Loading...
2004-06-01 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - JUNE 1, 2004 - - - 6:15 P.M. Time: Tuesday, June 1, 6:15 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure of litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9. Number of cases: One. 3 -B. Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City Manager. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - JUNE 1, 2004 - - - 7:00 P.M. Time: Tuesday, June 1, 2004, 7:00 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: Alameda Market Place 1650 Park Street HLM, Inc., City of Alameda, Community Improvement Commission Price and terms of payment. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: Negotiating parties: Under negotiation: 4. Announcement of Action Adjournment Launderland Leasehold Interest 2523.Blanding Avenue Anita Ng and Wing Ng, dba AWNG, City of Alameda, Community Improvement Commission Price and terms of payment. Taken in Closed Session, if any. CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY - - - June 1, 2004 - - - 7:25 P.M. Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Authority on agenda items or business introduced by Authority may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Authority. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL MINUTES Minutes of the Annual Industrial Development Authority Meetings of May 20, 2003 and May 18, 2004. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Commission meetings. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - JUNE 1, 2004 - - - 7:27 P.M. Location: Council Chaznbars, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. ROLL CALL CONSENT CALENDAR 1 -A. Minutes of the Community Improvement Commission Meeting of May 18, 2004. 1 -B. Adoption of Resolution Establishing an Inclusionary Housing Policy for the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Projects; and • Adoption of Resolution Establishing an Inclusionary Housing Policy for the Alameda Point Improvement Project. AGENDA ITEM None. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk, and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Council meetings. AGENDA TUESDAY REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JUNE 1, 2004 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 8. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council. SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:15 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:00 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Conference Room Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 7:25 P.M. AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:27 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation declaring June 5 -16 as Affordable Housing Week. 3 -B. Presentation on New Main Library Project. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public. 4 -A. Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of May 6, 2004; Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and Special Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting of May 13, 2004; the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and the Regular City Council of May 18, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Alameda Free Library - New Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01. 4 -C. Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Existing Transmission Line Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074- 0905-43 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deeds (62 Unit Affordable Housing and Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [ID No. 9]. 4 -D. Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of Unrecorded Electrical Power Pole Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -2 -3; 074 - 0905 -39; 074 - 0905 -42, and 074 - 0905 -43 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deeds (62 Unit Affordable Housing and Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [ID No. 10]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of an Unrecorded Electrical Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -2 -3; 074 -0905- 42; 074 - 0905 -43; and 074 - 1353 - 5,6,7,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 1]. 4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -40; 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 2]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -39; 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 3]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P. N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects [I.D. No. 4]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 5]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 6]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074 - 1353 - 5,6,7,15 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 7]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 8]. 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Revenue Funds for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for the City of Alameda Ferry Services and to Enter Into All Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds. 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Revising the Citywide Development Impact Fee Schedule for the Construction of Capital Facilities within the City of Alameda. 4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Affordable Housing Guidelines for Residential Developments in the City of Alameda. 4 -I. Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the Execution of a Lease for Real Property Located at 1435 Webster Street (Parking Lot D). 4 -J. Bills for ratification. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Recommendation to accept the Citywide Retail Policy Report. [Economic Development Commission] 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution, "Confirming the Business Improvement Area Reports for FY 2004 -05 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2004 -05." 5.0 Public Hearing to consider introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 30 -16, (Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda. 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) 7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Paratransit Advisory Committee. 7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Social Services Human Relations Board. 8. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will be adjourned in memory of Frank McCormick, Director, Mastick Senior Advisory Board. • For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter. • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available. • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print. • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. • Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: May 24, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Regular and Special City Council Meeting, Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings, and Special Meeting of the Industrial Development Authority of June 1, 2004 Transmitted are the agendas and supporting information for the Regular and Special City Council Meeting, Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings, and Special Meeting of the Industrial Development Authority of June 1, 2004. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 1 -A Minutes of the Community Improvement Commission Meeting of May 18, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Community Improvement Commission meeting of May 18, 2004. 1 -B Adoption of Resolution Establishing Inclusionary Housing Policy for the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Projects; Adoption of Resolution Establishing an Inclusionary Housing Policy for the Alameda Point Improvement Project. In accordance with Community Redevelopment Law and our adopted Housing Element, these resolutions are proposed to establish inclusionary housing policies for the Alameda Point Improvement Project, Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the West End Community Improvement Project areas. This will require 25% of the total units in developments with 3 or more units to be affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor And Councilmembers Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service COUNCIL AGENDA Page 2 May 24, 2004 PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Proclamation declaring June 5 -16 as Affordable Housing Week. At this time the Mayor will present a proclamation declaring June 5 — 16, 2004 as Affordable Housing Week. 3 -B. Presentation on the New Main Library Project. At this time Bob Haun, Library Project Manager, will give the Council an update on the new main Library project. CONSENT CALENDAR 4 -A. Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings of May 6, 2004 and May 13, 2004, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings and Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on May 18, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings of May 6, 2004 and May 13, 2004, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings and Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on May 18, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications for Alameda Free Library - New Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01. It is recommended that Council approve the Plans and Specifications for the new Main Library Project. 4 -C. Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Existing Transmission Line Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074- 0905-43 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deeds (62 Unit Affordable Housing and Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [ID No. 9]. This resolution vacates existing transmission line easements within the Catellus project and grants replacement easements. These existing overhead and underground power lines that run through the former East Housing and FISC property must be vacated in order to construct both the 62 -unit affordable housing project and the Bayport Phase 2 residential project. Honorable Mayor And Councilmembers Page 3 May 24, 2004 4 -D. Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of Unrecorded Electrical Power Pole Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -2 -3; 074 - 0905 -39; 074 - 0905 -42, and 074 - 0905 -43 [ID No. 10]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of an Unrecorded Electrical Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -2 -3; 074 - 0905 -42; 074 - 0905 -43; and 074 - 1353 - 5,6,7,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 1]. Adoption of these resolutions vacates electric power pole easements in the former East Housing /FISC area. The electric system has been relocated underground. 4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -40; 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 2]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -39; 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 3]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P. N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects [I.D. No. 4]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 5]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 6]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074 -1353- 5,6,7,15 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 7]; and • Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of the Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [I.D. No. 8]. Adoption of these resolutions vacates existing storm drain easements that run through former East Housing and FISC property. These actions are necessary to Honorable Mayor Page 4 And Councilmembers May 24, 2004 build the 62 -unit affordable housing project and Bayport Phase 2 residential project. 4 -F Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Revenue Funds for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for the City of Alameda Ferry Services and to Enter into All Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds. This resolution authorizes application for 5% Unrestricted State Funds and 2% Bridge Toll Revenue Funds to be used for ferry operations subsidy and capital projects. 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Revising the Citywide Development Impact Fee Schedule for the Construction of Capital Facilities within the City of Alameda. This resolution constitutes the annual review of the Citywide Development Fee Program and includes a 2.53% increase for fees in accordance with the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index San Francisco Bay Area. 4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Establishing Affordable Housing Guidelines for Residential Developments in the City of Alameda. This resolution establishes a 15% inclusionary requirement for all residential developments of 5 or more units outside redevelopment areas and 25% requirement for all residential developments of 3 or more units within redevelopment areas to provide opportunities for affordable housing. The resolution helps implement the Housing Element of the General Plan. 4 -I. Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the Execution of a Lease for Real Property Located at 1435 Webster Street (Parking Lot D).' Introduction of this ordinance will authorize execution of a lease for continued City use of Parking Lot D at Webster Street and Taylor Avenue. 4 -J. Bills for ratification. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Recommendation to accept the Citywide Retail Policy Report. [Economic Development Commission] It is recommended that the Council accept the proposed Citywide Retail Policy Report. A supplemental report provides information regarding two other retail reports prepared for different purposes: the Sedway Group and Strategic Economics Report. Honorable Mayor And Councilmembers Page 5 May 24, 2004 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution, "Confirming the Business Improvement Area Reports for FY 2004 -05 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2004 -05." This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comment on the proposed resolution which would approve the report for fiscal year 2004 -05 and levy the annual assessment for the Business Improvement Area. 5 -C. Public Hearing to consider introduction of Ordinance "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 30 -16, (Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comments on a proposed ordinance to amend the Alameda Municipal Code to provide inclusionary housing units thereby providing affordable housing units throughout the City. 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. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Social Services Human Relations Board. At this time the Mayor will make a nomination to fill the current vacancy on the Social Service Human Relations Board. UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 20, 2003- -7:27 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 7:43 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Board Members Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr and Chair Johnson - 4. Absent: Board Member Matarrese - 1. MINUTES Minutes of the Annual Industrial Development Authority Meeting of May 21, 2002. Board Member DeWitt moved approval of the Minutes. Vice Chair Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Board Member Matarrese - 1.] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. AUTHORITY COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual Meeting at 7:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Industrial Development Authority The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Annual Meeting Industrial Development Authority May 20, 2003 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 18, 2004- -7:25 P.M. Acting Chair Daysog convened the Annual Meeting at 7:48 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Board Members Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Acting Chair Daysog - 4. Absent: Chair Johnson - 1. MINUTES Minutes of the Annual Industrial Development Authority Meeting of May 20, 2003. Held over. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. AUTHORITY COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Acting Chair Daysog adjourned the Annual Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Industrial Development Authority The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Annual Meeting Industrial Development Authority May 18, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - - MAY 18, 2004 - - 7:31 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 9:07 P.M. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. MINUTES (04- ) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meetings of April 6, 2004 and May 4, 2004. Approved. Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEMS (04- ) Recommendation to consider allocating funds for the potential property acquisition and development for the proposed expansion of Ron Goode Toyota. Accepted. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), stated that he supports the staff recommendation; signing the Disposition and Development Agreement would allow the project to move forward; PSBA considers the project to be a potential catalyst project for the northern part of the district. Chair Johnson stated that the City put a great deal of effort in working with Ron Goode Toyota and was willing to commit the money necessary to keep Ron Goode Toyota in Alameda. Commissioner Kerr inquired how much sales tax would be generated over the next 10 years, to which the Executive Director responded approximately $7 million per year. Commissioner Kerr stated that the development area was between Clement Avenue, Eagle Avenue and Park Avenue; that the westwardly proposed line ran behind the Baron building and the canvas shop; inquired whether the project would involve the Victorians to the west. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission May 18, 2004 1 The Executive Director stated that the project would not affect properties beyond those identified. Commissioner Daysog stated that Ron Goode Toyota has been great for the City; that the City should do what was necessary to improve the northern side of Park Street. Commissioner Kerr stated that the Knowles improvements have beautified the southern portion of the Park Street business area. Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Resolution No. 04 -125, "Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes; Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for Order of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et seq. (2531 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA - Rite - Aid)." Adopted. Raymond Payne, Rite Aid Drug Stores, stated that he is opposed to the recommendation which would result in the condemnation of Rite Aid; the condition of the property and the store do not reflect well on Rite Aid or the shopping center; for ten years, there have been continual discussions with the landlord and various parties about the threat or the promise of redevelopment; lack of investment in the property is the result of continual proposals being presented to do something different with the property; that both the City and Rite Aid would benefit if Rite Aid stays in the City; Rite Aid has served the community for over 30 years; Rite Aid has done everything to be part of the project; inquired why the City would pay Rite Aid to leave; the cost of Rite Aid's departure is more than the City realizes; requested Rite Aid be considered as a part of the project and the City. Lee Rosenthal, Thrifty Payless Corporation /Rite Aid, stated the Community Improvement Commission is governed by Community Redevelopment Law which creates certain rights for property and business owners who are proposed to be displaced by redevelopment projects; a right provided is a reasonable opportunity to re -enter the existing businesses in the project area; the Commission's responsibility as the Redevelopment Agency is to provide a reasonable opportunity to Rite Aid; the redevelopment project will replace the existing shopping center with a new, improved center that has spaces that could and should accommodate a new Rite Aid; Regency [developer] has told Rite Aid that it does not want a Rite Aid store in the center; the reason, not because the center is a Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission 2 May 18, 2004 clothing or furniture specialty center, not because it is a residential project that does not accommodate retail or because Regency has a policy excluding drug stores; Regency's ten northern California shopping centers have supermarkets with drug stores; Rite Aid is being excluded so that Regency can give an exclusive drug store franchise to Nob Hill Foods; Rite Aid is not being given a reasonable opportunity to re -enter business in the project area; in 2001 and 2002, Rite Aid had discussions with Mr. Mr. Doug Wiele [developer] regarding the property; two years later the City bought the shopping center; the City sold the property to Rite Aid and Regency; Rite Aid, at the request of the City, requested an opportunity to be part of the center and Regency said no; there is a financial incentive for the City to work to have Ride Aid relocated in the center; agreement with Regency has a $1.5 million cap on what Regency is obligated to spend for acquisition; Rite Aid's appraisals of its interest in the center is $2.5 million which is money that the redevelopment agency would pay; there should be an incentive for the City not to adopt the resolution and put Regency and Rite Aid in a situation where Rite Aid can have a store in the center. Commissioner Kerr stated that she was unaware of Rite -Aid's desire to stay in Alameda; that she could not agree with the Planning Board's assessment. Commissioner Daysog stated that it was important to move forward with the project for the Fernside Boulevard residents. Chair Johnson concurred with Commissioner Daysog. Commissioner Matarrese concurred with Commissioner Daysog; stated twelve years of blight needs to be rectified. Commissioner Kerr inquired how much sales tax Rite -Aid produces yearly. Mr. Payne responded that general sales are in excess of $6 million per year. Commissioner Kerr inquired whether Nob Hill Foods would include a pharmacy; to which the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution. Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 4. Noes: Commissioner Kerr - 1. Special Meeting Community Improvement Commission May 18, 2004 3 (04- ) Resolution No. 04 -126, "Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes; Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for Order of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et seq. (2523 Blanding Avenue, Alameda, CA - Launderland)." Adopted. Commissioner Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Commissioner Kerr - 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 9:35 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 May 18, 2004 4 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Date: May 19, 2004 Re: Resolutions Establishing the Inclusionary Housing Requirements in Redevelopment Areas Background Per Community Redevelopment Law Requirements, at least 15% of all new or substantially rehabilitated dwelling units developed by public or private entities other than the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) must be affordable to persons of low or moderate income. This is referred to as the "inclusionary housing" requirement. The City of Alameda's Housing Element, adopted May 6, 2003, increased the inclusionary housing requirement to 25% for the West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) and the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP). The requirement had already been set at 25% for the Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP) per the Settlement Agreement dated March 20, 2001, between the City, CIC, ARRA, Housing Authority, Catellus, Renewed Hope and Arc Ecology (Settlement Agreement). Discussion /Analysis The proposed Resolutions establishing the inclusionary housing requirements in the APIP, BWIP and WECIP implement the City's Housing Element, help the City retain an economically balanced community with housing available to very low, low and moderate income households and help mitigate the affordable housing impacts created by new residential development. These Resolutions have been created in conjunction with the Citywide Inclusionary Ordinance (creating Section 30 -16 of Article )0X of the Alameda Municipal Code) to ensure uniform application of inclusionary housing requirements throughout the city. The proposed Resolutions state that, for all residential developments of three or more units in the APIP, BWIP and WECIP, at least 25% of the total units must be inclusionary units. They further define which percentage of units must be affordable to very low, low and Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolutions #1 -B (CIC) 6 -1 -04 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 19, 2004 Page 2 moderate income households. State law mandates that at least 40% of the 15% inclusionary requirement, or 6% of all units, be affordable to very low income households. In the APIP, per the terms of the Settlement Agreement, it was established that 10% of all units would be affordable to low income households, with the remaining 9% affordable to low or moderate income households. In the WECIP and BWIP, the tiers of affordability proposed more closely reflect the Regional Housing Needs Determination for each income level identified in the Housing Element. The Resolution for the BWIP/WECIP retains the state mandate of 6% affordable to very low income households, and establishes a new requirement of 7% affordable to low income households, with the remaining 12% affordable to low or moderate income households. Other highlights of the Resolutions include: • Unit Standards — requires inclusionary units to conform to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council. For each residential development, developers will submit an Affordable Housing Plan showing location of affordable units at various income levels and describing how the plan adheres to the adopted guidelines. Draft guidelines were recommended for adoption by the Planning Board on March 8, 2004, and are being considered by the City Council concurrently with the Inclusionary Ordinance. • Exemptions - the requirements do not apply to the reconstruction of any structures that have been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature provided that the reconstruction takes place within three years of the date the structures were destroyed, and to residential developments of three or four units in which all units are non - owner - occupied and will remain affordable to Low- or Very Low - Income Households for a minimum of 15 years, except that one unit may be owner - occupied with no affordability restrictions. Affordable housing projects and residential developments with approved maps are also exempt from the Resolutions. • In -Lieu Fees — for developments of nine or fewer units in the BWIP and WECIP, developers have the option of paying a fee in lieu of construction. The fee is initially set at $26,731 per market rate unit constructed. This fee was established based on the subsidy needed to make up the gap between the cost of developing an affordable unit and the weighted average sales price for very low, low and moderate income homes. Both development cost and sales price were established in a memorandum from Keyser Marston dated March 29, 2002, referenced in the Housing Element. • Length of Affordability — all units must remain affordable at the income levels for which the units were designed for a minimum of fifty -nine years. Resale restrictions for ownership units will give the City a right of first refusal to purchase the unit at an affordable price. This provides the City with a mechanism to re- record a 59 -year affordability covenant upon resale, for continued affordability. • Adjustment/Waivers — the requirements may be waived, adjusted or reduced if the applicant shows that there is no reasonable relationship between the impact of the proposed residential development on the demand for affordable housing in the City Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 19, 2004 Page 3 and the inclusionary housing requirements, or that applying the requirements would constitute a taking or be otherwise illegal. Fiscal Impact There is no impact on the General Fund. In the