base; inquired whether the City could require boat launch licensing or certification; suggested a team, with the Coast Guard and the City of Oakland, be created to investigate ways of funding enforcement. Councilmember Kerr stated that boat owners pay property taxes and school taxes; berth fees contribute to the large amount of taxes paid by the owners of the Marina; charging fees for launching was attractive, but the City would also need to pay for enforcement; Berkeley has automatic launch gates; suggested review of cost and security issues; stated that the Sheriff's Department in Newport Beach enforces the water rules. The City Attorney noted that Newport Beach has a Marine Department with two full -time employees. Councilmember Gilmore inquired when a report could be provided to Council on suggestions. The City Manager stated a working group would be formed to identify solutions and the matter would return to Council with recommendations within 90 days. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (04- ) Ed Quezada, Alameda, suggested parking restrictions on Shoreline Drive be modified. (04- ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed Alameda. (04- )- Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, thanked everyone involved with painting the LinOaks motel. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (04- ) Councilmember Kerr stated neighbors have commented on the West End Library shrubs being overgrown; requested that staff review the matter. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 11 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the regular meeting in memory of Firefighter Richard Stoker at 11:27 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The Agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 16, 2004 12 Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 March 25, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Waiving Payment in Lieu of Taxes for Esperanza complex for Fiscal Years 2004 -2005 and 2005 -2006 Background: The Conventional Public Housing Program requires a Cooperation Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Housing Authority prior to execution of the Annual Contributions Contract with the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which provides funds for the complex. This Cooperation Agreement was entered into on June 5, 1970. Esperanza is the only HUD public housing complex owned by the Housing Authority, and the only complex under this agreement. Among other things, this agreement calls for a Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) as all Housing Authority property is exempt from real and personal taxes. The City Council has waived PILOT since 1980. Since 1986, the Housing Authority has paid the City for the direct and indirect costs of additional services. Discussion: The amount designated for PILOT in the Annual Contributions Contract is 10 percent of rent collected, less utilities and collection losses. The estimated amount for fiscal year 2004 -2005 is $46,590, of which approximately $12,486 would go to the City of Alameda. For fiscal year 2005 -2006, PILOT is estimated to be $47,988, of which approximately $12,861 would go to the City of Alameda. The balance in each year would be distributed among local taxing agencies according to the same formula as property taxes. The City Council has the authority to waive PILOT. The savings estimated to be $87,258 for the upcoming two fiscal years would allow the Housing Authority to continue its contract with the City of Alameda Police Department for services. The amount budgeted for these services for FY2005 is $190,000, a $20,000 increase over the current year. In FY2006, the amount budgeted for police services again is increased by $20,000 to $210,000. The Housing Authority also pays the direct and " Dedicated to Excellence. Committed to Service " Report #4 -B CC Honorable Mayor and Members March 25, 2004 of the City Council Page 2 of 2 indirect costs for other services provided by the City, such as services provided by the City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, Human Resources, and Information Technology Departments. The. Housing Commission, at its March 24, 2004, meeting, recommended to the Board of Commissioners that PILOT for the next two fiscal years be waived by the City of Alameda. The Board of Commissioners is expected to accept this recommendation and to recommend the City Council waive PILOT for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2005, and June 30, 2006. Fiscal Impact: If the City Council waives PILOT, the Housing Authority will have $46,590 in FY2005 in which to help fund operations at the Esperanza public housing complex. If not, this amount would be set aside for payment in FY2006 when actual amounts of rents and utilities become known. In FY2006, an estimated $47,988 would have to be set aside for payment the following year. Not waiving PILOT would have an adverse impact on the Esperanza fund in the Housing Authority budget. In FY2005, this fund is projected to have a deficit of $288,569. The deficit would increase to $335,159 if PILOT is not waived. In FY2006, the anticipated deficit is $67,489; it would increase to $115,477 if PILOT is not waived. The result would likely be a reduction in services to Esperanza residents. These services may include police protection or providing the after - school youth program. Recommendation: The Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and City Manager recommend the City Council waive the Payment in Lieu of Taxes for fiscal years ending June 30, 2005, and June 30, 2006. MTP: ED unCouncil repo►tsIPILOT.doc Respectfully submitted, Michael T. Pucci Executive Director Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: March 8, 2004 Re: Annual Report on the Library Construction Project and Uses of the General Obligation Bond Proceeds for period ending February 28, 2004 BACKGROUND This report is prepared in accordance with the reporting requirements for the expenditures of general obligation bond proceeds. On November 7, 2000 the voters of Alameda overwhelmingly passed Measure "0". Measure "0" authorized the issuance of bonds in the amount of not to exceed $10,600,000 (the "Bonds ") to finance the acquisition, construction and completion of a new main library facility and improvements to two branch library facilities in the City of Alameda (the "Project "). On March 4, 2003 the City Council authorized the issuance of the City of Alameda General Obligation Bonds, Series 2003. The 2003 GO Bonds are insured by MBIA and therefore rated "AAA" and "AAA" by Standard and Poor's Agency and Moody's Investor Services. Bonds were offered for sale competitively and U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray was the successful bidder at a total interest cost of 4.773 %. The following are the Sources and Uses of the funds from the bond issue: Source of Funds: Per Amount of the Bonds Reoffering Premium $10,600,000.00 268,294.05 Total Sources $10,868,294.05 "Dedicated tocel2ence, Committed to Service" Report #4 -C 4 -6 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmenbers Uses of Funds: Deposit to Project Fund Deposit to Debt Service Fund Costs of Issuance Underwriter's Compensation (Including Insurance Premium) $10,509,542.11 157,226.94 115, 000.00 86,525.00 Total Uses $10,868,294.05 DISCUSSION March 8, 2004 Page 2 of 3 The first debt service payment on the 2003 GO Bonds was paid on 8/1/2003. The deposit (at closing of the bond issue) to the Debt Service Fund of $157,226.94 was used to make the first payment. The first year tax collection (2003 -04) included this payment along with the first full year of the debt service in the amount of $645,900 for a total first year collection of $802,226.94. When the tax collections are received from the April 2004 property tax payments, $157,226.94 will be credited back to the project fund bringing the total of funds available for the Library projects to $10,666,769.05 ($9,326,224 for the Main Library and $1,340,544 for the improvements to the two branches). $14.26 per $100,000 of assessed valuation is assessed for 2003 -04, which compares favorably to the $15.98 per $100,000 maximum tax rate authorized by the voters under Measure "0". The tax rate will drop significantly after the first year because of the way in which the unsecured tax roll is levied. The unsecured rate is based on the previous year's rate. Because the 2003/04 is the first year of billing the 2003 GO Bond, there is no prior tax rate to levy against the unsecured roll in 2003 -04. Therefore, the unsecured collection is realized in the 2004/05FY and the end result is the secured rate drops from $14.26 in 2003/04FY to approximately $9.77 in 2004/05FY. FINANCIAL IMPACT As of February 28, 2004, $1,244,721.86 has been drawn from the bond funds earmarked for the new Main Library construction (refer to column "f" of Attachment A) and deposited into the New Main Library Construction Fund. A worksheet which displays all the revenue sources and all the expenditures related to the library construction project is attached for your reference. No bond funds earmarked for the branch improvements have been expended as of February 28, 2004 (refer to column "g" of Attachment A). To date the City has received $1,100,631 from the State grant for the New Main Library Construction Project (refer to column "i" of Attachment A). Honorable Mayor and Councilmenbers RECOMMENDATION This report is for informational purposes only. Respectfully submitted, James M. Flint City Manager By: Zenda James Finance Director JF:ZJ /fl G: \FI NANCE\COUNCI L \040604 \G.O.BONDS.doc Attachment March 8, 2004 Page 3 of 3 o o 2 $ } . 