past, costs associated with the inclusionary housing requirement have been borne by the developer. The increased inclusionary requirement will present additional costs to the developer, who, in turn, may ask the CIC for assistance. Recommendation The Executive Director recommends adoption of the Resolutions establishing inclusionary housing requirements in redevelopment areas. Re y sub itt Little Development Services Direc By: Rachel Silver Development Manager, Housing JMF \LAL \RS:sb G:\HOUSING\INCLUSIO\CICrpt_IR.doc F: Redevelopment Housing\25% Inclusionary Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESTABLISHING AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY FOR THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT AND WEST END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WHEREAS, California and the City of Alameda face a serious housing problem that threatens their economic security. Persons of very low -, low- and moderate - income are experiencing increasing difficulty in locating and maintaining adequate, safe and sanitary affordable housing. Lack of access to affordable housing has a direct impact upon the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Alameda. Alameda will not be able to contribute to the attainment of State housing goals or to retain a healthy environment without additional affordable housing. As noted in the City's Housing Element, a regional shortage of affordable housing is contributing to overpayment for housing accommodations, sometimes leading to temporary or permanent homelessness; and WHEREAS, a lack of new Inclusionary Units will have a substantial negative impact on the environment and economic climate because (i) housing will have to be built elsewhere, far from employment centers and therefore, commutes will increase, causing increased traffic and transit demand and consequent noise and air pollution, and (ii) City businesses will find it more difficult to attract and retain the workers they need. Inclusionary housing policies contribute to a healthy job and housing balance by providing more affordable housing close to employment centers; and WHEREAS, development of new market -rate housing encourages new residents to move to the City. These new residents will place demands on services provided by both public and private sectors. Some of the public and private sector employees needed to meet the needs of the new residents earn incomes only adequate to pay for affordable housing. Employees who are unable to find affordable housing in the City will be forced to commute long distances. This situation adversely impacts on their quality of life, consumes limited energy resources, increases traffic congestion and has a negative impact on air quality; and WHEREAS, increasing the production and availability of affordable housing is problematic. Prices and rents for affordable housing remain below the level needed to attract new construction. At the same time, escalating land costs and rapidly diminishing amounts of land available for development hinder the provision of affordable housing units solely through private action. Federal and state funds for the construction of new affordable housing are insufficient to fully address the problem of affordable housing within the City; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to retain an economically balanced community, with housing available to very low -, low- and moderate- income households. The City's General Plan implements the established policy of the State of California that each community should foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic levels; and 316769v3A 21942/0020 Resolution # 1 -B (CIC) 6 -1 -04 WHEREAS, it is appropriate to impose some of the cost of the increased burden of providing housing for very low -, low- and moderate - income persons directly on the developers, and indirectly upon the occupiers, whose developments necessitate the need for such housing. In addition to the demands on services from such developments, new development without affordable units contributes to the shortage of affordable housing. Ordinances and policies concerning new housing in the City should be consistent with the community's goal to foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic levels; and WHEREAS, the City Council originally approved and adopted the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (the "BWIP ") on June 18, 1991, by Ordinance No. 2559, as subsequently amended on December 6, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2681, on July 6, 2000, by Ordinance No. 2835, on September 19, 2000, by Ordinance No. 2844, on April 3, 2001, by Ordinance No. 2857, on April 1, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2896, and on November 4, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2910; and WHEREAS, the City Council originally approved and adopted the Community Improvement Plan for the West End Community Improvement Project (the "WECIP ") on July 5, 1983, by Ordinance No. 2141, as subsequently amended on January 2, 1985, by Ordinance No. 2222, on December 6, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2682, on November 20, 2002, by Ordinance No. 2889, on April 1, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2897, and on November 4, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2910; and WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (the "Commission') has been designated as the official redevelopment agency to carry out in the City of Alameda the functions and requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safi ty Code Section 33000 et seq.) and to implement the Community Improvement Plans for the P WIP and WECIP; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Law requires that at least 15 percent of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed in a redevelopment project area by entities other than the Commission be affordable units. (Health & Safety Code § 33413(b)(2)). The City of Alameda desires to go above and beyond this affordability requirement in order to provide needed affordable housing in the City. In its Housing Element, the City Council of the City of Alameda established an inclusionary housing requirement of 25 percent for redevelopment project areas, including the BWIP and the WECIP; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda has adopted an Ordinance Adding Section 30 -16, Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects, to the City of Alameda Municipal Code (the "Inclusionary Housing Ordinance "). The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance provides that its provisions do not apply to the Community Improvement Project Areas as long as the Community Improvement Commission adopts separate resolutions or policies pertaining to inclusionary housing requirements in such areas. The Commission desires to adopt this separate resolution and policy pertaining to inclusionary housing requirements in the BWIP and the WECIP; and 2 316769v3A 21942/0020 NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Commission hereby adopts the following policy to implement the inclusionary housing requirement for the BWIP and the WECIP set forth in the City of Alameda's Housing Element: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY FOR BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT AND WEST END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREAS The purpose of this Policy is to implement the goals and objectives of the Housing Element of the City of Alameda General Plan with respect to inclusionary housing in the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Project areas. 1. Definitions. As used in this Policy: Affordable Rent shall mean "affordable rent" as defined in Section 50053 of the California Health & Safety Code. Affordable Housing Guidelines shall mean guidelines adopted by the City Council to specify location and design standards for Inclusionary Units. Affordable Housing Plan shall mean a plan proposed by a developer to satisfy the requirements of this Policy. The Affordable Housing Plan establishes the number and location of Inclusionary Units, production schedule and other standards. Affordable Ownership Cost shall mean "affordable housing cost" as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health & Safety Code. City shall mean the City of Alameda. Commission shall mean the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. Construction Cost Index shall mean the Engineering News - Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco. If that index ceases to exist, the Executive Director will substitute another Construction Cost Index, which, in his or her judgment, is as nearly equivalent to the original index as possible. Executive Director shall mean the Executive Director of the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda or his or her designee. Household shall mean one person living alone or two or more persons sharing residency whose income is considered for housing payments. 3 316769v3 21942/0020 Inclusionary Unit shall mean a dwelling unit that must be offered at Affordable Rent or available at Affordable Housing Cost to Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income Households. In -Lieu Fee shall mean the fee described in Section 4(a) that is paid as an alternative to the production of inclusionary housing, which fee shall be used in accordance with Section 9. Low - Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "lower income households" in Section 50079.5 of the California Health & Safety Code. Market -Rate Unit shall mean a dwelling in a Residential Development that is not an Inclusionary Unit. Moderate - Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "persons and families of low or moderate income" in Section 50093 of the California Health & Safety Code. Residential Development shall mean any planned development district, subdivision map, conditional use permit or other discretionary land use approval that authorizes the construction of residential dwelling units. Very Low - Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "very low income households" in Section 50105 of the California Health & Safety Code. 2. Inclusionary Unit Requirements. a. Unit Requirement. For all Residential Developments of three or more units in the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Project Areas, at least 25 percent of the total units must be Inclusionary Units restricted for occupancy by Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income Households. The number of Inclusionary Units required for a particular project will be determined only once, at the time of project approval. If a change in the Residential Development design results in a change in the total number of units, the number of Inclusionary Units required will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved project. b. Calculation. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units required by this Policy, any additional units authorized as a density bonus under California Government Code Section 65915(b)(1) or (b)(2) will not be counted in determining the required number of Inclusionary Units. In determining the number of whole Inclusionary Units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. c. Types of Inclusionary Units. Six percent of the total units must be restricted to occupancy by Very Low - Income Households; seven percent of the total units must be restricted to occupancy by Low - Income Households; and twelve percent may be restricted to occupancy by Moderate - Income Households. For Residential Developments with 41 or fewer total units, Inclusionary Units shall be restricted for occupancy by Very Low -, Low- or 4 316769v3A 21942/0020 Moderate - Income Households in the following proportions, which are based upon the above calculations: Total Inclusionary Units Units Income Levels 3 to 5 1 1 moderate 6 to 9 2 1 moderate, 1 low 10 to 13 3 1 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 14 to 17 4 2 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 18 to 21 5 3 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 22 to 25 6 3 moderate, 2 low, 1 very low 26 to 29 7 3 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low 30 to 33 8 4 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low 34 to 37 9 4 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low 38 to 41 10 5 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low d. Affordable Housing Guidelines. Inclusionary Units must conform to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council. 3. Exemptions. The requirements of this Policy do not apply to: a. Reconstruction. The reconstruction of any structures that have been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature provided that the reconstruction takes place within three years of the date the structures were destroyed. b. Affordable three or four unit Residential Developments. Residential Developments of three or four units in which all units are non - owner- occupied and will remain affordable to Low- or Very Low - Income Households for a minimum of 15 years, except that one unit may be owner- occupied with no affordability restrictions. c. Residential building additions, repairs or remodels. Residential building additions, repairs or remodels; provided, that such work does not increase the number of existing dwelling units beyond two units. d. Affordable housing projects. Residential Developments that already have more dwelling units that qualify as affordable to Very Low -, Low- and Moderate - Income Households than this Policy requires. e. Residential Developments with approved maps. Residential Developments for which a tentative map or vesting tentative map was approved, or for which a building permit was issued, prior to the date this Resolution was adopted and which continue to have unexpired permits. 5 316769v3 21942/0020 4. Alternatives. a. In -lieu fees. For Residential Developments of nine or fewer units, including Inclusionary Units, the requirements of this Policy may be satisfied by paying an In- Lieu Fee. The initial fee is $26,731.00 per Market -Rate Unit, which is sufficient to make up the gap between (i) the amount of development capital typically expected to be available based on the amount to be received by a developer or owner from Affordable Housing Cost or Affordable Rent, and (ii) the anticipated cost of constructing the Inclusionary Units. The fee shall be adjusted annually to reflect the percentage change in the cost of construction as reported in the Construction Cost Index. Fees shall be paid upon issuance of building permits for Market -Rate Units in a Residential Development. If building permits are issued for only part of a Residential Development, the fee amount shall be based only on the number of units then permitted. b. Off-site construction. Inclusionary Units may be constructed off -site if the Planning Board can make a finding that the purposes of this Policy would be better served by the construction of off -site units. In determining whether the purposes of this Policy would be better served by this alternative, consideration should be given as to whether the off -site units would be located in an area where, based on availability of affordable housing, the need for such units is greater than the need in the area of the proposed development. 5. Incentive. The Commission may provide the following incentive to a developer who elects to mtisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of this Policy by producing Inclusionary Units on the site of the Residential Development: a. Expedit.,d Processing. Eligibility for expedited processing of development and permit appl. rations for the Residential Development. 6. Compliance Procedures. a. Conditions to carry out the purposes of this Policy shall be imposed on the approval of any Residential Development to which this Policy pertains. b. As part of the application for a Residential Development, the applicant shall submit an Affordable Housing Plan demonstrating compliance with this Policy. The Affordable Housing Plan must include: (i) a description of the number and size of each Market - Rate Unit and each Inclusionary Unit, including the income levels to which each Inclusionary Unit will be made affordable, (ii) a narrative describing how the plan adheres to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council, and (iii) a site map, with the location of the Inclusionary Units clearly marked. c. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the decision - making entity concurrently with the Residential Development. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be made a condition of approval of the Residential Development. Regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and/or other documents shall be recorded against Inclusionary Units and Residential Developments containing Inclusionary Units in accordance with Section 8. 6 316769v3A 21942/0020 d. An Affordable Housing Plan that proposes off -site construction shall include a site map of the off -site location, a description of the arrangements made for construction at that site and demonstration that the proposed off -site construction complies with Section 4(b). Off -site construction may only be approved in accordance with Section 4(b). e. All Inclusionary Units shall be constructed and occupied as specified in the approved Affordable Housing Plan concurrently with or prior to the construction and occupancy of Market Rate Units. In phased developments, Inclusionary Units may be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of units in each phase of the Residential Development. 7. Requirements for Inclusionary Units. a. Eligibility Requirements. No Household may occupy an Inclusionary Unit unless the Commission or its designee has approved the Household's eligibility in accordance with City- approved policies. Each Household that occupies a rental Inclusionary Unit or purchases an owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit must occupy that unit as that Household's principal residence. b. Initial Sales Price of Owner- Occupied Units. The initial sales price of an owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit shall be set so that the eligible Household will pay an Affordable Ownership Cost. Resale and other restrictions on the Inclusionary Unit will be governed by the regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust or other recorded agreements recorded against the Inclusionary Unit. c. Rent of Rental Units. Rental Inclusionary Units shall be offered to eligible Households at an Affordable Rent. 8. Continued Affordability. a. Regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and/or other documents acceptable to the Executive Director, all consistent with the requirements of this Policy, shall be recorded against Inclusionary Units and Residential Developments containing Inclusionary Units. These documents shall legally restrict occupancy of Inclusionary Units to Households of the income levels for which the units were designed for a minimum of 59 years. The forms of regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and all other documents authorized by this Policy, and any change in the form of any such document which materially alters any policy in the document, shall be approved by the Executive Director. b. The resale restrictions required by this Policy shall allow the City a right of first refusal to purchase any owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit at the maximum price which could be charged to a qualified purchaser Household, at the time the owner proposes a sale. 9. Limited Uses of Fees. a. Use and Disbursement of Fees. In -Lieu Fees collected under this Policy shall be used in accordance with and in support of affordable housing as determined by the Executive Director. Expenditures of In -Lieu Fees shall be limited to direct expenditures for 7 316769v3A 21942/0020 capital projects or incidental non - capital expenditures related to capital projects, including but not limited to pre - development expenses, land acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, subsidization, counseling or assistance to other governmental entities, private organizations or individuals to expand affordable housing opportunities to very low -, low- and moderate - income households. Authorized expenditures also include, but are not limited to, assistance to housing development corporations, equity participation loans, grants, predevelopment loan funds, participation leases, loans or other public /private partnership arrangements to develop affordable housing or other public /private partnership arrangements. The In -Lieu Fees may be expended for the benefit of either rental or owner - occupied housing. The In -Lieu Fees may not be used to support operations, or on -going housing services not directly related to the construction, acquisition, rehabilitation or preservation of affordable housing units. b. Accounting of Fees. All In -Lieu Fees shall be deposited into a segregated account and all expenditures of funds from the same shall be documented and included in an annual report that shall be made available for public inspection. 10. Adjustments, Waivers. a. Adjustment. The requirements of this Policy may be waived, adjusted or reduced if an applicant shows that there is not a reasonable relationship between the impact of a proposed Residential Development on the demand for affordable housing in the City and the requirements of this Policy or that applying the requirements of this Policy without the requested waiver, adjustment or reduction would constitute a taking in violation of the United States or California Constitutions or be otherwise illegal. Under current law, mere economic hardship or diminution in value does not constitute an unlawful taking of property. Such a request shall be made in writing and filed with the Commission at the time of initial submittal of an application for approval of a Residential Development and/or as part of any appeal from a decision regarding such an application. The request shall state completely and in detail: (i) the requested waiver, adjustment or reduction of the requirements, (ii) the factual basis for the request, and (iii) the legal basis of this request. If the Commission determines that the requirements of this Policy lack a reasonable relationship to the impact of a proposed Residential Development on demand for affordable housing in the City or that those requirements constitute a taking in violation of the United States or California Constitutions, the requirements of this Policy shall be modified, adjusted or waived to the extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional result or illegal outcome. b. Fee for Adjustment Request. The cost of the consideration of a request for adjustment or waiver of the requirements of this Policy shall be borne by the applicant in an amount set forth in the Master Fee Resolution of the City Council. Section 2. The Commission Secretary is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the City. 8 316769v3A 21942/0020 The foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda held on , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Secretary 9 316769v3A 21942/0020 Chair COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ESTABLISHING AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY FOR THE ALAMEDA POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, California and the City of Alameda face a serious housing problem that threatens their economic security. Persons of very low -, low- and moderate - income are experiencing increasing difficulty in locating and maintaining adequate, safe and sanitary affordable housing. Lack of access to affordable housing has a direct impact upon the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Alameda. Alameda will not be able to contribute to the attainment of State housing goals or to retain a healthy environment without additional affordable housing. As noted in the City's Housing Element, a regional shortage of affordable housing is contributing to overpayment for housing accommodations, sometimes leading to temporary or permanent homelessness; and WHEREAS, a lack of new Inclusionary Units will have a substantial negative impact on the environment and economic climate because (i) housing will have to be built elsewhere, far from employment centers and therefore, commutes will increase, causing increased traffic and transit demand and consequent noise and air pollution, and (ii) City businesses will find it more difficult to attract and retain the workers they need. Inclusionary housing policies contribute to a healthy job and housing balance by providing more affordable housing close to employment centers; and WHEREAS, developm °nt of new market -rate housing encourages new residents to move to the City. These new reside its will place demands on services provided by both public and private sectors. Some of the _,ublic and private sector employees needed to meet the needs of the new residents earn incomes only adequate to pay for affordable housing. Employees who are unable to find affordable housing in the City will be forced to commute long distances. This situation adversely impacts on their quality of life, consumes limited energy resources, increases traffic congestion and has a negative impact on air quality; and WHEREAS, increasing the production and availability of affordable housing is problematic. Prices and rents for affordable housing remain below the level needed to attract new construction. At the same time, escalating land costs and rapidly diminishing amounts of land available for development hinder the provision of affordable housing units solely through private action. Federal and state funds for the construction of new affordable housing are insufficient to fully address the problem of affordable housing within the City; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to retain an economically balanced community, with housing available to very low -, low- and moderate - income households. The City's General Plan implements the established policy of the State of California that each community should foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic levels; and Resolution # 1 -B (CIC) 6 -1 -04 316768v2 21942/0020 WHEREAS, it is appropriate to impose some of the cost of the increased burden of providing housing for very low -, low- and moderate - income persons directly on the developers, and indirectly upon the occupiers, whose developments necessitate the need for such housing. In addition to the demands on services from such developments, new development without affordable units contributes to the shortage of affordable housing. Ordinances and policies concerning new housing in the City should be consistent with the community's goal to foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic levels; and WHEREAS, the City Council originally approved and adopted the Community Improvement Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project (the "APIP ") on March 3, 1998, by Ordinance No. 2754, as subsequently amended on April 1, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2895; and on November 4, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2910; and WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (the "Commission ") has been designated as the official redevelopment agency to carry out in the City of Alameda the functions and requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and to implement the Community Improvement Plan for the APIP; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Law requires that at least 15 percent of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed in a redevelopment project area by entities other than the Commission be affordable units. (Health & Safety Code § 33413(b)(2)). In a Settlement Agreement dated March 20, 2001, by and between the City of Alameda, the Commission, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, the Alameda Housing Authority, Catellus Development Corporation, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates and Arc Ecology, the City agreed to provide that 25 percent of all newly constructed housing units at Alameda Point be made permanently affordable. In its Housing Element, the City Council of the City of Alameda implemented this provision by establishing an inclusionary housing requirement of 25 percent for the APIP; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda has adopted an Ordinance Adding Section 30 -16, Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects, to the City of Alameda Municipal Code (the "Inclusionary Housing Ordinance "). The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance provides that its provisions do not apply to the Community Improvement Project Areas as long as the Community Improvement Commission adopts separate resolutions or policies pertaining to inclusionary housing requirements in such areas. The Commission desires to adopt this separate resolution and policy pertaining to inclusionary housing requirements in the APIP; and 2 316768v2 21942/0020 NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Community Improvement Commission hereby adopts the following policy to implement the inclusionary housing requirement for the APIP set forth in the Settlement Agreement and the City's Housing Element: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICY FOR ALAMEDA POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AREA The purpose of this Policy is to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the goals and objectives of the Housing Element of the City of Alameda General Plan with respect to inclusionary housing in the Alameda Point Improvement Project area. 1. Definitions. As used in this Policy: Affordable shall mean that the Housing Cost shall not exceed 30 percent of the stated maximum household income adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit. The phrase "adjusted for family size appropriate for the unit" shall have the same meaning as set forth in California Health & Safety Code Section 50052.5(c), as it may be amended, or in any successor statute. Affordable Housing Guidelines shall mean guidelines adopted by the City Council to specify location and design standards for Inclusionary Units. Affordable Housing Plan shall mean a plan proposed by a developer to satisfy the requirements of this Policy. The Affordable Housing Plan establishes the number and location of Inclusionary Units, production schedule and other standards. City shall mean the City of Alameda. Commission shall mean the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. Executive Director shall mean the Executive Director of the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda or his or her designee. Household shall mean one person living alone or two or more persons sharing residency whose income is considered for housing payments. Housing Cost shall have the same meaning as given the following terms in Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations: (a) for rental units, "Housing Cost" shall have the same meaning as "rent" as defined in Section 6918 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, as it may be amended, or in any successor section, and (b) for units offered for purchase, 3 316768v2 21942/0020 "Housing Cost" shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 6920 of Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations, as it may be amended, or in any successor section. Inclusionary Unit shall mean a dwelling unit that must be offered at Affordable Rent or available at Affordable Housing Cost to Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income Households. Low - Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "lower income households" in Section 50079.5 of the California Health & Safety Code, as it may be amended, or in any successor statute. Market -Rate Unit shall mean a dwelling in a Residential Development that is not an Inclusionary Unit. Moderate- Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "persons and families of low or moderate income" in Section 50093 of the California Health & Safety Code, as it may be amended, or in any successor statute. Residential Development shall mean any planned development district, subdivision map, conditional use permit or other discretionary land use approval that authorizes the construction of residential dwelling units. Very Low - Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "very low income households" in Section 50105 of the California Health & Safety Code, as it may be amended, or in any successor statute. 2. Inclusionary Unit Requirements. a. Unit Requirement. For all Residential Developments of three or more units in the Alameda Point Improvement Project area, at least 25 percent of the total units must be Inclusionary Units restricted for occupancy by Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income Households. The number of Inclusionary Units required for a particular project will be determined only once, at the time of project approval. If a change in the Residential Development design results in a change in the total number of units, the number of Inclusionary Units required will he recalculated to coincide with the final approved project. b. Calculation. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units required by this Policy, any additional units authorized as a density bonus under California Government Code Section 65915(b)(1) or (b)(2) will not be counted in determining the required number of Inclusionary Units. In determining the number of whole Inclusionary Units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. c. Types of Inclusionary Units. Six percent of the total units must be restricted to occupancy by Very Low- Income Households; ten percent of the total units must be restricted to occupancy by Low - Income Households; and nine percent may be restricted to occupancy by Moderate - Income Households. For Residential Developments with 41 or fewer 4 316768v2 21942/0020 total units, Inclusionary Units shall be restricted for occupancy by Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income Households in the following proportions, which are based upon the above calculations: Total Inclusionary Units Units Income Levels 3 to 5 1 l low 6 to 9 2 1 moderate, 1 low 10 to 13 3 1 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 14 to 17 4 1 moderate, 2 low, 1 very low 18 to 21 5 2 moderate, 2 low, 1 very low 22 to 25 6 2 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low 26 to 29 7 2 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low 30 to 33 8 3 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low 34 to 37 9 3 moderate, 4 low, 2 very low 38 to 41 10 4 moderate, 4 low, 2 very low d. Affordable Housing Guidelines. Inclusionary Units must conform to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council. 3. Exemptions. The requirements of this Policy do not apply to: a. Reconstruction. The reconstruction of any structures that have been destroyed by fire, flood, earthwlake or other act of nature provided that the reconstruction takes place within three years of the date the structures were destroyed. b. Affordable three- or four -unit Residential Developments. Residential Developments of three or four units in which all units are non - owner- occupied and will remain affordable to Low- or Very Low - Income Households for a minimum of 15 years, except that one unit may be owner - occupied with no affordability restrictions. c. Residential building additions, repairs or remodels. Residential building additions, repairs or remodels; provided, that such work does not increase the number of existing dwelling units beyond two units. d. Affordable housing projects. Residential Developments that already have more dwelling units that qualify as affordable to Very Low -, Low- and Moderate - Income Households than this Policy requires. e. Residential Developments with approved maps. Residential Developments for which a tentative map or vesting tentative map was approved, or for which a building permit was issued, prior to the date this Resolution was adopted and which continue to have unexpired permits. 4. Alternative Off -Site Construction. Inclusionary Units may be constructed off -site if the Plarming Board can make a finding that the purposes of this Policy would be better served 5 316768v2 21942/0020 by the construction of off -site units. In determining whether the purposes of this Policy would be better served by this alternative, consideration should be given as to whether the off -site units would be located in an area where, based on availability of affordable housing, the need for such units is greater than the need in the area of the proposed development. 5. Incentive. The Commission may provide the following incentive to a developer who elects to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of this Policy by producing Inclusionary Units on the site of the Residential Development: a. Expedited Processing. Eligibility for expedited processing of development and permit applications for the Residential Development. 6. Compliance Procedures. a. Conditions to carry out the purposes of this Policy shall be imposed on the approval of any Residential Development to which this Policy pertains. b. As part of the application for a Residential Development, the applicant shall submit an Affordable Housing Plan demonstrating compliance with this Policy. The Affordable Housing Plan must include: (i) a description of the number and size of each Market - Rate Unit and each Inclusionary Unit, including the income levels to which each Inclusionary Unit will be made affordable, (ii) a narrative describing how the plan adheres to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council, and (:ii) a site map, with the location of the Inclusionary Units clearly marked. c. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the decision - making entity concurrently with the Residential Development. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be made a condition of approval of the Residential Development. Regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and/or other documents shall be recorded against Inclusionary Units and Residential Developments containing Inclusionary Units in accordance with Section 8. d. An Affordable Housing Plan that proposes off -site construction shall include a site map of the off -site location, a description of the arrangements made for construction at that site and demonstration that the proposed off -site construction complies with Section 4(b). Off -site construction may only be approved in accordance with Section 4(b). e. All Inclusionary Units shall be constructed and occupied as specified in the approved Affordable Housing Plan concurrently with or prior to the construction and occupancy of Market Rate Units. In phased developments, Inclusionary Units may be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of units in each phase of the Residential Development. 6 316768v2 21942/0020 7. Requirements for Inclusionary Units. a. Eligibility Requirements. No Household may occupy an Inclusionary Unit unless the Commission or its designee has approved the Household's eligibility in accordance with City- approved policies. Each Household that occupies a rental Inclusionary Unit or purchases an owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit must occupy that unit as that Household's principal residence. b. Initial Sales Price of Owner- Occupied Units. The initial sales price of an owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit shall be set: (i) for a Low - Income Household, to ensure that the sales price is Affordable, and (ii) for a Very Low- or Moderate - Income Household, to ensure that the Inclusionary Unit is affordable under the criteria set forth in California Health & Safety Code Section 33413(b)(2), as it may be amended, or in any successor statute. Resale and other restrictions on the Inclusionary Unit will be governed by the regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust or other recorded agreements recorded against the Inclusionary Unit. c. Rent of Rental Units. The rent of a rental Inclusionary Unit shall be set: (i) for a Low - Income Household, to ensure that the rent is Affordable, and (ii) for a Very Low - or Moderate - Income Household, to ensure that the Inclusionary Unit is affordable under the criteria set forth in California Health & Safety Code Section 33413(b)(2), as it may be amended, or in any successor statute. 8. Continued Affordability. a. Regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and/or other documents acceptable to the Executive Director, all consistent with the requirements of this Policy, shall be recorded against Inclusionary Units and Residential Developments containing Inclusionary Units. These documents shall legally restrict occupancy of Inclusionary Units to Households of the income levels for which the units were designed for a minimum of 59 years. The forms of regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and all other documents authorized by this Policy, and any change in the form of any such document which materially alters any policy in the document, shall be approved by the Executive Director. b. The resale restrictions required by this Policy shall allow the City a right of first refusal to purchase any owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit at the maximum price which could be charged to a qualified purchaser Household, at the time the owner proposes a sale. 9. Adjustments, Waivers. a. Adjustment. The requirements of this Policy may be waived, adjusted or reduced if an applicant shows that there is not a reasonable relationship between the impact of a proposed Residential Development on the demand for affordable housing in the City and the requirements of this Policy or that applying the requirements of this Policy without the requested waived, adjustment or reduction would constitute a taking in violation of the United States or California Constitutions or be otherwise illegal. Under current law, mere economic hardship or 7 316768v2 21942/0020 diminution in value does not constitute an unlawful taking of property. Such a request shall be made in writing and filed with the Commission at the time of initial submittal of an application for approval of the Residential Development and /or as part of any appeal from a decision regarding such an application. The request shall state completely and in detail: (i) the requested waiver, adjustment or reduction of the requirements, (ii) the factual basis for the request, and (iii) the legal basis of this request. If the Commission determines that the requirements of this Policy lack a reasonable relationship to the impact of a proposed Residential Development on demand for affordable housing in the City or that those requirements constitute a taking in violation of the United States or California Constitutions, the requirements of this Policy shall be modified, adjusted or waived to the extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional result or illegal outcome. b. Fee for Adjustment Request or Appeal. The cost of the consideration of a request for adjustment or waiver of the requirements of this Policy shall be borne by the applicant in an amount set forth in the Master Fee Resolution of the City Council. Section 2. The Commission Secretary is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the City. The foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda held on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Secretary 8 316768v2 21942/0020 Chair City of Alameda California Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, P decent, safe, and affordable housing is one of the basic necessities of life and is of vital importance to the health and well being of all residents of the City of Alameda; and thousands of residents in Alameda County live in overcrowded, substandard and otherwise inadequate housing; and hundreds of thousands more are paying over 30% of their income for housing and are at significant risk of losing their housing and becoming homeless; and thousands of units of affordable housing have been built by non - profit developers and others in Alameda County; and these affordable housing units are well managed, well maintained and have contributed significantly to neighborhoods throughout the City of Alameda; and the Association of Homeless and Housing Service Providers and East Bay Housing Organizations have organized events during Affordable Housing Week to acknowledge the need for and contributions of affordable housing. mow, therefore, I, Beverly Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim the week of June 5 through June 13, 2004 as Afforda6Ce .Mousing Week In the City of Alameda and call upon all residents of our community to learn about and honor the contributions of affordable housing by participating in activities held throughout the week to commemorate this observance. 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 Proclamation #3 -A 6 -1 -04 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY- -MAY 6, 2004- -6:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:20 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Agenda Item (04- ) Study Session to consider the City's Two -year Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2004 -06. The City Manager gave a Power Point presentation providing an overview and the context for the budget; during the presentation, the City Manager provided Council with information on the positions proposed for elimination and the financial support provided to the School District. Mayor Johnson requested Council be provided the amount of pay Code Enforcement receives from redevelopment funds. In response to Mayor Johnson inquiry regarding increased fees and cost recovery in the Planning and Building Department, the City Manager stated the question would be answered in detail during the Planning and Building Director's presentation. Mayor Johnson requested staff to keep track questions raised by Council that are to be answered at a later time. Councilmember Kerr noted that the City could be charging the School District for collection of permit fees; stated the City should find a way not to give away free service. Councilmember Matarrese stated the One Stop Permit Center is being deferred; requested the Planning and Building Director be prepared to discuss what it would cost the City not to implement the Center versus what is being saved by not implementing it; stated the analysis should include how much revenue would be lost because people do not get permits due to the process being too complicated. Mayor Johnson requested information on the income levels in Alameda and unemployment rates; stated people are losing jobs and getting lower paying jobs; requested a multiple year comparison. Special Meeting Alameda City Council May 6, 2004 1 Vice Mayor Daysog noted the average household income for residents 35 to 64 years old is $82,800. Mayor Johnson requested a list of the cities that have the 911 public safety access fees; suggested that staff check with cities in Alameda County. The City Manager stated a list of cities that charge General Plan amendment fees would also be provided. Councilmember Kerr requested that the City Attorney provide information on how much per year the City pays in slip and fall claims. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding declining street conditions, the City Manager stated a previous Off Agenda Report would be provided to Council again. Mayor Johnson requested information on deferred maintenance costs, including how much more expensive repairs become if the City does not address maintenance and whether there are other street maintenance options. Vice Mayor Daysog requested a memo identifying all the bonds that the City has outstanding and the amount the entire City is paying. Councilmember Matarrese stated review should include whether proposed cuts save money now, but end up costing the City twice as much in the future. Mayor Johnson stated the Council must know the cost of deferring items, such as deferred maintenance, the One Stop Permit Center and field maintenance. Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:18 p.m. * * * The Finance Director gave a PowerPoint presentation on the General Fund. Mayor Johnson requested the Council be provided dollar amounts of the City's sales tax; requested information on typical revenue sources in other cities; questioned whether Alameda's revenue sources are consistent with other cities. The Finance Director noted the mix would be different and provided Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 May 6, 2004 several examples; stated that she would be happy to provide said information. Vice Mayor Daysog suggested revenue be calculated per capita for the comparison. Councilmember Matarrese requested the budget figures without Vehicle License Fee (VLF) backfill. The Finance Director stated the VLF backfill amount would be identified for Council. The City Manager suggested that additional questions be provided to him to ensure staff would have responses prepared at future budget sessions. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:14 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 May 6, 2004 3 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING THURSDAY- -MAY 13, 2004- -6:00 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 6:15 p.m. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. (04- CC /04- CIC) Study Sessions to consider the City's Two -year Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2004 -06. The City Manager provided information on sales tax requested at the May 6 budget study session. The Finance Director gave an overview of the 2004 -06 Proposed Budget /Financial Plan. Councilmember /Commissioner Kerr requested the Finance Department check the [State] allocation numbers that are based on the total Vehicle License Fee (VLF), total property taxes, sales tax, etc.; stated the City should ensure calculations are based on correct information. Mayor /Chair Johnson requested the total cost for legal services in the City; stated having a compilation of the legal services for all departments would be helpful. Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore requested the total cost for services departments, such as Information Technology, City Attorney and Finance, for the entire City. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the Council /Commission would like to be able to see the entire amounted budgeted for service departments, which would include the department budget and any amount budgeted to other departments; in the budget, the City Attorney and Finance are scattered through other departments. The City Manager stated staff would provide the Cost Allocation Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 13, 2004 1 Plan, which is how costs are assigned across the board. In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese's question regarding the Cost Allocation Plan, the Finance Director stated the only departments that have cost allocation charges are those with enterprise and special revenue funds; the City recovers $4.5 million for the General Fund from the enterprise and special revenue funds for General Fund support services. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated that the Council/ Commission needs to understand where the service groups' funding and what proportions go to each department in hours or dollars. The City Manager stated said information could be shown in terms of cost recovery; staff would provide the latest update to show how costs are developed and assigned. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the Council /Commission is allocating money to each department and wants to see how much goes to other departments after it is allocated to one department. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog inquired interfund reflects transfers to other departments, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog stated more specific information on said transfers is being requested. In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore's question regarding departments with finance staff, the City Manager stated non - General Fund departments have a finance and administration component; Golf is the only non - General Fund department which does not have finance; a finance team was created to review cross - organization financing resources. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the total amount spent on attorney fees should include outside Counsel; Code Enforcement attorneys should also be included in the total for attorney costs. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the information provided on code enforcement in redevelopment areas should have a greater breakdown and should include code enforcement costs outside of redevelopment areas. Vice Mayor /Councilmember Daysog stated the budget document indicates a -$4.6 fund balance, however, the presentation indicated the shortfall is $7 million; said disparity should be reviewed. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 13, 2004 2 In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese's inquiry about the $4.6 million gap, the Finance Director stated the budget plan includes a 5% budget cut; the remaining $4.6 million gap needs to be closed. The City Manager stated staff is proposing to close the rest of the gap with new fees and by drawing down on the General Fund reserve. Councilmember /Commissioner Kerr stated a portion of the increase in the bridge toll and Measure 2 funds were going to be allocated to the City's ferry service; inquired whether cost overruns for the new Benicia - Martinez Bridge which will use said funds would effect the City. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog requested a list of un- funded capital improvement projects by department. * * * Mayor /Chair Johnson called a recess to hold a Special Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting at 6:50 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:51 p.m. * * * Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether organizational charts could include salary ranges for positions. The City Manager stated staff would provide information on salary ranges and find a way to display the information in a useful way. The Golf Complex General Manager gave a presentation on the Golf Complex budget. Mayor /Chair Johnson requested a chart of the number of Golf Complex employees over the past several years, as other department provided. The Assistant City Manager gave a presentation the Development Services Department budget. Mayor /Chair Johnson requested a list of positions outside of Development Services that are funded under the Development Services Department. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog requested a breakout of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) budget, including operation expenditures, revenues, and capital projects. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 3 Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 13, 2004 The Assistant City Manager noted gross lease revenues are the only revenue available to ARRA. The City Manager stated the breakout could include debt services. Mayor /Chair Johnson requested a breakdown of the different areas for tax increment and lease revenues. Councilmember /Commission Kerr stated the Chamber of Commerce rent subsidy was in exchange for the Chamber handling business retention; if the Chamber has opted not to take on the business retention program, inquired whether the rent is still subsidized. The City Manager stated staff would confirm that rent subsidy is not provided to the Chamber; a report would be provided on the matter. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog requested staff provide the sources of revenue that pay for the $11.2 million operating budget for Development Services and provide how much of the $2.4 million in debt and interfund is debt and how much is interfund; stated in the 2003 -04 budget, $604,000 was allocated for salaries for 6.4 positions; in 2004 -05, the salaries increases by $400,000 for 6.4 positions; requested and explanation of the increase; further stated that in the mid- to late- 1990's the Cooperative Service Agreement with the Navy was winding down; the City, through the General Fund, made a loan to ARRA; the issue was dealt with one year ago; requested information on the amount of the loan, what the loan was for, payback status and the timetable for repayment. In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese's inquiry regarding the recent bond issuance, the City Manager stated a summary page on the projects would be provided. The Assistant City Manager noted that the bond included $4 million for other projects and was issued for $46.6 million. Mayor /Chair Johnson requested a chart on the number of Development Service Department employees over the past several years, as other department provided. Councilmember /Commission Kerr stated there are training costs under each department; requested the complete cost for the training program. The City Manager stated each department has a travel and training Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community 4 Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 13, 2004 budget; in addition, the City training program is funded under Human Resources. Mayor /Chair Johnson requested a training be broken down between required and optional training; requested travel expenses be separated out from training. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog requested an explanation of the method used to track employees' time, for example coding on timesheets, to ensure projects are completed within budget. The City Manager stated that staff could provide an explanation after the departmental budgets are reviewed. In response to Councilmember /Commissioner Gilmore's question regarding how the 5% cut, the City Manager stated the issue would be addressed after all the department presentations. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 13, 2004 5 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING THURSDAY- -MAY 13, 2004- -6:01 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:51 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Board Members Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, Board Member Torrey and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 6. Absent: None. (04- ) Study Sessions to consider the Two -year Financial Plan for the Housing Authority. The City Manager noted the Housing Authority presentation was revised to include updated funding information. The Housing Authority Executive Director gave a presentation on the Housing Authority budget, including the impact of changes in Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding. Mayor /Chair Johnson requested a chart of the number of Housing Authority employees over the past several years, as other department provided. In response to Council /Authority questions the Housing Authority Executive Director stated that the Housing Authority would have an approximately $3.2 million deficit at the end of the current fiscal year; by not paying the Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) for the month of June, $1.6 million would be saved. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that a plan needs to be created to deal with the emergency; the City needs to work with legislators; the Council /Board needs to be involved; immediate steps need to be taken; other cities do not appear to have been impacted like Alameda; inquired whether Berkeley has had funding issues; stated the City needs to take any action, including talking to the Secretary of HUD. Councilmember /Board Member Matarrese stated notices are going out to tenants tomorrow; people should be informed; questioned whether there is a way to hold off [sending out notice] and find an immediate solution. The Housing Authority Executive Director indicated that the notices Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners May 13, 2004 1 would include information about upcoming public meetings; the Housing Authority would be informing both landlords and tenants about the situation. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated more should be done politically; noted Congressman Pete Start would be in Alameda Saturday. The City Manager suggested the Mayor /Chair meet with Congressman Stark; stated staff would follow up. Mayor /Chair Johnson suggested other Councilmembers /Board Members be permitted to meet with Congressman Stark. The City Manager stated staff would get out notice to allow the entire Council /Board to attend. Councilmember /Board Member Kerr stated the City needs an active lobbyist to work with HUD. The City Manager stated staff would follow up with the City's lobbyist to seek suggestions. Councilmember/Board Member Kerr requested information about what is happening in other cities, such as Oakland, San Leandro, etc. The City Manager stated staff would provide information. Councilmember /Board Member Kerr questioned whether Alameda is being singled out and whether HUD is making a political decision; noted HUD has gone after Alameda before. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the City should work with the lobbyist very quickly to develop a plan. Councilmember /Board Member Kerr inquired whether HUD funded reserves in other jurisdictions, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor /Chair Johnson requested that funding of reserves be addressed on Saturday with Congressman Stark. Vice Mayor /Board Member Daysog requested information on why the number of contracts should be reduced from 1659 to zero, rather than 1659 to 1625; noted the City receives funds for 1625 contracts and only has 34 over leasing contracts. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated a spreadsheet would Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners May 13, 2004 2 be provided. In response to Vice Mayor /Board Members Daysog's inquiry about the contracts being in a certain area, the Housing Authority Executive Director responded that he would provide said information; a high proportion are west of Sherman Street. * * * Mayor /Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:50 p.m. to continue a Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Meeting and reconvened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:58 p.m. * * * The Council /Board discussed the funding shortfall and directed a meeting be scheduled for Saturday, May 15, 2004. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners May 13, 2004 3 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 18, 2004- -6:05 P.M. Acting Mayor Daysog convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Acting Mayor Daysog - 4. Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned 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; Number of cases: Two. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Acting Mayor Daysog announced that regarding Initiation of litigation, the Council obtained a briefing from Outside Counsel and General Counsel and gave direction; regarding Significant exposure to litigation, the Council obtained a briefing from the City Attorney and gave direction on one case and obtained a briefing from the City Attorney on the other case. Adjournment There being no further business, Acting Mayor Daysog adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:10 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 May 18, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- -MAY 18, 2004- -6:40 P.M. Acting Mayor /Chair Daysog convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:10 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Acting Mayor /Chair Daysog - 4. Absent: Mayor /Chair Johnson - 1. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Acting Mayor /Chair Daysog announced that the Council /ARRA obtained a briefing from General Counsel and gave directions. Adjournment There being no further business, Acting Mayor /Chair Daysog adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority May 18, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - MAY 18, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M. Acting Mayor Daysog convened the regular meeting at 7:51 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Acting Mayor Daysog - 4. Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1. AGENDA CHANGES (04- ) Acting Mayor Daysog announced that the Public Hearing to consider appeals of the Planning Board approval of a Use Permit [paragraph no. ] would be continued to the June 15, 2004 City Council Meeting. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (04- ) Proclamation declaring May 17 -21 as Alameda Bike Commute Week and May 20 as Alameda Bike to Work Day. Acting Mayor Daysog presented the Proclamation to Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *04- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Social Service Human Relations Board Meeting held on April 22, 2004; the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on May 4, 2004; and the Special City Council Meeting held on May 6, 2004. Approved. ( *04- ) Recommendation to set a Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit for Fiscal Year 2004 -05 for June 15, 2004. Accepted. ( *04- ) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for period ending March 31, 2004. Accepted. ( *04- ) Recommendation to accept the work of Ransome Company for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 18, 2004 1 Littlejohn Park Upgrades, No. P.W. 03- 03 -06. Accepted. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13706, "Authorizing Open Market Procurement for Contractor Services for Fiscal Year Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Pavement Replacement." Adopted; and ( *04- A) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $235,356 to Alameda Paving and Excavating, Inc. for Said Contract. Accepted. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13707, "Authorizing the Purchase of Street Lights for the Webster Street Renaissance Project and Park Street Streetscape Project Using the State of California, Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive Bid Award." Adopted. ( *04- ) Resolution of Intention No. 13708, "To Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2004 -05 and to Set a Public Hearing for June 1, 2004." Adopted. ( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,783,680.20. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (04- ) Public hearing to consider appeals of the Planning Board approval of a Use Permit to allow the conversion of a 15,840 square foot industrial building at 2515 Blanding Avenue into seven work /live studios with associated parking and landscaping; and adoption of related resolution. The site is located within the M- 2, General Industrial Zoning District. Applicant: Janet Koike for Cal Vita LLC. Appellants: Ed Murphy and Pat Bail. Continued to June 15, 2004. (04- ) Public hearing to consider a Tentative Map (TM7387) for the subdivision of a vacant site into twelve lots: ten for the construction for -sale single - family homes; one for the construction of 52 affordable housing units; and one to be landscaped at 2391 Fifth Street. The site is located at the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center site on the north side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway within the M -X, Mixed -Use Planned Development Zoning District. Applicants: Resources for Community Development and Alameda Housing Authority; and (04- A) Resolution No. 13709, "Approving Tentative Map 7387 at 2391 Fifth Street (The Breakers at Bayport)." Adopted. Acting Mayor Daysog opened the public portion of the Hearing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 18, 2004 2 There being no speakers, Acting Mayor Daysog closed the public portion of the Hearing. The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.] (04- ) Ordinance No. 2923, "Approving Development Agreement Amendment DAA04 -0001 for a Mixed Use Development including Single - Family Residential, Office, Research and Development, Open Space, and Limited Retail Uses as well as Sites for Multiple Family Residential and a School, Located within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 215 Acres of Land and Water at the Former Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Annex and Naval Air Station Alameda East Housing to Release the ACET Parcel from the Catellus Development." Finally passed. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.] (04- ) Ordinance No. 2929, "Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA04 -0001 for a Mixed Use Development including Single- Family Residential, Office, Research and Development, Open Space, and Limited Retail Uses as well as Sites for Multiple Family Residential and a School, Located within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 215 Acres of Land and Water at the Former Alameda Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Annex and Naval Air Station Alameda East Housing that would modify Catellus' Obligations to Meet Certain Requirements of the Master Plan by Allocating Those Obligations between ACET and Catellus." Finally passed. Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (04- ) Bob Sikora, Alamedans for Responsible Transit Shelters (ARTS), submitted a letter on behalf of Reyla Graber and Lee Harris thanking the Council for their commitment to bus shelters and inviting the Council to the community fundraiser on Saturday, June Regular Meeting 3 Alameda City Council May 18, 2004 5th at 7:00 P.M. at the Auctions by the Bay Theater. (04- ) Alan Elnick, Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), stated that employees were looking forward to the City addressing Association's grievances and concerns. (04- ) Golden Garner, ACEA, discussed the importance of City workers. (04- ) David Bryant, Alameda, stated that eighteen months ago a drunken neighbor brandished a shot gun because someone was parking in their parking space; no action was taken by the police; on May 16, 2004 at 2:30 a.m. three men accosted a neighbor; that he went to help and received severe cuts and bruises; police arrived, but no pictures of his injuries were taken; nothing of any consequence came from the police call; he has been contacted by a City representative but not by the police; Suzi Q's had been previously shut down by Alcohol and Beverage Control for disturbances and health code violations; stated that the crime warrants immediate action. Acting Mayor Daysog stated that Councilmember Matarrese and Councilmember Kerr were following up on the issue. Councilmember Matarrese inquired about the process of revoking a business license. The City Attorney responded that the business license was not a regulatory vehicle; that the Planning and Building Department, through Use Permit and Code Enforcement, was aggressively pursuing all possible avenues regarding regulation of the business; that the Police Chief was pursuing the State regulatory process. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the end goal would be to shut down the business, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr stated that she received a call from the building owner; stated that enough is enough. The City Manager stated that he has requested the Police Chief and Planning and Building Director to follow up on the matter. (04- ) Neal Daskal, Alameda, stated that on May 16, 2004 there were felony assaults by patrons of Suzi Q's; previous pleas to assist with maintaining order and enforcement of the City and State codes have been made to the City; that he strongly recommends that the City immediately close Suzi Q's and revoke their business license and zoning status; that he would appreciate the City Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 May 18, 2004 closing down the bar by whatever means necessary as soon as possible. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (04- ) Consideration of Mayor's appointment to the Paratransit Advisory Committee. Held over. (04- ) Discussion of United States Coast Guard's proposal to install a floating barrier. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there have been any updates. The Planning and Building Director stated that a letter reflecting the City's concerns about the proposal was issued to the Coast Guard; the next step would be to review the Coast Guard's response; the Coast Guard would be initiating an environmental review process and would perform an environmental assessment; that the City would have another opportunity for input from a procedural standpoint. Councilmember Kerr stated that City should work with the Coast Guard; that she was concerned about the suggestion to move the Cutters away from Coast Guard Island. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether an Environmental Assessment (EA) was less rigorous than an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . The Planning and Building Director responded in the affirmative; stated that an EA was the equivalent of an initial study under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); if the EA could not determine a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), an EIS would be needed; that the City would take the position that an EIS should be required. Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff provide updates. The City Manager responded that staff would keep Council informed and provide off - agenda reports; item could be placed on the agenda for Council consideration. (04- ) Acting requested a resolution about placing information of sexual offenders on the Internet be provided for Council consideration. (04- ) Councilmember Kerr stated that a communication was received on AB 1690, the Local Public Safety Income Tax; that she Regular Meeting Alameda City Council May 18, 2004 5 was concerned about the income tax not being levied by counties for cities; that she has fear of associating anything with any higher form of government; inquired whether passing of the Bill would contain any National Fire Protection Association 1710 (NFPA) requirements. The City Manager responded that staff would follow up. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Acting Mayor Daysog adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:24 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 May 18, 2004 6 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: May 17, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids for Alameda Free Library – New Main Library, No. P.W. 01 -03 -01 BACKGROUND It has been 102 years since Alameda last built a new Main Library. In 1902, the Main Library at the corner of Santa Clara and Oak was constructed with a $35,000 donation from Andrew Carnegie. In 1902 when the Carnegie opened, the City's population stood at approximately 16,000; in 1998 when the library moved to the Interim location in the Historic High School, the population had nearly quintupled, and Alameda had long since outgrown its library. For more than forty years library support groups, citizens, and City staff had worked through many different proposals and plans to build a new main library —none of which had ever come to fruition. In 1996, following the defeat of Measure C, the grassroots political action committee LIBRARY 2000 was formed, dedicated to developing modern library services and facilities for our community. After four years of planning and work LIBRARY 2000 led the successful Measure 0 campaign, which secured a $10.6 million general obligation bond to provide local match for a state grant to construct a new Main Library, and to provide money for improvements to the branches. On November 7, 2000, Measure 0 passed overwhelmingly, with a 78.4% yes vote. In December 2002, the State of California awarded Alameda a grant of $15.5 million to pay 65% of the eligible costs of constructing a new Main Library, and the planning and design process has been continuous from that time to this. The design has been developed through much hard work by the Library Building Team and City staff with Thomas Hacker Architects of Portland, Oregon, and through numerous reviews and meetings with the public, the Library Board, the Planning Board and the City Council. The project is a 47,500 sq. ft. building of red brick and cast stone, which will enhance and complement Alameda's historic downtown. Important features include a public Computer Lab, public meeting rooms, group study rooms, a cafe operated by the Friends of the Library, an outdoor garden, and many beautiful architectural features both inside and outside. An Art Team has selected Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -B CC 6 -4 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 May 17, 2004 two artists to provide public art for the building, and fund- raising is currently underway. The new Main Library will provide space for larger collections, 75 public access computers, and expansive study and reading space. Sixty -six parking spaces will be provided on -site. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The project plans and specifications have been reviewed and approved by City staff. The project provides for either an on -site parking structure or alternative surface parking lot to be constructed by the design -build approach. The plans and specifications are currently under final review by the State Office of Library Construction (OLC) and the Alameda County Department of Health Services. No major design changes are anticipated as a result of these reviews. Adoption of Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PSE) and call for bids is a major milestone. A copy of the plans and specifications for the project are on file in the City Clerk's Office. The City anticipates advertising the project beginning June 2, 2004 with bids being due at the City Clerk's Office on July 7, 2004. After careful review and tabulation of all bids by City staff, a contractor will be identified as the apparent low - bidder. Assuming a responsive bid is submitted, staff anticipates that construction could begin as early as August 2004. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE The Alameda Free Library — New Main Library project has been reviewed for environmental compliance in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. In 1990 Council certified the "New Alameda Free Library Draft Environmental Impact Report." A technical update and initial study for the project was prepared in April 2002. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The project is funded by a grant from the State of California OLC $15,487,952 for 65% of the total eligible project cost. Matching funds for 35% of project cost in the estimated amount of $8,339,667 are available from Measure 0 proceeds, a property tax measure approved by the voters of the Alameda. The project is shown in the fiscal year 2003 -04 budget under CIP # 02 -37. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 3 May 17, 2004 The new Main Library project is the culmination of many years of effort; it is a source of pride to our community and a visible symbol of our progress. The City Manager is pleased to recommend that the City Council, by motion, adopt plans and specifications and authorize call for bids for the Alameda Free Library — New Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01- 03 -01. PB/RH:ms /dl cc: John Wankum Jack Heffernan, CCM Jonah Cohen, THA Library Building Team Respectfully submitted, aul Benoit Assista ity Man By: Robert Haun Project Manager G:\PUBW ORKS\P WADMIN\ COUNCIL\ 2004 \060104\NewMainLibraryAdoptPlans &Specs.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: May 4, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: James M. Flint, City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Vacate the Existing Transmission Line Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074 - 0905 -43 and Record Quitclaim Deeds (62 Unit Affordable Housing and Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) BACKGROUND In May 2000, the City certified by Resolution No. 13216, the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed - Use Development ( "Project "). Pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan, the existing overhead power lines that run along the southern and eastern edge of the FISC property need to be relocated in order to construct both the 62 -unit affordable housing project and Catellus Bayport Phase 2 Residential Project. The Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements for the Catellus Bayport Phase 2 Residential Project call for the existing overhead transmission lines to be relocated. The new alignment runs east -west, paralleling the FISC waterfront along the future Mitchell Mosely. In this two -stage project, the transmission line would first be relocated to overhead poles. It would then be placed underground in sections as roadway and utility improvements are extended through the northern portion of the site to serve each phase of the proposed commercial development at the FISC. DISCUSSION BKF Engineers of Pleasanton has prepared the plat and legal description for the vacation of the existing transmission line easement and the design and construction documents and specifications for the interim overhead relocation project. Alameda Power & Telecom and Harris Associates, for Public Works, have reviewed and approved the interim improvement plans and the proposed legal description and plat (Exhibit A). Additionally, the Development Services Department has acquired and recorded all the necessary easements required for the first stage interim alignment from the U.S. Navy, Alameda Storage, and the Northern California Power Agency. Construction on the first stage of the 115kV relocation project began on April 26th and is scheduled to be complete prior to the end of June 2004. An easement for the new interim Re: Resolution #4 -C CC 6 -1 -04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 4, 2004 Page 2 overhead transmission line alignment will be created by a separate plat and legal description. Once the interim overhead system is constructed, power will be switched from the existing lines to the new lines and the existing transmission line easement will no longer be required and can be vacated. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the City as a result of vacating the easement. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by resolution, order vacation of the Existing Transmission Line Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074 - 0905 -43 and authorize the City Manger to execute, file, and record all necessary documents required to vacate and quitclaim the existing easement and remove the encumbrance from title to the underlying fee interest held by the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda with respect to the 62 -unit affordable housing project site, and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda with respect to the Catellus Bayport Phase 2 Residential Project site, including execution and recordation of Quitclaim Deeds. JF /LL /DC:dc Respe• fgJlly submit ed, Leslie A. Little, Development Services Director By `- -PSouglas H. Core Redevelopment Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G. IComdevlBase Reuse& Redevp1DougColelEasementslAP &71w- Vacation of 1l5kV (staff report).doc CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF THE EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT WITHIN A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074 - 0905 -43 AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEEDS (62 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CATELLUSBAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) [ID NO. 9] WHEREAS, the existing Grant of Easement on the subject parcel between the United States of America acting through the Department of the Navy (Grantor), and the City of Alameda, acting through the Bureau of Electricity, Department of Public Utilities (Grantee) was accepted by the City Council of the City of Alameda on March 21, 1984 and dedicated to the City of Alameda and filed with the Office of the County of Alameda Recorder on March 26, 1984, Series No. 84057358; and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, E Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. �-- 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the '- City Council on May 31, 2000; and %i C' WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan, the existing overhead — Fes-- power lines that run along the southern and eastern edge of the subject parcels need to be relocated in order to construct a 62 -unit affordable housing project and second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and ® F-- WHEREAS; the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements for the second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project call for the existing overhead transmission lines to be relocated to a new overhead alignment which runs east -west, paralleling the FISC waterfront along the future Mitchell Mosely; and WHEREAS, the existing easement on subject parcels are no longer a necessity to Alameda Power & Telecom and can be vacated; and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that a portion of the Public Utility Easement within A.P.N. 074- 0905-42; and 074 - 0905 -43 be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deeds and plats and legal descriptions to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; and 074- 0905-43 and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. Resolution # 4 -C CC 6 -1 -04 1 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 Aiameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: May 19, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: James M. Flint, City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Vacate Unrecorded Electrical Easements within the former East Housing and FISC Property and Record Quitclaim Deeds (62 Unit Affordable Housing and Catellus/Bayport Residential Projects) BACKGROUND In May 2000, the City certified by Resolution No. 13216, the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed - Use Development ( "Project "). Pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan, existing overhead and underground power lines that run through the former East Housing and FISC Property need to be vacated in order to construct both the 62 -unit affordable housing project and Catellus Bayport Phase 2 Residential Project. The Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements for the Catellus Bayport Phase 2 Residential Project call for the following: 1. Abandonment of the existing unrecorded electrical power pole easement located within the former FISC and FISC Annex property. This easement provided a redundant service loop to the warehouses at the former FISC Annex. The warehouses have been demolished and the power poles have been removed and the existing easement is no longer needed and can be vacated. 