9,326,224.73 I 1 sae _Add nn ( _ 410,550.00 9.. /kk Ocv W cq \a§c o0cri § 6,990.9(1 7200.00 154,261.87 10 775 50 - /§ \ 2 2 R to c \ . \ e o NCO N. 762,450.00 510,250.00 1,745.965.65 15702715 106,020.20 2,581,404.15 30,327.70 1,162,559.63 33.280 00 131,938.95 4.550 00 m«qK ��a-}\ 404,717.95 200,008.25 36,722.40 in 0) Total Relmb by Library Cogstructulon Fund:. (b) ■ / n 3,335.55 280.00 X00 4 223,218.06 2.354.398.00 '_____ : 2,520.00 23.880.05 ' - \/ g 4,433,560.90 CO 3,799,195.68 1.100.631.00 1,244,721.86 3,335.55 280.00 ,2§ N. C 223,218.06 2,864,648.00 § a- 2,500.00 1,431,910.97 33,280.00 I13,607.58 [ 7,200.00 m- k . tO 5,052,875.23 3,799,195.68 15.487,952.00 9,326,224.73 :1 .340,544.00 3,335.55 280.00 %§ k # / § 1,396,218.06 2,864,848.00 2,686,101.00 214,196.00 165,608.00 3,971,391.00 46,658.00 1,956,044.62 51,200.00 202,983.00 20,607.58 14,400.00 466,668.72 56,496,00 71,324.00 100,000.00 650,000.00 29,433,434.83 Branch Library Improvts Budget 1 1,340,544.00 ea I R 1,340,544.00 1,340,544.00 (1) CIP 90237 Actual 0 1,244,721.86 3,335.55 280.00 § Is 782,450.00 1,745,965.65 171,608.02 134,826.90 106,020.20 2,581,404.15 30,327.70 911,585.35 878,305.35 33,280.00 33,280.00 131,938.95 9.10 404,717.95 28,615.53 153,443.13 23,356.31 36,722.40 55,177.81 14,657,217.60 1,190,342.82 (e) State Grant Reimbursable Portion to CIP 90237 (d) CIP 90237 Budget I14,657,217.60 9,326,224.73 3,335.55 0.00 CO al is It CO at CO re 1,173,000.00 2,686,101.00 210,811.00 163,108.00 3,971,391.00 46,658.00 51,200.00 1 202,983.00 7 000.00 00OLL'L t 00'008'L 622,643.00 307,705.00 56,496.00 766.00 71,324.00 100,000.00 I22,828,595.00 f 1,158,182.88 New Main Library Funding Source vs. Budget Analysis Prior year expenditures tract under Library Construction Fund (317) (c) State Grant Reimbursable Portion to Fund 317 P. 0 o k k 2,200.25 k 4,880.00 11,524.38 46,565.12 k § (b) Library Construction Fund 317 Actual 3,799,195.68 747,661.00 700,196.90 5,247,053.58 223,218.06 2,864,648.00 3,385.00 2,500.00 7,200.00 35,404.43 158,963.72 § § 1,384,521.17 I (a) Library Construction Fund 317 Budget q§ 28 v; . I 700,196.90 5,330,127.58 223,218.06 2,864,648.00 3,385.00 2,500.00 553,605.62 13,607.58 - 650,000.00 el co 3 in Current year expenditure tract u As of February 28, 2004 1 ' Library Constnic Fund (317) State Grant GO Bond(92016) -New Main Library GO Bond(92016) Branch Improvemts Transfer from CIP 98933 Dther Misc Revenue Donatrons Total Revenue: .. ■ • It t 2 } ,.ontmn!en 4 • raised Value of Land Site Develo • ment Site Demolition Site Permits & Fees Fumishin, s & E. ui' ment Costs 51, .,e Architectural & Engineering Costs :onstructIon Cost Extlmator Fees Interior Designer Fees 33eotechnical/Geohattard Reports iazard Materials Consultant Fees _ibrary Consultant Fees :onstruction Project Management Dther Professional Fees _oral Project Adminstration Costs Ineg, line Grant Costs: New Construction Cost Relocation Costs & Movi • ulsition of Libra Materials Other Costs Fund 31 IT cost �, Total 1 / as of June 2003 Rev 3/9 /2004 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: March 24, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Authorize Installation of an All -Way Stop Control at the Intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Chestnut Street BACKGROUND The Public Works Department received a request to install an all -way stop control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Chestnut Street. This intersection is currently controlled by stop signs on the northbound and southbound approaches on Chestnut Street. Alameda Municipal Code Section 8 -2.2 specifies that the City Council is authorized, by motion, to designate and establish the installation of stop signs. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Public Works Department conducted traffic and pedestrian counts, performed radar surveys and reviewed the accident history for Santa Clara Avenue and Chestnut Street. Based on certain criteria, including the high pedestrian volume crossing Santa Clara Avenue, the significant traffic volume, and Haight School being adjacent to the intersection, the location meets the criteria to justify installation of an all -way stop control. On March 10, 2004, the Transportation Technical Team (TTT) unanimously recommended the City Council consider installing an all -way stop control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Chestnut Street. Members of the public in attendance at the TTT meeting and Alameda Unified School District support the TTT's decision. A diagram of the intersection showing placement of the stop control is attached as Exhibit 1. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The cost to install stop signs, stop bars, and stop stencils for this location is estimated to be $2,300, which includes materials and labor. These activities are considered maintenance and are already programmed in the Public Works Department's budget. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service blic*net Public NEri'J6r NHA Report #4 -D CC 4 -6 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 2 March 24, 2004 The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, authorize installation of an all - way stop control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Chestnut Street. MTN:PL /dl Attachment: Exhibit I cc: Lincoln Avenue Neighborhood Assn. Respect f} submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By. Philip Lee Junior Engineer GAP UBWORKST WADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \0406041Santa Clara All Way Stops.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service First Presbyterian Church C Transit Bus Stop Sign (typ.) edestrian "paddle" w ,w a planter strip (typ.) •z PROPOSED CONDITIONS EXHIBIT "1" CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: March 25, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Calling for Bids for Annual Fuel Delivery to Various Locations within the City of Alameda for the Fiscal Year 2004/2005, No. P.W. 03 -04 -04 BACKGROUND The City contracts for fuel delivery, to City facilities. In FY 2002 -03, fuel expenses for the City of Alameda totaled $228,810. Since this service has not been reviewed for some time, staff proposes to bid a new contract to ensure the City is receiving competitive fuel delivery prices. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The fuel costs will be bid on a cents per gallon above the daily average wholesale cost in the San Francisco Bay Area as determined by the OPIS (Oil Price Information Survey), Pad 5 Report. This is the standard arrangement used by jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area. This arrangement ensures the City is not locked into the current high fuel costs and as prices lower, the City's cost will also decrease. The specifications require fuel delivery at the following locations: Maintenance Service Center 1616 Fortmann Way Alameda Fire Station 1 2401 Encinal Avenue Alameda Fire Station 4 2595 Mecartney Road GtY E*11nda bICnt nmrc xskhr)frd Alameda Fire Station 5 750 West Ranger Chuck Corica Golf Complex 1 Clubhouse Memorial Drive Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -E CC 4 -6 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers March 25, 2004 Page 2 These specifications further require that the fuel tanks at the various locations be kept no less than fifty percent (50 %) full and that response time for emergency deliveries shall be within eight (8) hours. The proposed contract provides for renewal of the contract by the Public Works Director for a period of up to four years with mutual agreement of both parties. A copy of the Plans and Specifications are available in the City Clerk's Office for review. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Funds for annual delivery of fuel are included in the Fiscal Year 2004 -05 budget under Central Stores Fund, Fuel, Oil and Lubricants (702 - 51100); under the Alameda Fire Department, Emergency Services, Fuel, Oil and Lubricants (3210 - 51100), and under the Golf Course Fund, Fuel, Oil and Lubricants (601- 51100). RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt the plans and specifications and authorize call for bids for annual fuel delivery to various locations within the City of Alameda for the fiscal year 2004/2005, No. P.W. 03- 04 -04. MTN/PJC:sd/dl G: \PUB WORKS\PW ADMIN \COUNCIL \2004 \040604\fuelcncilmemo.doc Respect ly submitted, atthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director delAA-0/a By Pete J. Carrai Public Works Superintendent Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service NefMande bll Works rtment P i ! CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: March 24, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $119,040 to Linear Options, Inc. for Traffic Striping Project, No. P.W. 12 -03 -19 BACKGROUND On January 6, 2004, the City Council adopted plans and specifications for the Traffic Striping Project at various locations in the City of Alameda. The work consists of thermoplastic replacement of crosswalk markings, limit lines, bicycle lanes, arrow markings, stop markings, school crossings, and lane lines. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS To solicit the maximum number of bids and the most competitive price, specifications were provided to 18 separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. In addition, a notice of bids was published in the Alameda Journal. Project specifications provide that the Public Works Director may renew the contract for up to four (4) additional years, based on satisfactory performance of all aspects of this contract. In such cases, the contract prices would be adjusted in accordance with the construction cost index reported in the Engineering News Record for the San Francisco Bay Area. Bids were opened on March 2, 2004. Four (4) contractors submitted bids. The list of bidders and their bids from the lowest to highest is as follows: Bidder Location Bid Linear Options, Inc. Menlo Park $99,199.00 Chrisp Company Fremont $118,854.00 Central Striping Service, Inc. Rancho Cordova $139,642.00 Safety Striping Service Goshen $153,441.41 The engineer's estimate of the project is $125,150. The low bid was substantially under the estimate due to the very competitive bid climate. Staff recommends awarding a contract with a 20% contingency for this traffic striping work. This contingency will allow staff to include Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service blicWorks rublicWorb Mbk'*)t,, Report #4 -F CC Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers March 24, 2004 Page 2 additional locations for thermoplastic installation as we assess ongoing traffic operations. The proposed contract is on file in the City Clerk's Office. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The project is budgeted as CIP #92 -29 and utilizes Measure B funds. Required GASB -34 forms for the project have been completed and forwarded to the Finance Department. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, award a contract in the amount of $119,040, including contingencies, to Linear Options, Inc. for Traffic Striping Project, No. P.W. 12- 03 -19. Respect y submitted, atthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Wa/rt--4---(1--- By: /john V. Wankum Supervising Civil Engineer MTN /JW jn/dl cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \0406041Striping Contract.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Glum n,d. blicWolks lalii Public IJf frl rd CITY OF ALAMEDA Memoranda m TO: FROM: Date: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers James M. Flint City Manager April 6, 2004 RE: RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (MCEA) SALARY SCHEDULE BY ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGES FOR THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER AND SENIOR UTILITY ANALYST BACKGROUND The Memorandum of Understanding for the Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) was adopted in 2002 and covers the period September 9, 2002 through December 31, 2004. The resolution establishes the bi- weekly.salary ranges for two new classifications on the MCEA salary schedule. DISCUSSION The 2004 Alameda Power & Telecom Budget includes a Competitive Strategies and Administration position, which is responsible for directing, planning, and coordinating administrative services of the department, such as finance, accounting, purchasing, computer services and related support services. The Competitive Strategies and Administration Division has evolved over time due to intemal departmental changes. Staff recommends changing the title of this position so that it accurately reflects additional administrative functions performed, e.g., budget and communications, as well as industry nomenclature. The 2004 Alameda Power & Telecom Budget also includes a Utility Analyst position, which is responsible for performing cost -of- service, rate design, energy usage, and electric demand analyses. The Power Resources Section has also continued to evolve over time due to energy deregulation. Energy deregulation has presented the Power Resources Section with new and additional issues that are complex and varied, ranging from retail sales forecasts and rate designs to resource acquisition and interaction with the evolving wholesale electricity market. These functions involve significant amounts of capital, and the potential for significant savings and/or losses. The Power Resources Section requires a higher level classification of utility analyst that possesses a greater depth and breadth of knowledge regarding the highly complex electrical wholesale market to provide better protection of the City's and customers' interests. "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" Re: Resolution #4 -G Honorable Mayor and Page 2 Councilmembers BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The Alameda Power & Telecom Enterprise Fund will pay the funds required to cover the recommended salary ranges of the Administrative Services Manager and Senior Utility Analyst classifications. Funding has been authorized by the Public Utilities Board for these positions. There is no financial impact to the General Fund. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, approve the amendment to the MCEA salary schedule. KW :mm Respectful submitted, Karen Willis Human Resources Director "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service" 5 L w I cc 0 a 1— CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING THE MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (MCEA) SALARY SCHEDULE BY ESTABLISHING THE SALARY RANGES FOR THE , CLASSIFICATIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER AND SENIOR UTILITY ANALYST BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the salary resolution of Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) is hereby amended by establishing the salary rates, salary ranges, salary steps and benefits for the positions of Administrative Services Manager and Senior Utility Analyst designating those as applicable to the classification in the service of the City of Alameda. CITY OF ALAMEDA MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Effective April 18, 2004 Code Classification EXEMPT BI- WEEKLY Step 1 Step 2 Step 3. Step . 4 Step .5 7053* Administrative Services Manager $4086 $4290 $4504 $4729 $4965 7073* Senior Utility Analyst . $2903 $3048 - $3200 $3360 • $3528 *Indicates classification within thirty -seven and one -half (37 -1/2) or forty (40) hour original work week. Resolution #4 -G CC 4 -6 -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 Inter - department Memorandum March 29, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James M. Flint City Manager RE: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Acknowledging the Role of City Council in the Northern California Power Agency and Other Utility Joint Powers Agreements BACKGROUND In January 1969, a joint powers agreement creating the Northern California Power Agency was executed for the purpose, among others, of "acquiring and disposing of ownership and use" of electric facilities. The agreement states in the opening recital that each party is a "public agency" as defined by Gov't Code Sec. 6500, and each has the power to purchase, generate, transmit, distribute, sell and interchange electric energy in addition to other powers common to all parties. The agreement was signed by "City of Alameda, California, acting by and through its Public Utilities Board," with the signature of the PUB president, the address of the Bureau of Electricity, and the notation, "Authorization: Board Resolution No. 2632." Public Utilities Board Resolution 2632, dated December 1968, authorized the Bureau to join NCPA in accordance with the terms of the joint powers agreement, and appointed the City Manager as delegate to the NCPA, with the Bureau Manager as the alternate. The City Council took no action regarding membership in NCPA, according to staff from the City Clerk's office. Recently, this matter was discussed at a joint City Council- Public Utilities Board meeting regarding ongoing litigation by NCPA involving hydroelectric project impacts to Trinity River flows. Subsequently, the City Manager had placed on the PUB agenda a resolution to amend the 1968 PUB resolution, "acknowledging that the City of Alameda is acting through the City Council regarding membership" in NCPA and that the delegate "is appointed by City Council on recommendation from the Public Utilities Board." A motion to adopt the resolution failed for lack of second. DISCUSSION The Mayor has requested that a resolution be agendized for the purpose of acknowledging the role of City Council in NCPA and any other utility JPA. Re: Resolution #4 -H CC A a 11A Mayor and City Council March 29, 2004 Page 2 The member of a joint powers agreement such as NCPA is the City of Alameda in its entirety, rather than just its utility department. The agreement creating NCPA refers to certain powers which, under the City Charter, fall within the jurisdiction of the Council to the exclusion of the PUB. For example, while the City Charter empowers the PUB to "control and manage" all city -owned electric public utilities, the PUB can borrow monies for capital investment only on approval of the Council. Secs. 12 -1(A), 12 -3(E). In the past, all NCPA projects have been brought to Council for approval of the financing. These projects include the geothermal and combustion turbine projects. In addition, the Council has jurisdiction over citywide policy, and is the only legislative body with authority to bring a lawsuit. Pursuant to the City Charter, at Art. XII, the Public Utilities Board has jurisdiction over several, but not all, aspects of the City's utilities. The PUB has authority to control and manage the City's public utilities, fix rates, make contracts for utility service for up to 15 years, and enter into service, materials and supplies contract. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT It is anticipated that passage of the resolution will have no impact on the budget. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by resolution, acknowledge the Council's role in the Northern California Power Agency and other utility joint powers agreements. Res •e es Flint ity Manager CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE CITY OF ALAMEDA IS ACTING THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING MEMBERSHIP IN THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY AND OTHER UTILITY JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS WHEREAS, the Public Utilities Board passed Resolution No. 2632 on December 16, 1968, authorizing the Bureau of electricity to join the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) in accordance with the terms set forth in its Joint Powers Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement was signed on January 30, 1969, by the "City of Alameda, California, acting by and through its Public Utilities Board "; and WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Act allows public agencies by agreement to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties; and WHEREAS, the authority of the Public Utilities Board is described in Article XII of the City Charter. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVED by the City Council that the City of Alameda is acting through the City Council regarding membership in the NCPA and any other utility joint powers agreement except as expressly limited by Article XII of the Charter. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the delegate from the City of Alameda to NCPA and any other utility joint powers agreement is appointed by City Council on • recommendation from the Public Utilities Board. Resolution #4 -H CC 4 -6 -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 24, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Vacate and Quitclaim a Public Easement Within Assessors Parcel Number 074 - 0955 -6 -12 to East Bay Municipal Utility District BACKGROUND East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) owns Assessors Parcel Number 074 - 0955 -6 -12 and is preparing to sell it. The City has a right of way easement on this parcel dating from September 15, 1929, when Council adopted Resolution No. 1434 accepting a nine (9) foot wide strip to allow workers access to the (then) existing bridge. EBMUD requests the City vacate and quitclaim the easement so they may sell the parcel unencumbered. With construction of the new Bay Farm Island Bridge, there is no longer a need for the City to hold the easement. DISCUSSION East Bay Municipal Utility District, the current owner of the subject property, has prepared the documentation for vacation of the easement. Public Works staff has reviewed and approved the proposed documentation. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the City as a result of vacating the easement. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service blicWorks Re: Resolution #4 -I C( 4 -6 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION March 24, 2004 Page 2 The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by resolution, vacate and quitclaim a public easement within Assessors Parcel Number 074 - 0955 -6 -12 to East Bay Municipal Utility District. MTN/MAM:dl Respectful .y submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio, Public Works Director dked, By: Marg. �A. McLean Acting ' blic Works Coordinator G :\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \040604 \vacation of easement EBMUD.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtvoMmwdv PublicWoeks DPublic e ttment 02004 MaDquast om1 Inc.: 02004 Navrigatbn Techna CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION No. ORDERING VACATION OF AN EXISTING PUBLIC EASEMENT WITHIN ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 074 - 0955 -6 -12, AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEED WHEREAS, on September 15, 1929, the City Council of the City of Alameda accepted an easement for access to the Bay Farm Island Bridge by Resolution No. 1434; and WHEREAS, the need for said easement was negated when the new Bay Farm Island Bridge was constructed and the terminus of Market Street was abandoned; and WHEREAS, the current owners have requested that the City vacate and quitclaim >- the easement to them as the easement is no longer being used for its intended use; and W WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be p vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it is hereby ordered that the Public Utility Easement within APN 074 -0955- 6 -12, Lot 9 vacated pursuant to the provisions of Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 4, Article I, Section 8333 (c) of the Streets and Highways. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, along with the plat, legal description and quitclaim deed to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, easement within APN 074 - 0955 -12 no longer shall constitute easement. Resolution #4 -I CC 4 -6 -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 April 1, 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 Amount 121619 - 122585 3,672,211.00 Void Checks: 102645 ($50.70) 104835 ($852.50) 105338 ($237.00) 110946 ($1,200.00) 112895 ($250.00) 113024 ($32.04) 114844 ($250.00) 121561 ($569.00) 121904 ($527.40) GRAND TOTAL Allowed in open session: Date: City Clerk Approved for payment: Date: Finance Director 4. Council Warrants 04/06/04 Respectfully submitted, Pamela J. Sibl gtc-13 3,668,242.36 BILLS #4 -J 4/6/2004 City of Alameda Date: Memorandum March 9, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint, City Manager Re: Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 1 -7 (Administrative Citations) in Chapter I (General) BACKGROUND On July 21, 1998, the City Council of Alameda added Section 1 -7 to the Alameda Municipal Code establishing procedures for the imposition of administrative citations for any violation of the AMC except specific sections of Chapters VIII, XIII and XV. On February 19, 2003 the City Council of Alameda amended Section 1 -7 to allow for the imposition of administrative citations for all violations of the Alameda Municipal Code with the exception of Chapter VIII (Traffic, Motor Vehicle and Alternative Transportation Modes). AMC Section 1 -7.14 Notices requires that all administrative citations be served personally or by depositing in the United States Mail, first class, certified, return- receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to the person responsible. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Currently AMC Section 1 -7.14 requires that all administrative citations be served personally, by first class, certified, or return receipt US Mail. By requiring administrative citations be served personally or by certified, return receipt US Mail, staff is unable to issue administrative citations to absentee landlords who refuse to accept certified mail. This amendment to AMC Section 1 -7 would strike the requirement for service to be by certified return receipt mail. Administrative citations could be served either personally of by first class mail. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Successful service of administrative citations for building, housing and fire code violations will result in increased revenue through the collection of fines and a reduction in the amount of time spent clearing code complaints. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Public Hearing and Introduction of Ordinance #5 -A 4 -6 -04 Honorable Mayor aIL_ Counci (members MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE Page 2 March 9, 2004 All other sections of the Municipal Code dealing with this subject matter have been thoroughly analyzed and found to be compatible with the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council introduce the subject ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 1 -7 (Administrative Citations) in Chapter I (General) By: G: \PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004 \f -Mar 16\Admin Cite Revision Adoption.doc Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Fuz Planning and Building Director Gregor I�i�• cFann Building C .t ial Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE SUBSECTION 1- 7.14(a), (NOTICES) OF SECTION 1 -7 (ADMINISTRATION CITATIONS) OF CHAPTER 1 (GENERAL) TO DELETE CERTIFIED, RETURN - RECEIPT REQUEST REQUIREMENT BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 1- 7.14(a), (Notices) of Section 1 -7 (Administrative Citations) of Chapter I (General) thereof to read: 1 -7.14 Notices. a. The administrative citations and all notices required to be given under this section may be served personally or by depositing in the United States Mail, first class, addressed to the person responsible, as such address is determined by the Enforcement Official. LZ 0 Section 2. 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. 1- 0 Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the City Council Introduction of Ordinance #5 -A 4 -6 -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 April 5, 2004 Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners' Association, Inc. 3195 Mecartney Road Alameda, California 94502 -6912 (510) 865 -3363 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda CA 94501 l t f J 1' 0....._.... Re: Agenda item 5b City Council meeting April 6, 2004 Dear Mayor Johnson and Council Members: u: C 7 I am writing to comment on the bus shelter proposal, agenda item 5b. I would have appeared in person, but the April 6th council meeting unfortunately conflicts with the Passover holiday. I believe that the placement of advertising bus shelters in or even adjacent to residential (r -1 or r -2) neighborhoods will create a firestorm of resentment among Alamedans. As is too often the case with City Council deliberations, many people are not currently paying attention to the debate. I think they will notice with great concern if the shelters are placed in or next to Alameda's residential areas. Making an exception that exempts the r -1, r -2 areas but allows the shelters on the major approach streets does not solve the problem. One of Alameda's great prides is its residential character. Measure A was a citizen revolt against the abandonment of that basic element of the city. Bus shelters are an urban and commercial phenomenon. They are not elements of residential neighborhoods. In fact, they are contrary to them. No amount of "explanation" by promoters can change the fact that adding what essentially is billboard advertising lessens the residential character of the area they are placed. I remember many long discussions on the planning board about the need to create or preserve the proper "entrance" to Alameda and its various areas. Park Street Landing and Webster Street come to mind. The same concern exists for the entrance to the residential neighborhoods. Landscaping, fountains, treescape and numerous other elements delineate many of Alameda's fine neighborhoods. Billboard bus shelter advertising should not be included in that mix. There is no doubt that Alameda and most other cities in California need additional revenue. We should not pursue that interest, however, to the detriment of the character of the city. As a private citizen, a former planning board president, and as one of the members of the board of the Community of Harbor Bay Isle, I would respectfully request that the council not allow any bus shelter proposal that would authorize advertising in residential neighborhoods or on the divided roads adjacent to the residential areas of the city. Very truly yours, COM TY OF . ARBOR BAY ISLE L . Ha , Vice President oard of Directors Re: Agenda Item #5 -B 4 -6 -04 FOR YOUR INFORMATION Mayor, Councilmembers, CM, CA, ACM, Public Works Director CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: March 25, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Approve Bus Shelter Siting Criteria BACKGROUND On March 16, 2004, the Bus Shelter Siting Criteria was agendized for Council consideration. After receiving public comment, the Council voted to close the public hearing and continue the item to its April 6, 2004 meeting. The continuation was to allow City staff to meet with representatives of Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters (ARTS). On March 22, 2004, representatives from ARTS, the Transportation Commission (TC) sub - committee, a representative from Alameda Transit Advocates (ATA), the Mayor, City Manager, and staff met to answer questions raised by ARTS to assist in moving towards the installation of shelters (non - advertising and/or advertising). The meeting also established next steps and a schedule to meet the deadline of the next rainy season. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The following schedule was agreed to at the March 22, 2004 meeting: ARTS and City staff meeting to update progress April 1 City Council votes to approve criteria April 6 Transportation Technical Team (TTT) recommends proposed locations for bus shelters (non - advertising and advertising) April 14 ARTS, TC sub - committee and City staff meeting (ARTS provides letters of intent for shelters and funding) April 19 City Council approves shelter locations (non - advertising and advertising) April 20 Planning Board recommends design criteria and amenity guidelines April 26 City Council votes to approve Lamar contract (if needed) May 18 Public notification for meetings discussing potential shelter locations and design/amenity guidelines will include: • Letters of notification mailed to residents/businesses /etc. fronting the proposed location, as well as the surrounding vicinity • A -Frame signage located at the potential site Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Mat •• PubEe- NaJ Report #5 -B 4 -R -nd Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers • Press release in local newspapers • Newspaper advertisements Page 2 March 25, 2005 Please see attached document, Report #5E from the March 16, 2004 Council agenda, for further detail regarding the Bus Shelter Siting Criteria. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Please see attached document, Report #5E from the March 16, 2004 Council agenda. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, approve the bus shelter siting criteria. Respect submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director //2d C171V17-046( By: Michael Margulies Program Specialist II, MTN/MM:dl cc: Attendees of March 22, 2004 meeting (ARTS, TC, and ATA) Attachment G:\PUBWORKSWWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \040604 \busshelter cover.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service evolAlsnda blicWoiks ent R81K Wale Nhisfor 38u7 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: March 3, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councihnembers 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 reconunended that staff continue to work on reaching an agreement with Lamar, while alternative funding sources are also being investigated. rmornraa. iublicWorks apartment Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 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 fmal recommended criteria are as follows: Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Glvotpr iap �ublicWorks apartment M r litthfr 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 fords 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 erefliknedr blcWoiks Amen' Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 4 March 3, 2004 Redevelopment Funds, and Measure B — for bus shelters, but these funds are already conunitted 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: MTNBB:di Attachment 1: TC Responses to Mr. C. Buckley GAPUBWORKSTWADMINICOUNCIL \2004 \0316041bus shelter criteria.doc M . tthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service a►au�a, licWOiks 01L '-IL Fkk iffrisforThul 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 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-ar-eas-where 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. 148) Advertising shelters shall be pennitted 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 men ent 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 incvolved.1 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 sped 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 Larnar 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\TTansit\buses \bus shelter advertising program \TC responses to Buckley.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: March 24, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Recommendation Regarding Alameda Ferry Services Request for Proposals BACKGROUND Re: The City manages the Alameda Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS) and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF) through individual operating agreements with Blue & Gold Fleet (B &GF) and Harbor Bay Maritime (HBM), respectively. On November 4, 2003, Council approved a Request for Proposal (RFP) to ferry operators interested in operating one or both of the City's ferry services. Council wanted to determine if economies of scale would result with a single operator for both services. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS RFP submissions were due January 20, 2004. B &GF was the only company to respond to the RFP. They submitted three proposals: one for combined service, one for AOFS and one for AHBF. HBM did not respond to the RFP, but submitted a side letter stating their willingness to continue to operate the AHBF on the same terms and condition as in the current HBM operating agreement. Combined Service: The combined service proposal submitted by B &GF reveals that there are no cost savings achieved by combining the two services. B &GF's Combined Service proposal budget was compiled by adding the AOFS and AHBF budgets together. According to B &GF, the inability to find any cost reduction through combining the services was due in part to the discrete operating nature of the two services. To maintain departure /arrival requirements, the two services must maintain separate crews and separate vessels. In addition, there are labor union jurisdictional issues, increased overhead and dispatch requirements to operate an additional service. Options - a) accept B &GF's proposal, b) do not accept B &GF's proposal or c) do not accept B &GF's proposal and issue a new RFP for Combined Service. Since there are no specific cost savings associated with combining the two services, the City Manager recommends that the City not accept the combined service proposal. In addition, because the current contracts expire on July 30, 2004, there is not sufficient time to issue a new RFP, review offers and negotiate new contracts. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #5 -C 4 -6 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 March 24, 2004 Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service: The B &GF proposal includes fixed fees (Administration /Overhead, Management and Performance Based Incentive) of $250,000 vs. $229,600 in the current agreement, a $20,400 increase over the eleven -month initial term, a 9% increase. Onboard labor and mechanic hourly rates would increase by $2.11 and $1.23 respectively. Options - a) accept B &GF's proposal and enter into negotiations with B &GF, b) do not accept B &GF's proposal; or c) do not accept B &GF's proposal and issue a new RFP for AOFS. The City Manager recommends accepting B &GF's proposal and entering into negotiations with B &GF. Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry: B &GF Proposal - Excluding estimated vessel maintenance costs, the proposed B &GF Pro Forma budget is $1,026,290. HBM Side Letter - HBM did not submit a proposal through the RFP process. Instead, in a January 19, 2004, letter (included as Attachment 1), they expressed a willingness to continue operating the AHBF under the current agreement terms and at the funding levels specified in the FY 2003/2004 budget. The letter lists some qualifications of the offer and states the company's willingness to "work with the City to finalize the contractual arrangements." B &GF and HBM Comparison - An exact comparison of the two "proposals" is not possible because they do not include all the same components. For example, the B &GF proposal includes a higher insurance level than the existing HBM agreement, the B &GF proposal includes a performance based incentive not included in the existing HBM agreement, and reporting requirements are different. Excluding estimated vessel maintenance costs, the B &GF Pro Forma budget to operate the AHBF is $1,026,290. This exceeds estimated costs under the current HBM operating agreement (differences not accounted for) by $94,955. Factoring in vessel maintenance costs would increase the difference between the two proposals, as B &GF's hourly maintenance rate is $103 compared to HBM's rate of $60 per hour. HBM also dedicates a portion of its onboard crew time to maintenance work thereby reducing the number of mechanic timecard hours needed to maintain the boats by approximately 115 hours per year. This rough comparison notwithstanding, a reliable estimate of the cost of continuing with HBM for AHBF service cannot be made until: a) HBM labor rates are confirmed, b) the types and limits of AHBF insurance coverage are finalized, c) a determination is made as to the inclusion of a Performance Based Fee component in the HBM operating contract, and d) reporting requirements are finalized. Options - a) accept B &GF's proposal and enter into negotiation with B &GF, b) do not accept B &GF's proposal and issue a new RFP for AHBF service, and c) do not accept B &GF's proposal and authorize open market negotiations with HBM and B &GF for AHBF. The City Manager recommends open market negotiations with both B &GF and HBM. B &GF Letter - In a letter dated March 8, 2004, (included as Attachment 2) B &GF raises concerns regarding the process the City is using for negotiations on the AHBF services. The City Attorney's Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service IJQpar fr F t , Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers March 24, 2004 Office advises that B &GF's attorney correctly asserts that the City is not able to commence negotiations with HBM without first taking action on the B &GF proposal. As such, the City Manager recommends that Council not accept B &GF's proposal for operation of the AHBF Service and commence open market negotiations with both operators. Public Outreach: Staff held two public meetings where the RFP process was explained, operating proposals were outlined and the HBM side letter was discussed. B &GF's proposals were posted on the City's web site and on the AOFS and HBM web sites. The consensus expressed at the meetings and through e- mailed comments among AHBF riders was that: a) the current HBM service is a high quality reliable transit alternative and that 2) the HBM onboard staff is of the highest quality and should be retained. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no budget impact at this time. Staff will bring to Council a recommendation on contract award, budget and funding at a future meeting, tentatively planned for May 18, 2004. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the Council take the following actions: a) not accept B &GF's proposal for Combined Services; b) accept B &GF's proposal for operation of AOFS and commence negotiations; and c) not accept B &GF's proposal for operation of AHBF Service and authorize open market negotiations with HBM and B &GF for AHBF Service MTN/ES:gc cc: Port of Oakland Blue & Gold Fleet Harbor Bay Maritime Attachments: 1. Letter from Harbor Bay Maritime 2. Letter from Blue & Gold Fleet G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCII.\2004 \040604\Ferry RFP.doc Resp tfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director 6t/A1171.14, By: Ernest Sanchez 0/ Ferry Services Operator Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service blicWotks tilt gib, Attachment 1 HARBOR BAY MARITIME January 19, 2004 James M Flint City Manager City of Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Re: Response of Harbor Bay Maritime, Inc. to Request for Proposals To Operate the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service Dear Jim, This letter is the response of Harbor Bay Maritime, Inc. to the City of Alameda's Request. for Proposals to operate one or both of the passenger ferry services funded and managed by the City of Alameda.. Because of the requirements for a formal bid proposal specified in the City's RFP, Harbor Bay Maritime has elected not to submit a proposal. Notwithstanding our reluctance to submit a formal proposal, by this letter we are notifying the City that we are prepared to continue to operate the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service beyond the date of expiration of our current Fixed' Subsidy Operating Agreement with the City on the same terms and conditions as in our current Operating Agreement and for the same price as in our current Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 03 -04, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit "A." Our willingness to operate the service at this price ($1,161,294 for the next year) is subject to the following qualifications: (I) We assume that our insurance coverage premiums will be renewed at the same levels of coverage and cost; (2) We assume that the average fuel price will remain at the average set in the current year's operating budget ($1.20 per gallon of diesel fuel); (3) We assume that our average wage rates and benefits will remain at the same levels as in the current year of operation; (4) We assume that the City will continue to hold additional funds for certain line items that are paid directly by the City and not out of Harbor Bay Maritime's operational budget and (5) If the City wants.to change the scope of the line items included in the operating budget of the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service, or if any of the costs of the above line items should change materially from now until a new Operating Agreement for the next year of operations is finalized, we would expect to revisit the amount of subsidies needed to operate the. service.: Page 1 of 2 Jun Flint, City Manager of Alameda Re: Harbor Bay Maritime's Response to Request for Proposals January 19, 2004 Recall that Harbor Bay Maritime has been operating scheduled commuter ferry service between the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal in Alameda and Downtown San Francisco for nearly twelve years since March of 1992. Throughout this period, we have operated the ferry service safely, with no marine casualties. Since August of 1994, the City has leased publicly financed City -owned vessels to Harbor Bay Maritime for use in operating this service, and since October 1, 1997, the City has made funds available from outside public funding sources or from the Harbor Bay Traffic Improvement Fund ( the "TIF ") to partly subsidize the costs" of operating this service. Through the help of Harbor Bay Maritime these funds have been supplemented by additional subsidies from the Harbor Bay Business Park Association. The annual budgets provide Harbor Bay Maritime with a modest amount for administration and accounting, and we have been operating the service without profit during all these years. Overall, Harbor Bay Maritime and the City have been working together to operate this service pursuant to Operating Agreements that have been in force for over ten years since July of 1993, and together we have developed an effective framework for operating and funding this service. If the City ultimately fords that its RFP process does not resultin the selection of a replacement operator for the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service that can provide better operations for less cost than the operations currently provided by Harbor Bay.Maritime, then we are prepared to work with the City to finalize the contractual arrangements whereby we would continue to operate the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service beyond the date of expiration of our current Operating Agreement with the City. Very truly yours, Harbor Bay Maritime, Inc. Stephen K Brimhall President SKB /sb Attach: cc: Matthew T Naclerio - Public Works Director Ernest Sanchez - Ferry Manager Page 2 of 2 BLUE &GOLD FLEET March 8, 2004 Emest Sanchez Public Works Department 950 West Mall Square, Room 110 Alameda, CA 94501 RE: Request for Proposals - Alameda Ferry Service Dear Mr. Sanchez: Attachment 2 RucENED MARIU2004 PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF ALAMEDA We are greatly concerned regarding what we understand to be your plan of action with respect to the Harbor Bay Ferry component of the above RFP. As you know, Blue & Gold Fleet responded in good faith to the RFP and made a proposal for each of its components. •We understand that, with respect to the Harbor Bay Ferry segment, you are considering disregarding.the RFP and entering into direct negotiations with•Harbor Bay Maritime: Appareiitly :you'are contemplating :iiegotiation&with:Harbor Ray even-though that:coinpany.advised you by: its letter of January °19;2004 thiat.it zChas -elected not to submit a proposal. ": 'We :further understand that, after :you' participate .in= such negotiations. - with Harbor Bay Maritime, you interid: toiretuin td Blue & Gold to 'see :if Blue 8i Gold. is interested in negotiating against whatever you may have learned from Harbor Bay . Maritime. We write this letter to respectfully object to the foregoing unorthodox and inappropriate procedure. Harbor Bay had an equal opportunity to make a proposal. For whatever reason it decided not to do so. It is most objectionable that now Harbor Bay is, in effect, given a private'bite at the apple." Compounding this unfairness and peculiar way of proceeding is the fact that you then intend to bring the matter back to us for negotiation. Presumably after your talk to us, you will then return to Harbor Bay. - This RFP is governed by the Charter of the City of Alameda. Our information from your city attorney's office is that, based on Section 3 -15 of the Charter, you believe this matter is not subject to the public bid requirements because it is not a "public work." The city attorney's office refers to a definition of "Public Work" that is found in the State Public Contract Code which appears to define "Public Work" as being a tangible work of improvement