2. Abandonment of existing unrecorded electrical easement located within the former East Housing. This easement previously served the former East Housing and FISC Annex. The service provided under this easement has been relocated underground, at the Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway (formerly Atlantic Avenue) and Main Street crossing. DISCUSSION BKF Engineers of Pleasanton has prepared the plat and legal description for each of the two unrecorded easements referenced above and shown in Exhibits Al and A2 and has also prepared the design and construction documents and specifications for the removal and relocation of these utilities. Alameda Power & Telecom and Harris Associates, for Public Works, have reviewed Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolutions #4 -D CC 6 -1 -04 Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission May 19, 2004 Page 2 and approved the legal descriptions and plat maps and improvement plans for the scopes of work involved. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the City as a result of vacating the easement. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Order vacation of the unrecorded electrical power pole easement within A.P.N. 074- 0905-2-3; 074 - 0905 -39; 074 - 0905 -42; and 074 - 0905 -43 [ID No. 10]; 2. Order vacation of the unrecorded electrical easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -2 -3; 074- 0905-42; 074 - 0905 -43; and 074 - 1353 - 5,6,7,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 22 [ID No. 1]; and Authorize the City Manger to execute, file, and record all necessary documents required to vacate and quitclaim the existing unrecorded easements and remove the encumbrance from title to the underlying fee interest held by the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda with respect to the 62 -unit affordable housing project site, and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda with respect to the Catellus Bayport Phase 2 Residential Project site, including execution and recordation of Quitclaim Deeds. JF /LL /DC:dc Res ect)Y submitte Le ie A. Little, Development Services Director By: Douglas H. Cole Redevelopment Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: IComdevlBase Reuse& RedevplDougCo lelEasementslEasement Vactions Electrical & StormlElectrical Easement VacationslID No. 101w- Electrical Easement Vacation (staffreport).doc CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF AN UNRECORDED ELECTRICAL POWER POLE EASEMENT WITHIN A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -2 -3; 074 - 0905 -39; 074 - 0905 -42; AND 074 - 0905 -43; AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEEDS (62 -UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CATELLUS /BAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT) [ID NO. 10] WHEREAS, an unrecorded Electrical Power Pole Easement on the subject parcel, as disclosed by off - record information supplied to First American Title Company, as shown on the Tentative Map of Tract 7179, dated May 24, 2000 labeled "Bureau of Electricity Power Pole Easement, unrecorded document dated March 1968, City of Alameda Drawing No. 6221 -51 "; and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. 0_7„,$) 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the w City Council on May 31, 2000; and cc 0 ® WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan, the existing overhead H power lines that run along the southern and eastern edge of the subject parcels need to be relocated in order to construct a 62 -unit affordable housing project and second phase of the y. Catellus Bayport residential project; and U WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements for the second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project call for the existing overhead transmission lines to be removed; and WHEREAS; the existing overhead power lines served as a redundant loop for warehouses at the FISC Annex which have been demolished; and WHEREAS, the existing easement on subject parcels are no longer a necessity to Alameda Power & Telecom and can be vacated; and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that a portion of the Public Utility Easement within A.P.N. 074- 0905-2-3; 074 - 0905 -39; 074 - 0905 -42; and 074 - 0905 -43 be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deeds and plats and legal descriptions to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -2 -3; 074- 0905-39; 074 - 0905 -42; and 074 - 0905 -43 and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. * * * * ** Resolution # 4 -D CC 6 -1 -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 RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF AN UNRECORDED ELECTRICAL EASEMENT WITHIN A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -2 -3; 074 - 0905 -42; 074 - 0905 -43; AND 074 - 1353 - 5,6,7,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 22 AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEED (CATELLUS /BAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) [ID NO. 1] WHEREAS, an unrecorded Electrical Easement on the subject parcel, as disclosed by off - record information supplied to First American Title Company, as shown on the Tentative Map of Tract 7179, dated May 24, 2000 labeled "Electrical Easement from Department of Navy to City of Alameda - Engineering Department, unrecorded document dated May 1973, City of Alameda Drawing No. 6888 -51 "; and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, >- Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. LLJ 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the .dccc, City Council on May 31, 2000; and (� , s-a �°— WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan, as amended, the s'� existing 12Kv overhead and underground power lines that run through the FISC Facility and at g g P g Y the west end of the East Housing area are required to be relocated in order to construct the o second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and WHEREAS; the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements call for the existing over existing overhead and underground 12Kv power lines to be relocated to underground along Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway (formerly Atlantic Avenue); and WHEREAS, the existing easement on subject parcels are no longer a necessity to Alameda Power & Telecom and can be vacated; and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that a portion of the Public Utility Easement within A.P.N. 074- 0905-2-3; 074 - 0905 -42; 074 - 0905 -43; and 074 - 1353 - 5,6,7,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 22 be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deeds and plats and legal descriptions to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -2 -3; 074- 0905-42; 074 - 0905 -43; and 074 - 1353 - 5,6,7,15,16,17,18,19,20,21, 22 and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. Resolution # 4 -D CC 6 -1 -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: May 20, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members From: James M. Flint, City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Vacate Various Storm Drain Easements within the former East Housing and FISC Property and Record Quitclaim Deeds (62 Unit Affordable Housing and Catellus/Bayport Residential Projects) BACKGROUND In May 2000, the City certified by Resolution No. 13216, the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed - Use Development ( "Project "). Pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan, existing underground storm easements that run through the former East Housing and FISC Property need to be vacated in order to construct both the 62 -unit affordable housing project and Catellus Bayport Phase 2 Residential Project. DISCUSSION BKF Engineers of Pleasanton has prepared the plat and legal description for the vacation of each storm easement shown in Exhibit A and has also prepared the design and construction documents and specifications for the removal of existing and construction of new systems. Harris Associates, for Public Works, have reviewed and approved the legal descriptions and plat maps for the storm drain easement vacations. Final design of new residential intract and backbone storm water systems is well underway and undergoing review by the various City Departments. In the interim, the City has received permits on the originally proposed outfall structure from the Army Corps, Bay Conservation and Development Commission ("BCDC") and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In order to address constructability of the originally proposed 96" gravity storm water system, the system has been redesigned with a 48" forced main. The design change will require a minor modification to the BCDC permit which will be handled through the submission of a letter and a design review process rather than an amendment. All of the new storm water easements along Tinker and 5th Avenue will be described in the Final Map. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the City as a result of vacating the easement. Re: Resolutions #4 -E CC 6 -1 -04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council take the following actions: May 20, 2004 Page 2 1. Order vacation of the storm drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -40; 074 - 0905 -42 and recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus/Bayport Residential Projects) [ID No. 2]; 2. Order vacation of the storm drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -39; 074 - 0905 -42 and recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [ID No. 3]; 3. Order vacation of the storm drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus/Bayport Residential Projects) [ID No. 4]; 4. Order vacation of the storm drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus/Bayport Residential Projects) [ID No. 5]; 5. Order vacation of the storm drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus/Bayport Residential Projects) [ID No. 6]; 6. Order vacation of the storm drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074 - 1353 - 5,6,7,15 and recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus/Bayport Residential Projects) [ID No. 7]; 7. Order vacation of the storm drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and recordation of Quitclaim Deed (Catellus /Bayport Residential Projects) [ID No. 8]; and Authorize the City Manger to execute, file, and record all necessary documents required to vacate and quitclaim the existing unrecorded easements and remove the encumbrance from title to the underlying fee interest held by the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda with respect to the 62 -unit affordable housing project site, and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda with respect to the Catellus Bayport Phase 2 Residential Project site, including execution and recordation of Quitclaim Deeds. JF /LL /DC:dc Re.pe 4 i lly submi ed, ces Director Bv: Do aasI. ole edevelopment Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: IComdevlBase Reuse& RedevplDougColelEasementslEasement Vactions Electrical & StormlStorm Easement VacationslID No. 21w -Storm Drain Easement Vacation (staff report).doc E O CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF THE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT WITHIN A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -40; 074 - 0905 -42 AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEED (CATELLUS/BAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) [ID NO. 2] WHEREAS, the subject Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -40; 074- 0905-42 (being a portion of Lot 198 and also being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled Tract 7387 – Bayport, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pates 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described in Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the City Council on May 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, the EIR and approved Master Plan calls for the development of a 7- acre community park within the subject parcels as part of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements calls for the existing 10' storm drain easement that runs along the western edge of . _ Lot 198 of Tract 7387 to be vacated in order to construct the 7 -acre community park; and >.- WHEREAS, the existing 10' storm drain easement within the subject parcels that o —' serve the original interim detention basin is no longer a necessity to the City and can be vacated; ° and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that the subject storm water easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -40; and 074 - 0905 -42 be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deeds and plats and legal descriptions to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -40; and 074- 0905-42 and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. Resolution # 4 -E CC 6 -1 -04 STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Exhibit "A" All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, being a portion of Lot 198 and also being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the southwest corner of said Lot 198, Thence along the southerly line of said Lot, South 87 °55'20" East, 18.34 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence leaving said line and across said lot and said parcel the following five (5) courses: 1) North 08 °11'00" West, 401.26 feet; 2) North 87 °55'20" West, 84.09 feet; 3) North 02 °04'40" East, 10.00 feet; 4) South 87 °55'20" East, 92.44 feet; 5) South 08 °11'00" East, 411.42 feet to the southerly line of last said lot; Thence along last said line, North 87 °55'20" West, 10.16 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Being the same lands as the 10' storm drain easement as shown on said tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive. Bearings are based on the California Coordinate System of 1927 Zone III, of two found monuments on Main Street measured to be North 00 °34' 11" East, 2613.13 feet. All distances shown hereon are ground distances, multiply ground distances by 0.9999295 to obtain grid distances. Consisting of an area of 4,946 square feet or 0.11 acres, more or less. A plat showing the above - described parcel is attached herein and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B ". This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Billy Main, LS 5797 License Expires 6/30/2004 K:UAain\ t 998\989221\Legals\vacate_ SDE2B.doc Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 1 /?- /`f Date � , \to,. BILLY MARTI �.'4 EXP. 6/30/2004 .j r No 5797 j `� _ , -a � c MAIN STREET w E 0 0 o STORM DRAIN EASEMENT LEGEND POB — POINT OF BEGINNING TPOB — TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING TT 1 3 — STORM DRAIN EASEMENT PARCEL LINE LOT LINE LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 S87'55'20 "E 18.34' L2 N87'55'20 "W 84.09' L3 NO2'04'40 "E 10.00' L4 N87'55'20 "W 10.16' S 87'55'20" E 92.44' 10' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 4,946 sq. ft.± ZION 0.11 acres ± TRACT 73E37 BA YPOR r REMAINDER PARCEL 4 5 i 6 B POB DETAIL "A" SCALE 1"=50' =110 LOT 198 ° 11 * Im 11; IIN SEE DETAIL "A" 1 L4 L(TPOB 1 I \ (LL4L) 4 \ POB TPOB / 5WIDE375 OR 25 ATLANTIC AVENUE i0 h yvn 0/200a No. 5797 /-� C Ht�t 9-c71/ 29' ROADWAY EASEMENT (117 OR 401) BkF Ewe I1 m. IPLI I 4780 CHABOT DRIVE SUITE 104 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925 - 396 -7700 925- 396 -7799 (FAX) Subject EXHIBIT "B" 10' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Job No. 010182 -11 By RL Date 5/14/04 Chkd.CK SHEET 1 OF1 ICASurieNDSAIMWMPLATINvecnteDICIDalo 0511.22034 IOG.41 PM PIT vacateSDE2.txt Parcel name: vacateSDE2 North: 471683.4845 Line Course: N 08 -11 -00 W North: 472080.6587 Line Course: N 87 -55 -20 W North: 472083.7075 Line Course: N 02 -04 -40 E North: 472093.7009 Line Course: S 87 -55 -20 E North: 472090.3494 Line Course: S 08 -11 -00 E North: 471683.1186 Line Course: N 87 -55 -20 W North: 471683.4870 Perimeter: 1009.38 East : 1483660.2916 Length: 401.26 East : 1483603.1759 Length: 84.09 East : 1483519.1412 Length: 10.00 East : 1483519.5037 Length: 92.44 East : 1483611.8829 Length: 411.42 East : 1483670.4449 Length: 10.16 East : 1483660.2916 Area: 4,946.07 sq.ft. 0.11 acres Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.0025 Course: N 01 -28 -07 W Error North: 0.00250 East : - 0.00006 Precision 1: 403,748.00 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 E 0 CL; CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF THE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT WITHIN A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -39; 074 - 0905 -42 AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEED (CATELLUS/BAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) [ID NO. 3] WHEREAS, the subject Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -39; and 074 - 0905 -42 (being a portion of Lot 200 and also being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled Tract 7387 — Bayport, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pates 1- 34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described in Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the City Council on May 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan calls for the development of a 62 -unit affordable housing project as part of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements calls for the existing 10' storm drain easement that extends from the College of Alameda through Lot 200 of Tract 7387 to be vacated in order to construct the 62 -unit affordable housing project and second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and WHEREAS, the existing 10' storm drain easement that extends from the College of Alameda will be relocated to connect with the existing storm drain system located within College of Alameda property and as a result the existing storm drain easement is no longer a necessity and can be vacated; and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that the subject storm water easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -39; and 074 - 0905 -42 be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deeds and plats and legal descriptions to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -39; and 074- 0905-42 and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. Resolution # 4 -E CC 6 -1 -04 STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Exhibit "A" All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, being a portion of Lot 200 and also being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the general easterly line and the general southerly line of said parcel; Thence along said easterly line, South 02 °08'09" West, 10.00 feet; Thence leaving last said line, North 87 °51'51" West, 302.58 feet to the westerly line of said Lot 200; Thence along last said line, North 02 °04'40" West, 10.00 feet; Thence leaving last said line, South 87 °51'51" East, 302.59 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Being the same lands as the 10' storm drain easement as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive. Bearings are based on the California Coordinate System of 1927 Zone III, of two found monuments on Main Street measured to be North 00 °34' 11" East, 2613.13 feet. All distances shown hereon are ground distances, multiply ground distances by 0.9999295 to obtain grid distances. Consisting of an area of 3,026 square feet or 0.07 acres, more or less. A plat showing the above - described parcel is attached herein and made a part hereof as Exhibit This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Billy Ma in, LS 5797 License Expires 6/30/2004 K: Main\1 999 \980711LLegals \vacate_SDE3B.doc .\'',..,- Date SILLY MARTIN y-;-, EAR 6/30/2004 t *.� Ne. 5797 j /1 Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 1 LEGEND POB — POINT OF BEGINNING STORM DRAIN EASEMENT — STORM DRAIN EASEMENT — PARCEL LINE LOT LINE TRACT 73B7 - BAYF R REMAINDER PARCEL LOT 199 LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 S02'08'09 "W 10.00' L2 NO2'04'40 "E 10.00' 10' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 3026 sq. ft ±- 0.07 acres ± LOT 200 S 87'51'51" E 302.59' N 87'51'51" W 302.58' SS 197 95 70 96 69 97 65 68 W 66 67 PP r POB I 6 RS 42 REEL 025 IMAGE 976 PARCEL 1 REEL 1763 IMAGE 623 PARCEL 2 REEL 1763 IMAGE 623 ATLANTIC AVENUE I - - Islw1Nt Irumms wwrxOeam\INcvumv.c a snena.o o5/I3/20114 100446 NI PDT 4780 CHABOT DRIVE SUITE 104 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925 - 396 -7700 925 - 396 -7799 (FAX) Subject EXHIBIT "B" 10' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Job No. 010182 -11 By RL Date 5/14/04 Chkd.CK SHEET 1 OF 1 vacateSDE3.txt Parcel name: vacateSDE3 North: 472175.7952 Line Course: S 02 -08 -09 W North: 472165.8021 Line Course: N 87 -51 -51 W North: 472177.0789 Line Course: N 02 -04 -40 E North: 472187.0723 Line Course: S 87 -51 -51 E North: 472175.7952 East : 1485363.5512 Length: 10.00 East : 1485363.1785 Length: 302.58 East : 1485060.8087 Length: 10.00 East : 1485061.1713 Length: 302.59 East : 1485363.5511 Perimeter: 625.17 Area: 3,026 sq.ft. 0.07 acres Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.0001 Course: S 89 -55 -08 W Error North: - 0.00000 East : - 0.00013 Precision 1: 6,251,700.00 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 E 0 L to c1 �r WHEREAS, the existing storm drain easement which previously served as a ditch for the original interim detention basin panhandle is no longer a necessity to the City and can be (pc vacated; and y >- CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF THE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT WITHIN A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEED (CATELLUS/BAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) [ID NO. 4] WHEREAS, the subject Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 (being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled Tract 7387 — Bayport, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pates 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described in Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the City Council on May 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan calls for the development of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements calls for vacation of the existing storm drain easement in order to construct the second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and 0 Cs. _; WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that the subject storm water easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deeds and plats and legal descriptions to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. Resolution # 4 -E CC 6 -1 -04 STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Exhibit "A" All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwest corner of Lot 200 as said lot is shown on said map; Thence along the westerly line of said lot, South 02 °04'40" West, 258.35 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence continuing along last said line, South 02 °04'40 West, 291.53 feet to the general southerly line of said Remainder Parcel; Thence leaving said westerly line and along last said line, North 87 °55'20" West, 54.00 feet; Thence leaving last said line, North 02 °04'40" East, 250.99 feet; Thence North 88 °29'27" West, 368.29 feet; Thence North 02 °04'40" East, 40.00 feet; Thence South 88 °29'27" East, 422.29 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Being the same lands as the storm drain easement as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive. Bearings are based on the California Coordinate System of 1927 Zone III, of two found monuments on Main Street measured to be North 00°34'11" East, 2613.13 feet. All distances shown hereon are ground distances, multiply ground distances by 0.9999295 to obtain grid distances. Consisting of an area of 30,460 square feet or 0.70 acres, more or less. A plat showing the above - described parcel is attached herein and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B ". This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Billy Martin, LS 5797 License Expires 6/30/2004 K: \Main \1998\98022I\Legals \vacate SDE4B.doc SAND AL BILLY MARTIN �, EXP. i3 � * No. 5797 �� \`� -97e Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 1 Date STORM DRAIN EASEMENT LEGEND POB - POINT OF BEGINNING TPOB - TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING — - STORM DRAIN EASEMENT - PARCEL LINE LOT LINE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 30,460 sq. ft.