such as a library or firehouse. However, we believe that such definition is not applicable to the present'RFP because. the State .Code does not apply.to a' charter city such asAlarneda'when:the matter is covered by the'City's Charter: The Alairied :'Charter uses the term "public' work" in a generic .sense without reference to -the State Coder Therefore, the appropriate' definition of "puublic work ". is -to be :found in the numerous " general law cases and coriunentaries °which rriake it 'clear -that such term refers to any activity whereby a governmental function isperforrned. Under these authorities (as well Pier 41 Fisherman's Wharf • San Francisco, CA 94133 • Phone: 415/705 -8200 • Fax: 415/705 -5429 • blueandgoldfleet.com 0 as under common sense) operating a ferry service utilizing a city owned vessel is indeed a type of governmental function. Furthermore, we find the City's reasoning here incongruous with the fact that you work in your official capacity as the ferry manager out of a building identified as the "Public Works Department ". Our position is further backed up by the actions taken and processes followed by the City of Alameda with respect to this matter. It was the City that issued the Request for Proposal and it was the City that proceeded under those guidelines and processes. We readily .acknowledge that Section II of the RFP reserves certain rights to the City up to and including withdrawing the RFP. Also, among these reservations are that the City can "waive minor deviations," issue "subsequent request for proposals" and award the agreement "to a proposer." But with respect to the negotiation contemplated with Harbor Bay, the City is . doing none of the foregoing. It is not withdrawing the RFP, Harbor Bay Maritime was not a proposer and the City is not issuing any subsequent RFPs. It is simply not appropriate or fair for the City at this late date to carve out the Harbor Bay service and enter into a private negotiation and then shop the same against Blue & Gold. Such conduct was not contemplated when this RFP was published and is not in conformity with the rights the City has reserved under the RFP. Blue & Gold expended significant time and energy to comply with the guidelines established in the RFP and to provide the City with competitive and professional proposals. How the City elects to proceed in selecting a Harbor Bay ferry contractor will impact Blue & Gold's approach to future City RFPs. I request that you bring this letter to the attention of the City Council so that the Council members are made aware of our deep distress with respect to these developments. Sincerely, Ron Duckhom President 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 11 (Administration). thereof to read: 2 -61.8 Design Build a. This section provides for an alternative and optional procedure on bidding on D certain building construction projects. L ▪ CC b. The City Council may authorize use of a design -build contract for projects o O estimated to cost one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more when it is anticipated that this a - 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. 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. Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -D 4 -6 -04 4. The city shall establish a procedure for final selection of the design -build entity. Selection may be based on a competitive bidding process resulting in lump -sum bids by the prequalified design -build entities, with the contract to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. In the alternative, selection may be based upon a design -build competition based upon Best Value and other criteria set forth in the Request for Proposals upon four (4) affirmative votes of the City Council per City Charter section 3- 15. e. The City Manager or his/her designee is authorized to develop and implement appropriate rules and regulations necessary to carry out the intent of this Chapter. At a minimum, the rules and regulations will address the following issues: 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. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its fmal passage. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda 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 Date: To: Memorandum March 30, 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 after discussion the hearing was continued to the March 16, 2004 meeting to provide time for staff the Council to further review the proposed revisions to the landscaping and private open space sections of the code. At the March 16, 2004 meeting the City Council introduced first reading of the draft ordinance with the exception of the section on Landscaping & Private Open Space. Action on this section was deferred until a Mayor appointed committee could further review this section of the code and provide a recommendation on how to streamline the current regulations and increase the amount of open space on properties. The final ordinance scheduled for adoption at the April 06, 2004 City Council meeting does not include the Landscaping & Private Open Space amendments. The previous staff reports and attachments were provided at the February 03, 2004 and March 16, 2004 City Council meetings. If additional copies are required, please contact the Planning and Building Department. DISCUSSION No additional discussion is provided by staff at this time. The final ordinance incorporates the recommendations from the Planning Board endorsed by the City Council at recent public hearings. Phase II of the draft code amendments are currently being reviewed by the Planning Board. When the Phase II amendments are scheduled for City Council consideration staff will also include the recommendations from the Mayor appointed committee on the Landscaping & Open Space amendments. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Final Passage #5 -E 4 -6 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Page 2 March 30, 2004 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 approve second reading of the ordinance and final adoption. Cc: Planning Board Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Board of Realtors G:\PLANNING\ZOIA40604CCReport.doc Respectfully submitted, T , By: Gregory Fuz Planning and Building Director eve opment Review Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 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 w Regulations (i.e. all floor areas included in Title 24 calculations). Z Day care center shall mean a non - residential business or institution that p provides care for persons on less than a twenty -four (24) hour basis, that is licensed by s 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 1 Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -E 4 -6 -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. 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. 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. 2 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 tuch 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 Iine (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 comer 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. 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: 3 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 -4.1b7 and 30 -4.1c 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. 7.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 -4.2b7 and 30 -4.2c2 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. 7. 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 5. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsections 30 -4.3b4 and 30 -4.3c2 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. 4. Fancily 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 6. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -4.5b4 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: b. Uses Permitted. Parks, Playgrounds, Public and Private Schools, Churches and Religious Institutions, Libraries, Day Care Centers and Public Buildings. Section 7. 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, (f) Doctors and dentists, (g) Engineers, 5 (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 8. 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 9. 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. Section 10. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30 -4.19e and adding Subsection 30 -4.19d to Section 30 -4.19 (0, Open 6 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. 4. Public and commercial concessionaire activities, uses and buildings. Section 11. 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 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 7 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 12. 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 13. 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 comer lots, shall be landscaped. Excepting walkways, and driveways and staircases as permitted by this Article, minimum required front yards, and street side yards on comer 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 two (2') feet, however in no case shall such features have a setback of less than three (3') feet from the property line. 8 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 finding 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. d. Window and roofprojections. 9 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. (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 10 (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 as part of any duly permitted project to repair, remodel or replace the existing non- conforming structure. 11 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 comer 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 maybe located within minimum required front yards, and minimum required street side yards of comer 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. 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 12 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 14. 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 15. 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 16. 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. 13 2. Dwelling Units with over 3,000 sq. ft. of conditioned space — 3 spaces per unit. 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. Administrative Office areas - 1 space per 400 sq. ft. (all zones). c. Commercial and 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- 1 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 17. The Alameda Municipal Codeis 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 18. 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: 14 30 -7.8 Location of Parking Spaces and Prohibited Phrking 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 comer 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 comer lot, is prohibited. (a) Exception to parking prohibition: Driveways used to provide access to required parking spaces may be used to provide ancillary parking provided the parking is not located in the required front yard or the street side yard of any comer lot. 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. b. 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." c. Non - residential Parking in Residential Zones. Parking for uses not allowed in a residential zone shall not be located in that residential zone. d. Non - residential Parking in Residential Zones. Parking for uses not allowed in a residential zone shall not be located in that residential zone. Section 19. 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. 15 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 W) 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 20. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 30- 7.10a, and Subsection 30-7.10c 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: 16 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 N of this chapter. Section 21. 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 22. 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 23. 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: 17 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) footcandles, 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) footcandles. 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 24. 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.x.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 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 senior housing 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 applicant(s) of the subject 18 housing developments shall provide parking and traffic study(s) as deemed necessary to document the reduced need for off - street parking. Section 25. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by deleting the definition"Fortuiietelling establishment" from Subsection 30 -9.2 (Definitions) of Section 30 -9 (Adult Entertainment Activity) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) in its entirety. Section 26. 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 27. 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 28. 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 19 map or tentative subdivision map, to the maximum time allowed by the State of California Subdivision Map Act for the land division approvals. Section 29. 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 30. 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 31. 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. ' 20 Section 32. 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 final 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 councihnember files a call for review with the Planning Department no Iater 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 33. 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 34. 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 35. 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: 21 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 (1) year extension by prior said expiration. Section 36. 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 Revised 3/23/04 Presiding Officer of the Council 22 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 CURRENT APPLICATIONS ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY PARATRANSIT ADVISORY PLANNING COMMITTEE (PAPCO) Ed Cooney Robert Frazer Marjorie B. Lunceford Re: Council Communications #7 -A 4 -6 -03 Lara Weisi er -Item 2 for Council Cor .inication: first mtng in April From: <TDaysog @aol.com> To: <Iweisiger @ci.alameda. ca. us> Date: 3/29/2004 3:32:13 PM Subject: Item 2 for Council Communication: first mtng in April To meet the 5:00 o'clock deadline, I am submitting this "placeholder" item: "(DRAFT) On amending the City Charter to require a competitive bidding process for all bonds \debt issued by Alameda City Council, the Community Improvement Commission, the Alameda Public Finance Authority, the Alameda Re -use and Redevelopment Authority, and the Alameda Power and Telecom, with the proviso that allows the above governing bodies to issue bonds non - competitively under specified circumstances agreed to by a majority ( ?)lsuper majority( ?) of governing board and Council members, as well as other provisos on including detailed financial information as part of public information packet prior to selection of bond underwriter on a competitive or non - competitive basis. (DRAFT)" Automatic message to all e-mail recipients: please excuse any mis- spellings or grammatical errors, as I use e-mail primarily as an informal means of communication. Thank you for your consideration. - Tony Daysog Re: Council Communication #7 -B 4 -6 -04 ‘PL.COMIMessage View 1 of 3 http://webmail.aol ,-.1m/fmsgview.adp?foldere.TIVU(2k9Y&uid-4040732 • Subj.: Fwd: Dear City of Alameda Officials: bate: 3/28/2004 8:47:29 PM Eastern Standard Tittle From: IDaysog To: Ifiweisiger@ci.atatheda.cas Please place the attached email Council Communication section of the first mtng in April. I do not envision any discussion -- just want to put in the public record. Thanks -- Tony Subj: Dear City of Alameda Officials: Date: 3/18/2004 4:32:28 PM Eastern Standard Time From: "Garcia, Olivia (ABSMC)" <QarciaOlesutterhealth.org> To: "Mayor Beverly Johnson (E-mail)" <bjohnson@ci.alarneda.ea.us>,"City of Alameda's Vice Mayor Tony Daysog (E-mail)" <tdaysog@ci.alaineda.ca.us>xfmatarrese@cialameda.ca.us>, <bicerr@ci.alameda.ca.us>.<mgilrn.ore@ci.alameda.ca.us> Cc: <pat.dando@ci.sica.us> 0 I, 0".. • -I • 1.‘ • 111-114 ‘110 '1 " I ID 6- . You must take the initiative and reach out to them to UNITE together and strengthen taws against sex offenders! We cannot let the momentum diffuse! YOU have the power and resources to pick up the phone and align with other Bay Area Cities, their Senators, and Assemblypersons. It is time to take action! If you do not have the time to orchestrate a meeting, I will volunteer my time and organize the meeting for you! PLEASE' KGO-TV/CIT Snn Francisco OakInnt9 San Jr co Re: Council Communication #7-C 4-6-04 IOL.COM l Moyne View Experience flEG _ d =,rJ TC , :.]T' abe NEWS Pete Wilson Jessica Aguirre G :OO P1V7 of3 http: / /wetimail.aol " nm/ fmsgvlew .edp ?toldcr- ?[VUQk9Y &uid= 9040732 Program Flawed Sex Offender Cary Verse Moves To San Jose Cary Verse (ABC7) 'l March 17 (AP) — San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis said today that he does not have faith in the state's five -phase rehabilitation program for sexually violent predators such as new city resident Cary Verse. ti Sex Offender Sneaks a Sex Offender Lookup ifj Megan's Law Guide Road motel in the city's Seven Trees neighborhood without telling police or San Jose Mayor Ron Gonzales. Authorities only became aware of Verse's presence when a citizen called 911 after recognizing him at a strip mall near his motel. Davis said the state program is totally untested, in contrast to the DeVries, the only other sexually violent predator to be released under the program, will re,-offend. "We're going to become the experimental laboratory here," Davis said. Verse and DeVries were released as part of the final phase of the prison sentences. In addition, Verse is chemically castrated and DeVries was surgically castrated. called for life sentences for se:x offenders with multiple cOilvicticlns. get out of prison, especially when they have repeatedly ... raped . small children." Dando said. (• ... •... .. 1.. 3/30/04 3:41 AM 4O1 .COM I Mcssage View tntp:// wcbmail .aot,com /fmsgview.edp ?foldemTt. VUQk9Ydtuido9040732 an Jose is nome to approximately L,,iuu sex oxrenuers, media attention Verse's case has drawn, investigators continue to monitor all of the high -risk offenders in the city, according to Davis. "We're not going to disregard the other ones," because of Verse, Davis said. A. spokeswoman for the Department of Mental Health did not return calls for comment on this story. »F'al.k aboyt this story » Get ABC7 N ws in your: in ox Copyright 2004 by Associated Press. Republication, re- transmission or reuse without the express written consent of the Associated Press. Is prohibited. RELATED LINKS p MARCH FOR RELAI D ITEMS • TOP STORIES • Murder Susgect May Hve Stalke4 Other Women • Police Ready For Anti -War Protests, Congestion • 4ayward Neighborhood Back ToBormal After Blast • Man Dies After Driving .Self To SF aospitai • Girl Scout Cookie Sellersi•e Robbed 0 BACK TO TOP +^► HQME ABCNEWS.coin ABC.com i Movics.com I ESPN_com familyFutt,com Advertise on this Sim [Contact Us, Copyright ©2004 ABC Inc., KGO -TV Inc. Terms of Use, UPDATED Privacy Policy and Internet Safety Information for this site. (Meio ,14. Garcia Executive utiver ,i.csistant to .Robert TI. Perrino. CFO Alto Bates Summit Medico/ Center P1,: 510-869-6987 Px: 5 1.0- 658- 8593 Al: 5.10 -299 -8005 obc N 3of3 • 3/30104 3 :41 AN