± 0.70 acres± -. TRACT 73D7 J Br \YP Sri r 771 1 \J] 1-34 REMAINDER PARCEL J LL POB TPOB S 88'29'27" E 422.29' LOT 199 LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N87'55'20 "W 54.00' L2 NO2'04'40 "E 40.00' N 88'29'27" W 368.29' 135 L 2o "in vt O N O N LOT 200 134 136 CC 151 152 153 154 150 149 FF 148 HH 133 132 131 130 )3B 137 DD 138 139 EE 140 144 145 146 147 141 2-- GG 142 143 155 156 157 172 171 158159 170 169 168 1671166 160 161 1621631 165 KK 173 174 LL 175 176 177 178179 80 181 MM NN ATLANTIC AVENUE SS 197 196 _f?R 195 194 193 192 191 190 189 QQ 187 186 185 184 00 183 182 IMAGE 623 J W w PARCEL 2 REEL 1763 IMAGE 623 BkF East I wE,I I Pure 4780 CHABOT DRIVE SUITE 104 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925 - 396 -7700 925 - 396 -7799 (FAX) Subject EXHIBIT "B" STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Job No. 010182 -11 By RL Date 5/14/04 ChkdCK SHEET 1 OF 1 KASurgDLfDOt 1%DIA PLAT3\wu1PD0 4p 0 03/17/2004 1114/705 AM PDT vacateSDE4.txt Parcel name: vacateSDE4 North: 472187.0722 Line Course: S 02 -04 -40 W North: 471895.7339 Line Course: N 87 -55 -20 W North: 471897.6917 Line Course: N 02 -04 -40 E North: 472148.5167 Line Course: N 88 -29 -27 W North: 472158.2163 Line Course: N 02 -04 -40 E North: 472198.1900 Line Course: S 88 -29 -27 E North: 472187.0682 East : 1485061.1733 Length: 291.53 East : 1485050.6035 Length: 54.00 East : 1484996.6390 Length: 250.99 East : 1485005.7389 Length: 368.29 East : 1484637.5767 Length: 40.00 East : 1484639.0269 Length: 422.29 East : 1485061.1705 Perimeter: 1427.10 Area: 30,459.67 sq.ft. 0.70 acres Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.0049 Course: S 35 -00 -34 W Error North: - 0.00401 East : - 0.00281 Precision 1: 291,244.90 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 0 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF THE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT WITHIN A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEED (CATELLUS/BAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) [ID NO. 5f WHEREAS, the subject Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 (being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled Tract 7387 — Bayport, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pates 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described in Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the City Council on May 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan calls for the >- development of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and Z 0 WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements calls for vacation of the existing storm drain easement in order to construct the second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and WHEREAS the existing storm drain easement which previously served the '5 original interim detention basin panhandle is no longer a necessity to the City and can be vacated; and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that the subject storm water easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deeds and plats and legal descriptions to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. Resolution # 4 -E CC 6 -1 -04 STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Exhibit "A" All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northwest comer of Lot 200, as said lot is shown on said map; Thence along the westerly line of said lot, South 02 °04'40 ", 258.35 feet; Thence leaving said westerly line and across said parcel the following five (5) courses: 1) North 88 °29'27" West, 422.29 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; 2) South 02 °04'40" West, 80.00 feet; 3) North 87 °55'20" West, 1115.00 feet; 4) North 02 °04'40" East, 80.00 feet; 5) South 87 °55'20" East, 1115.00 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Being the same lands as the storm drain easement as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 — BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive. Bearings are based on the California Coordinate System of 1927 Zone III, of two found monuments on Main Street measured to be North 00 °34' 11" East, 2613.13 feet. All distances shown hereon are ground distances, multiply ground distances by 0.9999295 to obtain grid distances. Consisting of an area of 89,200 square feet or 2.05 acres, more or less. A plat showing the above - described parcel is attached herein and made a part hereof as Exhibit `B ". This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Billy Ma in, LS 5797 License Expires 6/30/2004 KWain1199819802211.egals\vacate SDE5B.doc ',_AND t!I ' :Z BILLY MARTIN EXP.6/30/2004 J, No. 5797 �. o \��c OF c p,o. Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 1 Date L STORM DRAIN EASEMENT LEGEND POB - POINT OF BEGINNING TPOB - TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING - STORM DRAIN EASEMENT - PARCEL LINE LOT LINE TRACT 73B7 J Er \Y' OAT r 1 POB 271 J\JJ J 34 3 i REMAINDER PARCEL S 87'55'20" E 1115.00' N 87'55'20" W 1115.00' Crin M P N N O N 88'29'27" W 422.29' 3-TPOB LOT 198 STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 89,200 sq. ft.± 2.05 acres± LOT 199 LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 S02'04'40 "W 80.00' L2 NO2'04'40 "E 80.00' 46 25 21 22 23 24 L` 19 20 116 115 [117 114 113 118 119 120 11222 112 111 110 109 108 0 L106 107 84 83 82 85 86 87 88 89 90 81 80 79 78 77 76 Q 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 123 124 125 126 127 105 104 103 102 101 98 99 100 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 5 73 72 71 70 69 68 Wi 65 66 67 X 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ATLANTIC AVENUE O O N 1-- O BILLY MA E' ' x/2004 c. 5797 BKf EsuinuellimEnes1Pummen 4780 CHABOT DRIVE SUITE 104 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925 - 396 -7700 925 - 396 -7799 (FAX) wALAISVva012RIwvLAmv.c.+.mme.a aanveoor 100347 AN PDT Subject EXHIBIT "B" STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Job No. 010182 -11 By RL Date 5/14/04 ChkdCK SHEET 1 OF 1 vacateSDE5.txt Parcel name: vacateSDE5 North: 472198.1943 Line Course: S 02 -04 -40 W North: 472118.2469 Line Course: N 87 -55 -20 W North: 472158.6724 Line Course: N 02 -04 -40 E North: 472238.6198 Line Course: S 87 -55 -20 E North: 472198.1943 East : 1484639.0296 Length: 80.00 East : 1484636.1291 Length: 1115.00 East : 1483521.8622 Length: 80.00 East : 1483524.7627 Length: 1115.00 East : 1484639.0296 Perimeter: 2390.00 Area: 89,200.00 sq.ft. 2.05 acres Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.0000 Course: S 90 -00 -00 E Error North: 0.00000 East : 0.00000 Precision 1: 2,390,000,000.00 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 RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF THE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT WITHIN A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEED (CATELLUS/BAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) [ID NO. 6] WHEREAS, the subject Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 (being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled Tract 7387 — Bayport, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pates 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described in Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the City Council on May 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan calls for the development of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and >- L" WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Z ® ▪ cc Improvements calls for vacation of the existing storm drain easement in order to construct the c 0 second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and at F- 4 o WHEREAS, the existing storm drain easement which previously served the original interim detention basin is no longer a necessity to the City and can be vacated; and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that the subject storm water easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deeds and plats and legal descriptions to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. Resolution # 4 -E CC 6 -1 -04 STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Exhibit "A" All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, being all of Lot E, also being a portion of Lots F, G and TT also being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the southwest corner of said Lot G; Thence along the southerly line of said lot, South 87°26'18" East, 8.49 feet TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence leaving said southerly line, North 22 °55'28" West, 21.29 feet to the westerly line of said Lot G; Thence along said westerly line and continuing along the westerly line of Lots E and TT and continuing along the westerly line of said Remainder Parcel, North 00 °34' 11" East, 919.41 feet; Thence leaving last said line, South 87 °52'53" East, 15.01 feet; Thence South 00°34'11" West, 915.88 feet; Thence South 22 °55'28" East, 25.32 feet to the southerly line of said Lot G; Thence along last said line, North 87 °26' 18" West, 16.62 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Being the same lands as the 15' storm drain easement as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive, Bearings are based on the California Coordinate System of 1927 Zone III, of two found monuments on Main Street measured to be North 00°34'11" East, 2613.13 feet. All distances shown hereon are ground distances, multiply ground distances by 0.9999295 to obtain grid distances. Consisting of an area of 14,114 square feet or 0.32 acres, more or less. A plat showing the above - described parcel is attached herein and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B ". This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Billy Martin, LS 5797 License Expires 6/30/2004 K ain11998\980221\Legals \vacate SDE7B.doc Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 1 Zik NO BILLY MARTIN. EXP. 6/30/2004 �. AIG. 5797 G nr.c'., jig` MAIN STREET 0 co STORM DRAIN EASEMENT LEGEND POB - POINT OF BEGINNING TPOB - TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING - STORM DRAIN L3 /1 rn w O / POB 1DOB L3 0B'POB EASEMENT - PARCEL LINE LOT LINE LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 S8726'18 "E 8.49' L2 N22'55'28 "W 21.29' L3 S87'52'53 "E 15.01' L4 S22'55'28 "E 25.32' L5 N87'26'18 "W 16.62' w / A rn DETAIL "A" oo ; 1" = 50' z ' 27.1 J\jl J -34 / Poe REMAINDER PARCEL / \ \\ E 0.18'- 15' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT / 14,114 sq. ft.± \ \1'3/ 0.32 acres ± 2 3 0 4 e D 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 H 46 6 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 21 22 251 24 23 8 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 SE., DETAIL "A AA 15 1 16 17 18 L` 51 WIDE 2375 OR 25 ATLANTIC AVENUE 19 20 IM G TPOB - -� LAND 8 NI BILLY M IN `AR • ' 0/2004 o. 5797 29' ROADWAY EASEMENT (117 OR 401) F E■NIEEIB 1 'Pumas 4780 CHABOT DRIVE SUITE 104 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925 - 396 -7700 925 - 396 -7799 (FAX) Subject EXHIBIT "B" 15' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Job No. 010182 -11 By RL Date 5/14/04 Chkd.CK SHEET 1 OF 1 wwrxVl111Pt)nwuATS\vamt.l3Efid.o osoLvmo4 lo0f41 AN PDT vacateSDE7.txt Parcel name: vacateSDE7 North: 471066.3017 Line Course: N 22 -55 -28 W North: 471085.9102 Line Course: N 00 -34 -11 E North: 472005.2748 Line Course: S 87 -52 -53 E North: 472004.7199 Line Course: S 00 -34 -11 W North: 471088.8852 Line Course: S 22 -55 -28 E North: 471065.5650 Line Course: N 87 -26 -18 W North: 471066.3078 Perimeter: 1913.53 East : 1482786.0754 Length: 21.29 East : 1482777.7826 Length: 919.41 East : 1482786.9246 Length: 15.01 East : 1482801.9244 Length: 915.88 East : 1482792.8174 Length: 25.32 East : 1482802.6800 Length: 16.62 East : 1482786.0766 Area: 14,114.28 sq.ft. 0.32 acres Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.0062 Course: N 11 -14 -09 E Error North: 0.00605 East : 0.00120 Precision 1: 308,633.87 SILLY fth EXP 6/3 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 RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF THE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT WITHIN A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074 - 1353 - 5,6,7,15 AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEED (CATELLUS/BAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) [ID NO. 7] WHEREAS, the subject Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074- 1353- 5,6,7,15 (being all of Lot E, also being a portion of Lots F, G and TT also being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled Tract 7387 — Bayport, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pates 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described in Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the City Council on May 31, 2000; and )- WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan calls for the development of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and (° '` f WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements calls for vacation of the existing storm drain easement in order to construct the - ' second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and > J >- VWHEREAS, the existing 15' storm drain easement which previously served as the outflow pipe to the original interim detention basin is no longer a necessity to the City and can be vacated; and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that the subject storm water easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074 - 1353 - 5,6,7,15 be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deeds and plats and legal descriptions to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42; 074 -1353- 5,6,7,15 and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. Resolution # 4 -E CC 6 -1 -04 � r-L STORM DRAIN DETENTION EASEMENT Exhibit "A" All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the southwest comer of Lot E, as said lot is shown on said map; Thence along the westerly line of said lot and continuing along the westerly line of Lot TT, as shown on said map and also continuing along the westerly line of said Remainder Parcel, North 03°34'11" East, 919.23 feet; Thence across said Remainder Parcel the following ten (10) courses: 1) Leaving last said lines, South 87 °52'53" BEGINNING of this description; 2) South 87 °52'53' 3) North 02 °04'40' 4) South 87 °55'20' 5) South 02 °04'4 )' 6) South 43 °30'45' 7) North 87 °55'20" 8) North 02 °04'40" 9) North 87 °52'53" ' East, 137.06 feet; ' East, 260.05 feet; ' East, 576.83 feet; ' West, 244 79 feet; ' West, 44.10 feet; West, 547.64 feet; East, 7.80 feet; West, 136.79 feet; East, 15.01 feet to the TRUE POINT OF 10) North 00 °34' 11" East, 10.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. Being the same lands as the storm drain detention easement as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive, Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 2 Bearings are based on the California Coordinate System of 1927 Zone III, of two found monuments on Main Street measured to be North 00°34'11" East, 2613.13 feet. All distances shown hereon are ground distances, multiply ground distances by 0.9999295 to obtain grid distances. Consisting of an area of 161,163 square feet or 3.70 acres, more or less. A plat showing the above - described parcel is attached herein and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B ". This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Billy Ma in, LS 5797 License Expires 6/30/2004 K:1Main11998\980221 \Legalslvacale_SDDE6S.doc BILLY MARTIN EXP. 6/3012004 Viz,: No. 5797 OF c\-' c Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 2 ,"1'19X / zw Date MAIN STREET N 0) rn w 0 0 POB SEE DETAIL "B" STORM DRAIN DETENTION EASEMENT LEGEND POB — POINT OF BEGINNING TPOB — TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING TPOB L (L2J L4 — STORM DRAIN DETENTION EASEMENT — PARCEL LINE LOT LINE 87'55'20" E 576.83' STORM DRAIN DETENTION EASEMENT 161,163 sq. ft.± 3.70 acres ± SEE DETAIL "A" LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 S87'52'53 "E 15.01' L2 S87'52'53 "E 137.06' L3 S43'30'45 "W 44.10' L4 NO2'04'40 "E 7.80' L5 N87'52'53 "W 136.79' L6 N00'34'11 "E 10.00' N 87'55'20" W 547.64' fRAc -r 73C7 Bra \IP JFT 7 ] NJ 1-34 34 DETAIL "B" NOT TO SCALE E F 7 I w to oo \ z DETAIL "A" \ 1 " =50' \ TPOB L1 L2 L6 _ 5 / i REMAINDER PARCEL LOT 198 2 3 4 F 5 6 7 1 =' 37 B D 6 135 1 34 33 32 31 130 129 128 127) 26 125 I 24 39 j 40 ) 41 142 43 44 H 45 46 21 22 23 8 l 9 10 11 12 13 14 AA 15 116 17 18 i 51' WIDE 2375 OR 25 ATLANTIC AVENUE 19 20 M 29' ROADWAY EASEMENT (117 OR 401) f BkF E■11®111 'NUMB 4780 CHABOT DRIVE SUITE 104 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925 - 396 -7700 925 - 396 -7799 (FAX) w Skell 9ODDIMISVGVLATS vanbr»C6Y�p 09/13/1904 1006E4 AM POT Subject EXHIBIT "B" STORM DRAIN DETENTION EASEMENT Job No. 010182 -11 By RL Date 5/14/04 Chkd.CK SHEET 1 OF 1 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 RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF THE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT WITHIN A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEED (CATELLUS/BAYPORT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) [ID NO. 8] WHEREAS, the subject Storm Drain Easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 (being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled Tract 7387 — Bayport, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pates 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described in Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, the proposal for a Master Plan, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Development Agreement, Tentative Map, Parcel (Disposition) Map, City Council Resolution No. , 13216 (certifying the Final EIR for the Catellus Mixed Use Development) was approved by the City Council on May 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EIR and approved Master Plan calls for the development of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and >- WHEREAS, the Master Plan and Improvement Plans for Backbone Infrastructure Improvements calls for vacation of the existing storm drain easement in order to construct the ct second phase of the Catellus Bayport residential project; and O WHEREAS, the existing storm drain easement which previously served the College of Alameda Tennis Courts inflow and FISC Annex overflow to the original interim ate detention basin is no longer a necessity to the City and can be vacated; and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the portion of the easement to be vacated have been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that it hereby ordered that the subject storm water easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 be vacated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, together with quitclaim deeds and plats and legal descriptions to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, to vacate and terminate said portion of easement within A.P.N. 074 - 0905 -42 and shall file and record such other documents necessary to remove the encumbrance from the title. Resolution # 4 -E CC 6 -1 -04 STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Exhibit "A" All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, being a portion of the Remainder Parcel as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows: A strip of land 10.00 feet in width lying 5.00 feet on either side of the following described center line: BEGINNING at the northwest corner of Lot 200 as shown on said map; Thence along the westerly line of said lot, South 02 °04'40" West, 258.35 feet; Thence leaving last said line, North 88 °29'27" West, 68.49 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence across said Remainder Parcel the following seven (7) courses; 1) North 13 °15'43" West, 37.25 feet; 2) North 03°10'19" East, 244.09 feet; 3) South 88 °03'47" East, 103.71 feet; 4) North 03°14'58" East, 316.23 feet; 5) North 01 °30'45'East, 132.53 feet; 6) North 77 °38'25" West, 97.46 feet; 7) North 02 °08' 12" West, 214.66 feet to the general northerly line of last said parcel. Being the same lands as the 10' storm drain easement as shown on the tract map entitled TRACT 7387 - BAYPORT, recorded on June 24, 2003 in Book 271 of Maps at pages 1 -34 inclusive, Bearings are based on the California Coordinate System of 1927 Zone III, of two found monuments on Main Street measured to be North 00°34'11" East, 2613.13 feet. All distances shown hereon are ground distances, multiply ground distances by 0.9999295 to obtain grid distances. Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 2 Consisting of an area of 11,459 square feet or 0.26 acres, more or less. A plat showing the above - described parcel is attached herein and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B ". This description was prepared by me or under my direction in conformance with the Professional Land Surveyors Act. Billy M in, LS 5797 License Expires 6/30/2004 K\ Man \1998198D221\Legals \vacate SDE88.doc BILLY MARTIN ;; DP. 6/30/2004 x Nc.5797 ,.'.,_ /r F jfv, Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 2 Date LEGEND POB — POINT OF BEGINNING TPOB — TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING — — — STORM DRAIN EASEMENT — PARCEL LINE LOT LINE EASEMENT CENTERLINE STORM DRAIN EASEMENT PARCEL 1 7567 OR 117 6618 OR 339 CONDEMNATION SUIT No. 30735 L4 10' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT 11,459 sq. ft.± 0.26 acres± TRACT r 3 7 -J BAYPOR r REMAINDER PARCEL LINE TABLE LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N88'29'27 "W 68.49' L2 N13'15'43 "W 37.25' L3 S88'03'47 "E 103.71' L4 N77'38'25 "W 97.46' LOT 199 w o) Fnr- O N z TPOB L3 N L1 o in NI- cd O N N 0 (f) LOT 200 134 133 132 131 130 SS s\ 197 196 6 RS 42 REEL 025 IMAGE 976 PARCEL 1 REEL 1763 IMAGE 623 ,,BKF Eumeslimmuslrumns 4780 CHABOT DRIVE SUITE 104 PLEASANTON, CA 94588 925 - 396 -7700 925 - 396 -7799 (FAX) Subject EXHIBIT "B" 10' STORM DRAIN EASEMENT Job No. 010182 -11 By RL Date 5/14/04 ChkdCK SHEET 1 OF1 MS: rge\ 9901MAING1MTlWoug6LEObn 05/13 MIN 161044 NI POT vacateSDE8.txt Parcel name: vacateSDE8 North: 472189.7639 Line Course: N 13 -15 -43 W North: 472225.4365 Line Course: N 03 -10 -19 E North: 472474.7540 Line Course: S 88 -03 -47 E North: 472471.2483 Line Course: N 03 -14 -58 E North: 472782.0178 Line Course: N 01 -30 -45 E North: 472910.3031 Line Course: N 77 -38 -25 W North: 472931.1750 Line Course: N 02 -08 -12 E North: 473149.9228 Line Course: S 87 -12 -43 E North: 473149.4364 Line Course: S 02 -08 -12 W North: 472939.1527 Line Course: S 77 -38 -25 E North: 472918.3001 Line Course: S 01 -30 -45 W North: 472781.6077 Line Course: S 03 -14 -58 W North: 472460.9341 Line Course: N 88 -03 -47 W North: 472464.4395 Line Course: S 03 -10 -19 W North: 472226.3348 Line Course: S 13 -15 -43 E North: 472189.4942 Line Course: N 88 -29 -27 W North: 472189.7666 Perimeter: 2312.23 East : 1484987.3618 Length: 36.65 East : 1484978.9542 Length: 249.70 East : 1484992.7708 Length: 103.72 East : 1485096.4315 Length: 311.27 East : 1485114.0752 Length: 128.33 East : 1485117.4625 Length: 97.51 East : 1485022.2125 Length: 218.90 East : 1485030.3738 Length: 10.00 East : 1485040.3620 Length: 210.43 East : 1485032.5165 Length: 97.42 East : 1485127.6786 Length: 136.74 East : 1485124.0693 Length: 321.19 East : 1485105.8633 Length: 103.71 East : 1485002.2125 Length: 238.47 East : 1484989.0173 Length: 37.85 East : 1484997.7003 Length: 10.34 East : 1484987.3638 Area: 11,459.45 sq.ft. 0.26 acres Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses, radii, and deltas) Error Closure: 0.0033 Course: N 37 -27 -31 E Error North: 0.00262 East : 0.00201 Precision 1: 700,675.76 Page 1 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: May 18, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for Application of Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Revenue Funds for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for the City of Alameda Ferry Services and Enter into All Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds. BACKGROUND In November 1989, voters approved Regional Measure 1, authorizing a toll increase of $1.00 for vehicles on all state -owned bridges in the Bay Area. Up to three percent (3 %) of the revenues derived from the toll increase was made available for transportation projects that reduce congestion on these bridges. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) approves projects and distributes Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll (RM1) Funds. The RM1 Funds are divided into north and south bridge groups and into operating funds and capital funds. Alameda Ferries are eligible for the southern bridge group funds. In April 2002, MTC adopted Resolution No. 3288 programming 90% of RM1 operating funds from the southern bridge group to support the continued operation of the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS) and Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF) through June 2005. On March 19, 2004, MTC issued a Call for Projects for Fiscal Year 2004 /2005 funding with an application deadline of April 30, 2004. Staff submitted an application as required with the understanding that Council would consider the required resolution in June 2004. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The southern bridge group operating funds for Fiscal Year 2004/2005 is expected to be $1,357,183. Of the $1,357,183, MTC is expected to allocate $70,000 to other projects leaving $1,287,183 for City ferry operations. In addition to the operating funds, there is $475,106 available for capital projects. Both ferry services require an annual operating subsidy, which is provided primarily through RM1 and Measure B monies and secondarily through local match GtvofAlameda uUbiiCWorks Department Public Wod s WoksJb, You! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolution #4 -F CC 6 -1 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 May18, 2004 funds. The total Fiscal Year 2004/2005 City RM1 operating subsidy request is $1,282,183 and includes $837,183 for the AOFS and $450,000 for the AHBF. Actual operating budgets for the AHBF and AOFS will not be submitted to Council for consideration until June /July. Therefore, the RM1 operating subsidy application is an estimate based on Fiscal Year 2004/2005 proj ections. Capital Projects: There are seven capital projects needed to reduce maintenance costs and improve reliability and cost effectiveness of the ferry services. These are: A. Main Street Barge Foaming: Provides for the insertion of foam into the barge compartments to ensure platform buoyancy. Project minimizes barge maintenance costs and the need for periodic drydocking. The City requests $64,938 to fully fund this project. B. M.V. Bay Breeze Spare Reduction Gear /Water Jet: Project provides for purchase of two (2) water jet transmissions for the Bay Breeze. One transmission will replace the aging starboard transmission. The other will be kept as a spare. This project will greatly reduce downtime in the event of a transmission failure. The City requests $165,525 to fully fund this project. C. Ferry Terminal Security Upgrades: Project provides for security upgrades for the City's two ferry terminals. Upgrades may consist of gate alarms, gate relocation, signage, fencing, video camera purchase and installation, fence installation, and /or vehicle barrier purchase and installation. The United States Coast Guard requires terminal security upgrades. The City requests $27,969 to fully fund this proj ect. D. M.V. Encinal Interceptors: Project provides for the purchase and installation of interceptors that will increase vessel speed and improve fuel efficiency. The City requests $34,625 to fully fund this project. E. M.V. Peralta Spare Reduction Gear: Provides for the purchase of a spare gear for the Peralta. Project will reduce downtime in the event of a transmission failure. The City requests $74,887 to fully fund this project. F. M.V. Encinal Spare Reduction Gear: Provides for the purchase of a spare gear for the Encinal. Project will reduce downtime in the event of a transmission failure. The City requests $90,219 to fully fund this project. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service avofaimea. Public Works apartment Public Work Works for You! Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 3 Mayl8, 2004 G. Main Street Security Guard Kiosk: Provides for the purchase and installation of a guard kiosk at the Main Street terminal. The City requests $7,013 to fully fund this project. Total Capital Projects funding request is $465,176. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE These projects are categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301 because they maintain existing ferry services or existing marine facilities. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service: The AOFS is budgeted under CIP# 621.20. The RM1 grant request is for $837,183 compared to $650,374 last year. The AOFS is funded through RM1, Measure B, farebox revenue and a contribution from the Port of Oakland. In November 2003, Council approved extension of the Blue and Gold Fleet (B &GF) operating contract through July 31, 2004. Staff is in negotiations with B &GF on terms for a five -year operating contract beginning August 1, 2004. Staff will bring a B &GF contract recommendation and budget to Council in June /July 2004. Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry: The AHBF is budgeted under CIP# 621.10. The RM1 grant request is for $450,000, unchanged from last year. The AHBF is funded through RM1, Measure B, the Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF), Lighting & Landscape Assessment District 82 -4, Harbor Bay Business Park Association and farebox receipts. Staff is in negotiations with Harbor Bay Maritime (HBM) and B &GF on terms for a five -year operating contract beginning August 1, 2004. Staff will bring an operator recommendation and budget to Council in June /July 2004. Capital Projects: The City is requesting funds for seven capital projects: 1) Main Street Barge Foaming for $64,938; 2) M.V. Bay Breeze Spare Reduction Gear/Water Jet for $165,525; 3) Ferry Terminal Security Upgrades for $27,969; 4) M.V. Encinal Interceptors for $34,625; 5) M.V. Peralta Spare Reduction Gear for $74,887; 6) M.V. Encinal Spare Reduction Gear for $90,219; and 7) Main Street Security Guard Kiosk for $7,013. Total capital projects grant request is $465,176. If approved, all projects are fully funded through RM 1 Grants. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtvofAlameda �ubIicWorks epartment Public Works IYrnAsfrm Km! Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 4 May18, 2004 The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for five percent unrestricted state funds and two percent bridge toll revenue funds for operating subsidy and capital projects for the City of Alameda Ferry Services and enter into all agreements necessary to secure these funds. MTN/ES :gc/dl cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee Respeclly submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Ernest Sanchez Ferry Manager G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \060104\Ferry RM1 application.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Gtpu(Nmeda tublitWorks Department Public WO& Wart for Mu! o� sC; co ® _ ,_ WHEREAS, the City has identified the need for six capital projects necessary for CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR FIVE PERCENT UNRESTRICTED STATE FUNDS AND TWO PERCENT BRIDGE TOLL RESERVE FUNDS FOR OPERATING SUBSIDY AND CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR CITY OF ALAMEDA FERRY SERVICES AND TO ENTER INTO ALL AGREEMENTS NECESSARY TO SECURE THESE FUNDS WHEREAS, Regional Measure 1 (November 1988) created revenues for allocation by Metropolitan Transportation Commission; and WHEREAS, the monies can be used to fund planning, operating and capital projects for water transit purposes which are designed to reduce vehicular traffic on the bridges; and WHEREAS, the public entities are eligible applicants; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda operates the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service; and services; and WHEREAS, staff has identified the need for an operational subsidy for these ferry - 4) the efficient operation of these ferry services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda does hereby approve the applications for both the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service and the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service for FY 2004/05 and authorizes the City Manager to apply for Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Revenue Funds for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects to enter into all agreements necessary to secure these funds. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Resolution # 4 -F CC 6 -1 -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: May 19, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution for the Annual Adjustment of the Citywide Development Impact Fee by the Construction Cost Index BACKGROUND On May 28, 2003, City Council approved the resolution revising the Citywide Development Impact Fee Schedule per the Citywide Development Fee Ordinance. The categories of capital improvements covered by the Ordinance are public safety, transportation and traffic safety, parks and recreation, and public facilities. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Ordinance requires annual review and update of the fee program. This update makes revisions to the language of the Ordinance consistent with the original intent (as articulated below), and adjusts the fees based on the Construction Cost Index. The capital improvement projects included in the program remain the same as articulated in the Alameda Citywide Development Fee Nexus Study dated January 2001, on file with the City Clerk. At the end of fiscal year 2002 -03, the balance of funds from fees collections was $769,914 including interest of $16,847. As of April 16, 2004, the balance of funds was $1,055,378. Interest accrued to the account is applied at the end of the fiscal year. The Citywide Development Fee (CDF) Program includes 54 separate capital improvement projects distributed among five categories for a total cost of $99 million. Based upon the approved cost allocations, new development is responsible for 28% of the total costs. Existing development is responsible for the remaining 72 %. When a project is initiated, the City will be required to fund existing development's share of the cost of the improvements. Until sufficient funds from new developments are collected and revenue is made available from existing developments to cover the cost of these large capital projects, fund balances will continue to increase. Although there have been no project related expenditures made since the program inception, there have been 3% annual administrative charges, with 0.5% authorized for fee collection, receivable tracking and informational services at the Central Permits Office within the Planning and Building Department, 0.5% authorized for the Finance Department for annual interest allocation and end of year account 6tvdA.nda PDep r Public for >a,, Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolution #4 -G CC 6 -1 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 May 19, 2004 Building Department, 0.5% authorized for the Finance Department for annual interest allocation and end of year account balances, and 2% for Public Works Department annual account tracking and reserve set -aside for future development nexus fee updates. The fee ordinance, which became effective in March 2001, provided for charging new construction and intensification of use, and was modified on June 5, 2002, for structures vacant for more than 24 months — unless the fees were previously paid. The Ordinance also calls for annual review and update of the fees. The attached resolution provides for escalating the fee schedule based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area. Cost estimates in the program are in year 2002 dollars. The escalation factor to bring these estimates to 2004 dollars is 2.53 %. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The ordinance and resolution amending the CDF is categorically exempt from CEQA review, per Section 15273(a)(4), because the City finds that the purpose of the fee is to obtain funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within the City's existing service area. Individual projects included in the CDF Program will undergo CEQA review on a project -by- project basis to the extent required by State law. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The CDF Ordinance requires the City to fund existing development's share of improvements in the program. These costs will continue to accrue until the capital projects listed within the Nexus Study are scheduled for construction as part of the City's formal Capital Improvement Program. The General Fund and grants are a couple of the many sources of funding that the City may draw upon to offset existing development's share. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt a resolution for the annual adjustment of the Citywide Development Impact Fee by the Cons tion Cost Index. MTN/BH:gc Respe Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Barbara Hawkins Supervising Civil Engineer Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service �1! atvafAlam,da Vep rtment Public Works {YrnSsfor You! E >- WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 13314 pursuant ▪ w to Article 27 -3 of the Alameda Municipal Code; and 0 Z cc CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. REVISING THE CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF CAPITAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA WHEREAS, the City of Alameda adopted Article 27 -3 of the Alameda Municipal Code creating and establishing the authority for imposing and charging a Citywide Development Impact Fee applicable to new residential development and new or intensified commercial and industrial development within the City to mitigate the impacts on availability and condition of public facilities caused by this development, subject to adoption of an implementing resolution and fee schedule; and WHEREAS, it is the intent and purpose of the Citywide Development Fee to mitigate the impacts of new residential and new or intensified industrial and commercial development on traffic safety /capital replacement, parks and recreation, public facilities, public safety, and transportation as more specifically described in the Projects listed in Exhibit B to the Nexus Study; and Cfy — O WHEREAS, said resolution directed that the dollar amounts shown on the CU H fee schedule shall be adjusted annually (on July 1 of each year) by a percentage equal to .0' a the percentage increase, if any, in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area; and 0 I- 0- U WHEREAS, the City Public Works Director has determined that the Construction Cost Index for the period covered by this update to the fee schedule is 2.53 %. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that the following fee schedule, which includes a 2.53% authorized administration surcharge, shall apply: Resolution # 4 -G CC 6 -1 -04 CITY DISTRICT Land Use Category West End Northern Waterfront Central/ East End Bay Farm Infill CDF Fees per Residential Unit SF Low $3,609 $3,364 $3,360 $2,287 SF Med $3,156 $2,959 $2,955 _ $2,098 Duplex $3,047 $2,826 $2,821 $1,856 Work/Live $2,674 $2,489 $2,486 $1,681 MF $2,806 $2,585 $2,581 $1,616 CDF Fees per s.f. of Non - Residential Building Space General Industrial $3.10 $2.63 $2.63 $0.65 Retail $4.68 $3.99 $3.98 $0.98 Commercial/Office $4.49 $3.84 $3.83 $1.04 Warehouse $1.79 $1.52 $1.52 $0.38 Other Uses 1. Non - transportation Fee $0.72 psf $0.72 psf $0.72 psf $0.72 psf 2. Transportation Fee (Cost per vehicle trip generated) $1,283 $1,050 $1,045 $32 Definitions: USE Residential Uses: DEFINITION and EXAMPLES SF Low Are detached unites of 1,800 s.f. or greater. S F Med Are detached units less than 1,800 s.f. Duplex Are two attached dwelling units. Work/Live Any work/live unit as per the Alameda Municipal Code. Also, generally medium density with occupied spaces averaging 1,500 s.f. MF This category applies to Alameda Housing Authority Replacement units and house boat units meeting the general Density classification. CDF Fees per s.f. of Bldg. Space: General Industrial Retail Industrial use including heavy and light industrial uses, in Which the principal purpose is manufacturing assembling, Altering, finishing, dismantling, or processing of any goods or Parts into finished products; and where a large area for Handling and storage is required. Examples include but are Not limited to, manufacturing plants; builder's supplies; Industrial machinery sales and service; marine- related Industries; printing plants; materials testing labs; assembly and Production of goods or equipment, or craft workshop. General Industrial uses correspond to the F -1, F -2, H -4, H -6, H -7, S -3, And S -5 Building code Occupancy Classifications. Commercial business operated for the sale of good or services To the general public. Examples of retail uses include but are Not limited to, convenience markets, shopping centers, Hardware stores, supermarkets, gas stations, bars, restaurants, And taverns. Retail uses typically correspond to Building Code Occupancy Classifications of M or OB -2, eating and drinking Commercial/Office Structure used for the purpose of conducting administrative, clerical, technical, governmental, or professional activities which does not include dealing with members of the public on a direct, regular and unscheduled basis except as an ancillary activity. Examples of commercial/office uses include but are not limited to law firms, doctors, dentists or chiropractors offices (outside of hospitals), and accounting Firms. Commercial/office uses typically correspond to all B building Code Occupancy Classifications, with the exception of B Eating and Drinking. Warehouse Businesses primarily involved in the usage and/or wholesale of bulk goods to other businesses. Examples of warehouse uses include wholesale truck warehousing, self - storage facilities, archive facilities, and =staffed utility structures. Warehouse uses typically correspond to Bulking Code occupancy Classifications of S -1 or S -2 Other Uses The CDF fee for other non - residential uses will be determined by adding the product of the non - transportation ($0.55) fee multiplied by the bulking square footage plus the CDF District cost per vehicle peak hour trip multiplied by the number of peak hour vehicle trips to be generated by the proposed use. This category applies to all uses, which do not appropriately belong in one of the other stated categories. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: May 19, 2004 Re: Resolution Establishing Affordable Housing Guidelines for Residential Developments in the City of Alameda Background January 26, 2004, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance adding Section 30 -16, Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects, to the City of Alameda Municipal Code. The proposed ordinance contains subsection 30- 16 -4(d), Affordable Housing Guidelines, which states that the inclusionary units built under this section must conform to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council. Two resolutions before the Community Improvement Commission establishing inclusionary housing requirements for redevelopment areas contain similar sections. On March 8, 2004, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Affordable Housing Guidelines for residential developments in the City of Alameda. Discussion /Analysis Section 30 -16 of the Alameda Municipal Code establishes a 15% inclusionary requirement for all residential developments of five or more units outside of redevelopment areas. Companion resolutions establish a 25% inclusionary requirement for all residential developments of three or more units within redevelopment areas. The ordinance and resolutions help implement the Housing Element of the General Plan. The ordinance and resolutions establishing the inclusionary housing requirements state that the new inclusionary units constructed would need to conform to Affordable Housing Guidelines. Once adopted, the Guidelines would apply to all new residential development citywide, including development in redevelopment areas. The proposed Guidelines address Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Resolution #4 -H CC 6 -1 -04 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 19, 2004 Page 2 location of units, quality of exterior appearance, quality of construction and quality of interior features and finishes, with the intent that inclusionary units not be readily distinguishable from their market rate counterparts. As part of the application for a residential development, the applicant would be required to submit an Affordable Housing Plan. This plan would indicate the number, size and location of each unit, including income levels to which each inclusionary unit would be made affordable. In addition, the Affordable Housing Plan would describe how the development adheres to the Affordable Housing Guidelines. Fiscal Impact There is no impact on the General Fund or on any redevelopment funds. Recommendation The City Manager recommends adoption of the Resolution establishing affordable housing guidelinesfdr residential development in the City of Alameda. y submi L - A. Little Development Services Director Rachel ilver Development Manager, Housing By: JMF\LAL \RS:sb Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \HOUSING \INCLUSIO \CCrpt_HG.doc F: Housing\Affordable Housing Guidelines CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ESTABLISHING AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council adopts the following standards for the development of Inclusionary Units, as required by the City's Housing Element, City of Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -16 and City Council Resolution No. Establishing an Inclusionary Housing Policy for the Alameda Point Improvement Project, and City Council Resolution No. Establishing an Inclusionary Housing Policy for the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Projects. • Inclusionary Units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the residential development unless concentration of units furthers some affordable housing purpose. • Inclusionary Units shall be comparable in overall number of bedrooms, proportion of units in each bedroom category, quality of exterior appearance and overall quality of construction to market rate units in the same residential development. • Inclusionary Units and associated lot improvements shall blend with the market rate zunits, so it is not rear ily apparent from the exterior which are the Inclusionary Units ,CC and which are mark ;t rate. ccri_j)--- 0 • The City encourages developers to offer equivalent market rate products to any Go } inclusionary product. U • Interior features and finishes in Inclusionary Units shall be durable, of good quality J and consistent with contemporary standards for new housing. • The City encourages developers to make Inclusionary Units accessible to or adaptable for persons with physical limitations of all types. • The City encourages developers to use a lottery to select buyers for the Inclusionary Units. If a different selection process is proposed, this process shall be described in the Affordable Housing Plan. Section 2. This resolution shall become effective (a) as to the Alameda Point Improvement Project on the effective date of that resolution adopted on entitled A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Alameda Establishing an Inclusionary Housing Policy for the Alameda Point Improvement Project, (b) as to the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Projects on the effective date of that resolution adopted on entitled A Resolution of the City Council of the City of 1 Resolution # 4 -H CC 6 -1 -04 Alameda Establishing an Inclusionary Housing Policy for the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Projects, and (c) as to the remainder of the City, as of the effective date of that ordinance introduced on , 20 and entitled An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Alameda Adding Section 30 -16, Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects, to the City of Alameda Municipal Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2004, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk 2 Mayor CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM May 17, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the Execution of a Lease For Real Property Located at 1435 Webster Street (Parking Lot D) BACKGROUND Since 1991, the City has been leasing 1435 Webster Street, at Taylor Avenue, from a family trust managed by Geoffrey Farrar and utilizing the property for a municipal parking lot. The original lease has expired and it is time for renewal. DISCUSSION The property, also known as Lot D, is located in the heart of the Webster Street business district. It is also the current home of the weekly Farmers' Market. This Lot is well utilized by the community at large and is a valued asset for the local economy. The conditions contained in the new lease will remain as previously authorized by the City Council. The term of the lease is proposed to be five years, with five, 1 -year renewal options. The City will maintain first right of refusal for purchase of the property. A copy of the lease is on file in the City Clerk's office. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS/FINANCIAL IMPACT The rent will remain at $4,420, per month for the first five years. At the end of the five -year term, should the City exercise the renewal option, the rent would increase by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for each one -year renewal period. The Parking Meter Charge Fund will fund rent and all of the maintenance for the facility. MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE This ordinance does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service coofAkned. uubiicWoiks eparlment Public Works Wrrkaf. Y d Re: Intro of Ordinance #4 -I CC 6 -1 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Page 2 May 17, 2004 The proposed action to approve a lease renewal does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to the meaning of section 15378 because renewal of the lease will not physically change the current conditions. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council introduce an ordinance authorizing execution of a lease for real property located at 1435 Webster Street (Parking Lot D). Res tfully Submitted Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director MTN/MM: dl G :\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \060104 \1435 report.doc (axi ( tuit By: MargcLean Actin ublic Works Coordinator Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Gtvoglarneda PLublicWorks apartment Public Works Wm Asfw r,.! E 0 cn ca CL CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A LEASE FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1435 WEBSTER STREET (PARKING LOT D) WHEREAS, Geoffrey A. Farrar, Kristina A. Farrar Trust II, Charles A. Begley and Dorothy Crane McKee, (herein called "Lessor ") own certain real property located at 1435 Webster Street in Alameda, California (herein "real property "); and WHEREAS, the real property has been utilized by the City as a municipal parking lot for the West End Business District; and WHEREAS, both the City and the Business District desires that the provision of this parking facility be continued; and WHEREAS, the Lessor desires to directly lease the real property to the City of Alameda on the terms and conditions set forth in the lease on file in the Office of Z the City Clerk. cc WHEREAS, the City of Alameda desires to enter into such lease. F NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE 1— CITY OF ALAMEDA as follows: 5 Section 1. The City Council hereby approves execution of the Lease between the City of Alameda and Geoffrey A. Farrar, Kristina A. Farrar Trust II, Charles A. Begley and Dorothy Crane McKee, as Lessor. Section 2. That the form of Lease referred to in the above, and the terms, conditions and covenants contained therein are hereby approved. Section 3. That the City Manager of the City of Alameda be, and is hereby authorized to execute, for an on behalf of the City of Alameda, the Lease substantially in the form and containing the terms and conditions and covenants as set out in the Lease on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Introduction of Ordinance #4 -I CC 6 -1 -04 Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Officer of the 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 May 27, 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 124014 - 124518 2,801,156.13 Void Checks: 123486 122924 GRAND TOTAL Allowed in open session: Date: City Clerk Approved for payment: Date: Finance Director Council Warrants 06/01/04 (393,238.00) (180.00) 2,407,738.13 Respectfully submitted, �it tee- J 5 i VeA? Pamela J. Sibley BILLS #4 -J 06/01/04 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: April 21, 2004 Re: Acceptance of Citywide Retail Development Policy BACKGROUND In March of 2003, the. City began a series of Community Engagement Forums and a process to update the retail component of the Economic Development Strategic Plan and to develop an updated policy document for citywide retail. DISCUSSION The. Economic Development Commission (EDC) created an EDC Retail Task Force to guide a process involving a series of four Community Engagement Forums. The Forums sought input from Alameda residents, property owners, employees and business people, and each forum was designed to maximize community participation and lead toward formulation of proposed retail policies. Between 75 and 110 participants attended each of the forums and, taking into account the final forum, over 165 different people have attended one or more of the forums. In order to stimulate and capture the public's interest, the EDC Retail Task Force urged the preparation and distribution of A Retail Walking Tour Guidebook. Over 550 copies of the Retail guidebook were distributed to the public by way of the Alameda Free Library and its branches, local business associations and public counters at City Hall. Quarter -page ads were published in the local media, and over 900 postcards and/or flyers were distributed prior to each Forum. Forum meeting announcements were posted on the City's Home Page Website, aired on the City's cable TV government channel and press releases were distributed to the media. Draft products generated from the forum meetings were posted on the City's Website: As indicated by the attendance at these events, there has been a great deal of interest in the future of commercial development in Alameda. There was considerable discussion focusing on opportunities for existing business to thrive and opportunities for new retail development and redevelopment around the Island. The fmal Report (on file with the City Clerk) takes a three - prong approach by recommending support for and strengthening of existing retail areas, recommending a process to assist the City to make decisions regarding significant new retail projects in the future, and it suggested a design policy aimed at new retail. Regarding strengthening existing retail areas and specifically, the Report's recommendation to prepare a Strategic Plan for the Webster Street commercial district, the Economic Development Commission has created a new EDC Webster Street Strategic Plan Task Force and the City has already hired Strategic Economics to begin the six -month Webster Street Strategic Plan process. Dedicated to Excellence, Committe Re: Report #5 -A R 6 -1 -04 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 21, 2004 Page 2 On March 24, 2004, the Transportation Commission reviewed the draft report and forwarded comments to the Planning Board (Attachment). On April 12, 2004, the Planning Board took action endorsing the document for consideration and acceptance by Council. General Plan and Zoning The Citywide Retail Policy Report, if accepted by Council, recommends additions and modifications to the General Plan to refine and expand existing policy. A hierarchy of retail areas is needed to serge the shopping needs of the community. The Report evaluated existing policy and suggests the consideration of changes and additions. Next Steps Following acceptance by Council, the document will be referred back to the affected departments, including Planning and Building and Development Services, and the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission for consideration and implementation of specific recommendations. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund for acceptance of the Final Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report. Preparation of the Webster Street Strategic Plan is being funded out of Business and Waterfront Improvement Project bond proceeds. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council accept the Citywide Retail Policy Report. Respec y submitt JMF/LAL/ BJMK:ry Attachment Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: : ruc J.M. Kno Eco s s mic Dev Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service C:\Documents and Settings\cm_user\My Documents \CC 4-28b- 04.doc F: ED /Strategy/Retail update/Council t Manager Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council cc: Planning Board c/o Greg Fuz, Planning and Building Director Economic Development Commission Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service C:\Documents and Settings\cm_user\My Documents \CC 4- 28b- 04.doc F: ED/Strategy/Retail update/CounciI April 21, 2004 Page 3 ATTACHMENT TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION March 24, 2004 Comments Regarding Draft Citywide Retail Policy Report • The key to retail success is moving people, not vehicles, into and out of retail areas. • For Policy CW I -1, point #2, remove "when possible" from the text that reads: "New retail development should ....include...clear pedestrian passage, as well as a zone for street trees, street furniture, and other street amenities, when possible." • For Policy PG1, allow in -lieu parking fees only for areas along major transit corridors or near public parking. • City should revisit its parking requirements, and consider defining the parking requirement according to the individual needs of the particular type of retail business. Some types of retail, for example, may generally require less parking than other types of retail uses, such as a local serving coffee shop, for example. • Modify Policy CC1 to indicate that the design of site should encourage external pedestrian access, specifically getting into and out of the retail development. • Eliminate existing General Plan Implementing Policy 2.5j, "Reduce, the extent of Neighborhood Business Districts by re- designating residential parcels zoned for commercial use to residential use wherever detailed study of each district demonstrates that an acceptable residential environment can be maintained or created," because neighborhood commercial districts serve local areas and can reduce the need for residents to travel. (Staff Comment: This policy has already been implemented through changes to the Development Code and Zoning Ordinance.) CADOCUME— Ikcm_user\LOCALS.4 TempWttachment - Citywide Retail Report.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: James M. Flint City Manager Date: May 19, 2004 Re: Supplemental Report - Acceptance of Citywide Retail Development Policy BACKGROIJNJ) Council continued this item from its meeting of May 4, 2004 to the meeting of June 1, 2004. In the meantime, questions have been raised about the proposed Citywide Retail Development Policy final report dated February 2004 and about two other retail reports that have recently become available, though they have had no part in the Citywide Community Engagement Retail Development Forum process. One report was prepared by Alameda Point Community Partners (Sedway Group - July 2003). The second report is a retail impact analysis prepared by Strategic Economics in September and November of 2003 as part of closed session meetings of the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and that was recently forwarded to the CIC as part of an April 20, 2004 Off - Agenda report entitled, Follow -up on Proposed Catellus Retail Project. DISCIJSSION The Citywide Retail Policy Report was influenced by neither the Strategic Economics study nor the Sedway Group study (on file with the City Clerk). These separate retail reports were prepared for different purposes, they have only become available to the public for review and discussion recently, and they address questions that are different than those that were discussed in the Citywide Retail Forums. The purpose of this Supplemental Report is to provide information regarding the other two documents. They are discussed for informational purposes only; they do not require action. One way to add clarity might be to outline both what the Citywide Retail Policy report and process does /did and what it does not do: WHAT IT DOES/DID • Created a vehicle to engage the community to discuss citywide retail issues and opportunities; and • It provided an opportunity to discuss retail that fits Alameda's quality of life. • It provided a platform of recommendations about how Alameda should view retail development Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #5 -A 6 -1 -04 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 19, 2004 Page 2 in the future while protecting and enhancing the existing Citywide retail base. • It identifies that the City suffers from significant retail leakage, and suggests that if the City wants new retail, it has area of opportunity to get it. WHAT IT DOES NOT DO • It does not presume that there will be new retail at Enterprise Landing; • It does not express a preference about where new retail should be located; • It does not make any decisions about tenant mix, although it does recommend that a decision about locating a new grocery store in the West End (or at `Alameda West' as it is being increasingly referred), be made in such a way as to maximize its draw as an anchor use for an area that would most benefit from such an anchor; • It does not define the retail capture rate for new retail projects in Alameda; and • It does not answer questions about the potential impact that specific retail projects or specific tenant mix might have on existing business. These are all appropriate questions, and they are the types of questions that a developer asks when assembling a project and the types of questions that the City would want to ask as part of project specific review. The market will ultimately test these factors as a function of territory, competition and market concentration. The data will ultimately get used in conjunction with development, retail tenant and the community's view of constraints and opportunities. However, the focus of the Citywide Retail Community Engagement Forums and the final Citywide Retail Policy Report was to discuss citywide retail issues and test the opportunity for retail in Alameda. It engaged the community and retail development professionals in a dialogue about the community's desires for retail in Alameda, and it made recommendations about how the City should proceed in the future to ensure continued health and growth of our existing local businesses districts as well as the introduction of a significant amount of new desired retail. The report recommends changes to the General Plan and to Zoning that will provide a tool to evaluate significant new retail project proposals, and policy that will encourage expansion and development of retail areas through high quality design and attraction of tenants that deepen and broaden the mix of local business and achieve the General Plan goal of "providing enough retail and business services space to enable Alameda to reach its full retail sales potential (Alameda General Plan, Policy 2.5.a). Attachment 1 presents response to recently raised questions and comments in a Question and Answer format. Attachment 2 compares and contrasts the three studies, the Citywide Retail Report, the Sedway Group Study and the Strategic Economics Study, in a matrix format. Next Steps It is important to make a decision regarding action on the Citywide Retail Forum Report in order to achieve closure and begin implementing policies to assist the business districts to grow and thrive. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Comdev \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \CC 5 -20 -04 supplem. Rprt rvsd5- 19- 04.doc F: ED /Strategy /Retail update /Council Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 19, 2004 Page 3 Following acceptance by Council, the Citywide Retail Policy document will be referred back to the affected departments, including Planning and Building and Development Services, and the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission for consideration and implementation of specific recommendations. FINANCIAI, IMPACT N/A RECOMMENDATION Sedway Group study and Strategic Economics Report provided for information only. No action required. JMF/LAL/BJMK:ry Attachments Resp t 4 submitted eslie A. Little Development Services Director By: J. M. Knopf Redevelopment cc: Planning Board c/o Greg Fuz, Planning and Building Director Economic Development Commission Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce Aidan Barry, Alameda Point Community Partners Dan Marcus, Catellus Michael Corbett, Harsch Investment Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \Comdev \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \CC 5 -20 -04 supplem. Rprt rvsd5- 19- 04.doc F: ED /Strategy /Retail update /Council ATTACHMENT 1 CITYWIDE RETAIL REPORT Questions and Answers Comment: New Retail should not take away from existing businesses. Response: Forum participants agreed. Proposed Citywide Retail Report Citywide Policy CW -1, recommends that, "The primary focus of new retail centers, and particularly those with CIC involvement, should be to complement, not duplicate, the primary role /retail niche and major economic segments of existing retail areas." (Citywide Retail Policy Report, Page 19.) Also, proposed Citywide Retail Report Citywide Policy RC -2 states , that, "Any new regional retail center in the West End should be coordinated with, and if possible enhance, existing, planned and approved retail in Alameda." (Citywide Retail Policy Report, Page 25.) Comment: It appears that the Citywide Retail Policy document assumes that a portion of Enterprise Landing would be converted to a retail project. Response: Not so. Proposed Citywide Retail Report Citywide Policy RC -2, for example, refers to a potential new retail center in the West End, as potentially being located, "...at Alameda Point, Enterprise Landing, or the Northern Waterfront" without discriminating between them. Similarly, proposed Citywide Retail Report Citywide Policy RC -5 refers to supporting a new regional retail center on the West End "...(at Enterprise Landing, Northern Waterfront or Alameda Point)" without preference. Comment: The (Strategic Economics) Report does not adequately capture retail leakage in areas that will be developed, such as the Del Monte Building and Alameda Point: Response: Regarding the Del Monte Building, the Strategic Economics study did take into account anticipated retail development at this location. The Strategic Economics Study, Page 13, states that the owner has submitted an application for reuse of the building to include 160,000 s.f. of retail modeled after Market Hall in Rockridge. The approval of 160,000 s.f. of retail space at the Del Monte warehouse site would not be significantly impacted by Enterprise Landing retail, because Strategic Economics has recommended elimination of a grocery store use from the Enterprise Landing project and because of the overall differences in retail product (specialty foods) and function of the two proposed retail centers. Regarding Alameda Point, both the Strategic Economics Study and the Sedway study took the same approach and assumed that there would be no citywide serving retail at the other location. Given this approach, both studies independently concluded that based on citywide retail leakage, there is sufficient unmet retail demand to support at least 300,000 s.f. of new A: \Q & A attachmnt5 -20 w5.0.doc ATTACHMENT 1- Questions and Answers Page 2 of 3 retail space. Comment: "The Sedway Study suggests that `...40% of retail leakage occurs because Harbor Bay Isle residents are closer to Davis Street.' When a big box shopping center goes in on Hegenberger, it will be more convenient for Harbor Bay Isle residents. These residents will probably not travel all the way to the West End." Response: All three economists, ADE, Strategic Economics and Sedway Group, chose the entire City of Alameda as the primary market area. Page 14 of the Sedway Study states that, "the Sedway Group's retail demand and leakage model was run for Alameda... and the City of Alameda as a whole was chosen as the primary market area due to its geographic constraints as an island." (Sedway, Page 14) Changing demographics and households new to the Island do not have the historical memory of the West End being dominated by Navy and military activities. Alameda businesses such as Garden Cleaners, Needle in a Haystack, East Ocean Restaurant, and Fashion after Passion all report drawing clientele on an Island -wide basis. It is the general opinion that this pattern will only intensify as demographics continue to change. The market will test these demographic conclusions, as a function of territory, competition and market concentration. The data will ultimately get used in conjunction with development, retail tenant and the community's view of constraints and opportunities Comment: The Sedway Study seems to be a better study overall. It makes more realistic assumptions about capturing leakage. Response: The Sedway Study and the Strategic Economics Study approached the analysis from different points of view for different purposes, but they actually came to similar conclusions. Although it is not readily apparent, they both estimated similar average capture rates: Sedway estimated 30% to 55% for what they call a "community retail center" (one that draws on Island -wide retail demand), and Table 4 of the Strategic Economics study represents an approximate capture range of 46% to 56% for the same retail categories. Comment: The two studies look very different. Response: The purpose of the two reports is different, but they both independently confirm each other's conclusion that Alameda could support at least 300,000 - square -feet of new retail. The primary purpose of the Strategic Economics study was to give the CIC a preliminary understanding of potential impact of a proposed Enterprise Landing project and tenant mix on existing Alameda retail areas. This study was used to evaluate the specific 450,000- square -foot tenant mix proposal presented to the community in the fall of 2002 by Catellus. Strategic Economics analyzed leakage and capture rates at a fine grain level of detail, based on the given mix of specific tenants. Conversely, APCP commissioned the Sedway Group to evaluate the extent of potential retail demand to support new G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \cc 5 -20 -04 Q & A attachment.doc F: \econdev\strategy\retail update \Council Reports ATTACHMENT 1- Questions and Answers Page 3 of 3 neighborhood retail and/or community retail at Alameda Point, driven by unmet retail demand Island -wide. This analysis was conducted at a more general level based on State Board of Equalization Sales Tax data and Urban Land Institute factors for levels of retail sales per square foot of retail space based on nationwide shopping center statistics. Both studies ended up corroborating each other's conclusion about the window of opportunity to tap into unmet retail demand in Alameda and to attract high quality retailers to the City. Comment: The two studies need to be reconciled before action can be taken on the Citywide Retail Policy Report. Response: The Citywide Retail Policy Report was not influenced by either the Strategic Economics study or the Sedway Group study. The Citywide Retail Policy report does not: • Presume new retail at Enterprise Landing; • It does not express a preference about where new retail should be located; • It does not make any decisions about tenant mix, although it does recommend that a decision about locating a new grocery store in the West End be made in such a way as to maximize its draw as an anchor use for an area that would most benefit from such an anchor; • It does not address the issue of capture rate for new retail projects; and • It does not answer questions about the potential impact that specific retail projects might have on existing business. These are all appropriate questions, and they are the types of questions that a developer asks when assembling a project and the types of questions that the City would want to ask as part of project review. In fact, the Citywide Retail Policy Report includes a recommendation as to the process and information that should be provided to review new proposed retail centers. The Citywide Retail Community Engagement Forums and the final Citywide Retail Policy Report did test the opportunity for retail in Alameda. It engaged the community and retail development professionals in a dialogue about the community's desires for retail in Alameda, and it makes recommendations about how the City should proceed in the future to ensure continued health and growth of our existing local businesses districts as well as the introduction of a significant amount of new desired retail. The report recommends changes to the General Plan and to Zoning that will encourage expansion and development of retail areas through high quality design and attraction of tenants that deepen and broaden the mix of local business and achieve the General Plan goal of "providing enough retail and business services space to enable Alameda to reach its full retail sales potential (Alameda General Plan, Policy 2.5.a). It is important to make a decision regarding action on the Citywide Retail Forum Report in order to achieve closure and begin implementing policies to assist the business districts to grow and thrive. G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \cc 5 -20 -04 Q & A attachment.doc F: \econdev\strategy\retail update \Council Reports COMMENTS I .� o : et a o ° o 0 00 ^ a, a) • +� :" O O O O c ;; ~ y : a) �' eC p '© caC O �i n.: a, S y 5 o 0 ct C.i m`1. o� CON °'•Cli6= QS 0.i y • .ti O 4? yr" a) 3 0 Q. t 0 CI) : 6 o .. W ,. .6 TS ° = _ i • .- w, ° 6 . y ° 0 ' a a ° ^' O cli ,a o, a, 0 u ° .et •a)~ Waooa, z °z.,5cj �V�°'c°' Uc;��_, ,ti0�^d .6=.6gz :�0,,-Ia .• Fx•�az 6 yw 6a��s aavey ca -0 :b • *a b O `5 c�� z 6 z O cA . C a' o ..,o ct o SEDWAY GROUP Alameda Point Community Partners a) y'� a) ,--i r.., a,30 o .� A90 al a _� ) 5 8b2 o= = °e' ao 2 U :1' 5 �,� cam= a;-, Zip o c; �' D,0 o =• w °o° e.° � as 0-9 =-0 -0 = a) a' a E �' ° `6 '> c ; '> '> W o b ° w > O cz ,-a o > c , •A C)d MiC7•� °? • • STRATEGIC ECONOMICS Commission 0 �b • C� 64 ;-•I �L°pa� 0= ," r' 0 �° - b o = .5, .o - . 'o .v, 3 0 .5.d 5 d °" U W 2 0• a> p° o $ ,� rzl • ° a�'�� cn o zi ,.o 3 • 0 • -• O 0 .0 oA .� ,—, o o �,o = any p oz o aA. tm.aB o H a s z ,-x a a..- cz ct= Gq a C7 CITY WIDE RETAIL STUDY City of Alameda •03 0 .-" ,, Dfl ,. o � " ," " > ° a 0 O .5 W 'C , A cu c� .u, o p v b U 0 6 c� a) p �' >, bA O b • 6 c •� O c' Cl F 2 E ,E, b cz s-, am W. 0 Entity commissioning the study w O cu z l 4 l G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \cc 5 -24 -04 Matrix Attachment.doc COMMENTS Neither the Sedway Report nor the Strategic Economics study was available for public review at the time of the initial Community Engagement Forums (April, June and August). The EDC Citywide Retail Task Force and WABA discussed the scope of work for the Strategic Economics study. ADE /Strategic Economics chose the entire City of Alameda (including Harbor Bay residents) as the "primary market area due to its geographic constraints as an island." (Sedwa , Pa, e 14.) SEDWAY GROUP Sedway Report dated July 2003, and released January 2004. Market for retail that is local serving (residents and employees at AP), and (2) capacity for capturing citywide retail leakage. STRATEGIC ECONOMICS Strategic Economics Report dated September 2003, and released April 20, 2004 Adjustment of proposed size and tenant mix at Enterprise Landing to minimize impacts on existing and proposed retail. CITY WIDE RETAIL STUDY Final Community Forum ( #4) held January 13, 2004 Citywide leakage. b a 0 C.) A Area of Analysis G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \cc 5 -24 -04 Matrix Attachment.doc ICOMMENTS I ^0 •.CpCO A • .4 '~^' O y c j 'NW = an *1 o C Cr u .W 45 N" a P.4 al e o &ti 0 �. .���v b g=� ., �w ett o .5.A 4ba,a 1 � u � a • 0S 4 g O In= CU (41 a, t z. c a� v."d -. -~ . O w u c8 .�o :w � ■.° 9 c6o �a ° ea on zs �' co © W b • y ice., o cu c., 0" cl o e azv o :tl.) t: bt a W �' SEDWAY GROUP czt ea A • >, t.) O u 1 � cn vj cn = �+ N�•� N O ¢' ° cn 3 -d 0 o 0 b a.�v� Ca.( 0 ct 0L., 0Oi . 0 5 z 'a • P,=, ° cu on as ti° M -tcz: O 0 C a) aw 0 . o e -" p r 3s O 4 4waTt • 0 Z O 1 v a) c • v Q" O a .. Q i ai a; °" rSTRATEGIC ECONOMICS 0 • c �.�,I -- 0 Q x ate, one W AIo ct 0Q cam?, e �g� • CD au = o ,�3 '� a' W 8-0 ti) .. , �., O CU °w'x; ° g o o > b 0 g °Ewa • o .. .a a) u, o CZI .? o cA c9 c 0 ,2_2 CITY WIDE RETAIL STUDY =c0azQ�?a�0Q. O Z A N cu oo r6 . 6 Um 0 cn an Mt .d b a,.� o o a; E• a'z ct ;a d — aa, ao c - .. °aka �, -. c 'O 0 0 0 o° a, ;c. 'C "' 03 ° 5.� 2 as a) ca:� 4. O iv O WO' cd >, a�°> > 0 , �'�-d 'a '5 0 0 b 0 au G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \cc 5 -24 -04 Matrix Attachment.doc COMMENTS capture rate and projections of amount of supportable retail space based on a more generalized analysis, because they started with information at a more generalized level of detail, i.e., citywide retail leakage analysis broken down into nine categories as tracked b SBE. SEDWAY GROUP to zt a 0 0 C) Z.1 o N -o U C ao t U STRATEGIC ECONOMICS i c r. '> o a ,� ;-d o c i cl, c4 CI .- 6 °�' CITY WIDE RETAIL STUDY G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \cc 5 -24 -04 Matrix Attachment.doc N _ 0 COMMENTS I CA - 0 4- 44 CI3 ° .� mo wo � , .g) : ci c U , C44 CD , :a °P° . � • 3° ° o w • : a' O ° '0 �o .� CD :vi „ y O b c �c 4 � b � N z �W 2.� � bb 4.; a)s r o^' :^n r2•1 CD C y '4 Cu '1 2 c• a 0 c b °�' o E: 41.) 0 0 0 0.1 u b ,- c : cd e0 � i a a a, a' � •. = cz a .,5 .- tiaio c o > o, ,e`. aaw cd� : cun.. w 0 cF1. ..a"vd o 6a ywa°a wb 6. ... . • • 1 SEDWAY GROUP N 0 • p U O a = .1 a) OO`ct )� a] >, N 4+ >, = •� a "O N 0" cu O E-+ O c� M o • c' = • • U o ct w o CA fr - • • , "G " W a 0 U � d a c¢, O Q- et ) ' ' 1.1 +' ° 0 a''_, .6, -, -, GCq- O cn , W p C � cn N tl Q+ ,8 O 06 " cf •: O ,- - p u. in a) , ►� 00 vA - ,-� ■= 3 U 0 'C3 > `. • • STRATEGIC ECONOMICS 46 0 �c. a ; �J 0 • o ., �, 0 a) '+- 1., 0 4 4; cd •�, cu O ' -ci W ° v. vo ^d do ,4 0 cu 0oo c:;', ° "� Ei-o oWM 3 0 a. -< NC7. • d a cu o µ; • °o o U o 0 1:1 -, 00 = 1.,i a) o •_ .= a) .-n ,- 0 _ • ) - o o b o c7 a 0 ° ,� o a) a 8 a E �, E"> >, oQ� °�= v). 0,z) W a • CITY WIDE RETAIL STUDY 0 o a; a? a CD bA U 0 d cz N ' + E F o cd U O bA '0 0 d E a) O '-E,00 ,o a) ° a > ate) 0> o a' � .,, 3 >11=1' eu o>n et cz > ' b a) 3, .74 c 'o ao_ 0 0 go ,' a :7-1 � w' d-d .2 9, R c9 8w a�) c,-0 3b -s �' c° 2R o- P. 8Qb a.) 8 • • • • • 0 ,o g 0 c c G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \cc 5 -24 -04 Matrix Attachment.doc COMMENTS la cu "h it ..r , , ^O — wi O 5, 5 v—a E.: �,u: a" cu s „ga•� �•o°"`=l� •W�:~ eL) Ts . ~ v a a v; W 'p 0. L. t °'b 4 CD w° 8 8 et V ; P G) w "4: z w t ,:4' :. 9 y T" .d k C LI" r a b • • ca �w� c4 cA �b �.. 6,ba • SEDWAY GROUP (A-, ,—( g �° . °o"�v;� g� �; 3 i, N cd = cA O 6. s, cn 'd ', by O bA 8 .. '� ct .5 a) O a) v� - O -O j v� -0 3 s., c+.., -O .,.., a) a) -.0 = y,., i N M ',-67,- 0 �; a O O 6 O ' • ~ .5' cd 'C O .- Q, a) 0 by ., O N E V i� U U U • V O ,a ct C3= a° a' o 04 c' O E cu c-1—, Q, cd by R .'., cd U U -+ � U O by cat = 0 � cat a) . STRATEGIC ECONOMICS › O ° � °Q, E - o 4 .b I; >, o .. ° � on . -d � ; V' i!'' . ., '+ 2 '4'2 E 0 °c ° u c. ' b• = � -oi ?.a.W od > 3 n W 0 <1.) k.-; o 5 o 1111.F - b o= = CITY WIDE RETAIL STUDY w >, ° , o ° � IS 0 N ^U, a 0 0 ��, 4 U cn a) LI .2 O y a) N= 2 E= t'1, U N b ,, o U c$ `4 Q, cl = '-, O ^d Q, j 1 = - C U va>' 6) . 0-- W 2 3 5 ' ° o . h o U by v, � � g a) 4 ' . 4a �, . = U N d w ' 2 ;= o d cn . • G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \cc 5 -24 -04 Matrix Attachment.doc cA E-1 SEDWAY GROUP STRATEGIC ECONOMICS cn cz cz , ,-. r 0 ° 0 N fi, ,1 O N b a as 00 - N -. ° E 3= c 0., Q, O N .3 a co � ) 4- .a' �� = =.� CU cn �•N•N �,.a•o ;. "� 0 +.1 cn N O y CI O ,11 tl 01 At oo Li) O '� O y L. cl cz c,, U c- i 2 N v) -O U w o -O OO = N cd ° c4 U N p o .9 yo Ki E N•, 2 O �-. ■ O —i O E El 0 O ^ o cd g O 0 c� c/ V N r+, cn 0, p. w cn p. U .,� cn cn U C'1, O b `. w N O czt U v, • v5 • U CITY WIDE RETAIL STUDY 2 . O 0•5'r4�as 0 clobber °cU ° W ° d v ° ed o MS"0 rn • G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \cc 5 -24 -04 Matrix Attachment.doc COMMENTS SEDWAY GROUP Old Navy, TJ Maxx, or Gap Target or Kohl's z 0 1.1 w - o x cy c. C. gq CD = rip • • STRATEGIC ECONOMICS Old Navy, Ann Taylor Loft, Chico's — differentiate from South Shore by focusing on higher end, but clear that both centers could have strong sales with a variety of apparel stores. (Strategic Economics, Page 21). Target but probably not Kohl's (see above) y 5 oc. x C0 p, � a: Pq o cd =o N.° = d�z� o C -� ,4 x � , ; O N z N c� i N!4", • <UL+.-df� fC (.7�1 5 • • CITY WIDE RETAIL STUDY Recommended Types of Retailers: o Gen. Merch. y RI G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \cc 5 -24 -04 Matrix Attachment.doc F O U SEDWAY GROUP 1 Lowe's and Home Depot ra O 6 a) a; t' • • STRATEGIC ECONOMICS furnishings from South Shore target tenants Ck) x O 0 ° gq .- ,~ a, t cn O CZ O ob o¢ o P. ,4 q� U =7'� o a Zv)Ca� o • • • • ¢ H 5 F o• U Building Materials G: \econdev \STRATEGY\Retail update \Council Reports \cc 5 -24 -04 Matrix Attachment.doc COMMENTS SEDWAY GROUP • Mix of small to medium size grocers STRATEGIC ECONOMICS • Avoid a grocery store, which could better be utilized as an anchor in another West End location such as Webster Street, Alameda Point or Del Monte. (Strategic Economics, Page 20). CITY WIDE RETAIL STUDY r• a) 1. L7 GAecondev update \Council Reports \cc 5 -24 -04 Matrix Attachment.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: Re: May 19, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council; James M. Flint City Manager Public Hearing and Adoption of Resolution Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for FY 2004 -05 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2004 -05 BACKGROUND The Business Improvement Area (BIA) was established in 1989. Fees, based on sales volume, are collected within two Benefits Areas, "A" and `B," with "A" businesses paying slightly higher rates because of their proximity to the retail core. While the basic rate structure for retail and service business in both Benefit Areas has remained the same since inception, some fees do increase annually based on rises in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco Area. CPI increased fees include: 1) the flat fee assessed non - retail, 2) the fee paid by financial institutions, and 3) the maximum charge in all categories. The City's Finance Department projects no BIA revenue increase this coming fiscal year after applying the CPI increase. On May 18, 2004, City Council accepted reports (Attachments A, B and C) regarding proposed FY 2004 -05 Business Improvement Area (BIA) assessments and activities, and Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (Attachment D) to Levy an Annual Assessment for FY 2004 -05. The Resolution set a public hearing for June 1, 2004 to consider adoption of a Resolution confirming the reports and levying an annual assessment. DISCUSSION The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) and West Alameda Business Association (WABA) included affected parties in the process of adopting the proposed activities and budget by holding meetings, which were announced through business association invitations, newsletters and/or personal contact. These efforts led to the approval of the PSBA and WABA BIA budgets by the members in attendance at these meetings. Notice of the Public Hearing was advertised in a newspaper of general circulation seven days prior to the hearing. The public hearing will give affected parties a final opportunity to comment on the proposed assessment. During or following the public hearing, Council may order changes in the report, including changes in the proposed activities, boundaries or benefit areas. After the hearing, the Council may adopt the Resolution confirming the report as originally filed or as changed. Adoption of the Resolution will constitute the levy of the assessment for FY 2004 -05. The renewal of the BIA for another year supports both the goals of the Economic Development Strategic Plan and Re: Hearing and Resolution #5 -B 6 -1 -04 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council May 19, 2004 Page 2 the Downtown Vision through continued operation of the two business associations. MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE A.M.C. Sec. 6 -7 et seq. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT There is an impact on the General Fund in the form of staff costs for the Finance Department to process BIA billing and expenditure. Finance Department costs are included in the department's annual budget. BIA billing is done concurrently with business license billing. Revenues from the BIA directly benefit business owners in specified geographic and benefit zones through the promotion of business and similar eligible activities. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and consider the adoption of Resolution confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for FY 2004 -05 and levying an annual assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2004- 05. Resp bmitted, Leslie A. Little Devel. •, • -nt Serves Director Manage ent Analyst JMF/LAL /SGR:ry Attachments cc: Economic Development Commission Park Street Business Association West Alameda Business Association Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\BUSASSOC\BIA\2004 -052nd staff report - CONFIRM.doc F: Parking & BIA/Assessment/2004 -05 Business Association April 28, 2004 Sue Russell Management Analyst Development Services Department 950 West Mall Square Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Russell: ATTACHMENT A As President of the Park Street Business Association, I am pleased to submit the attached BIA Report and accompanying 2004/2005 budget for our Association. We do not anticipate any changes in the BIA for 2004/2005. We have provided a description of the activities PSBA is proposing for the upcoming year and the associated line item budget. This proposed budget was approved by the PSBA Board of Directors in a phone poll conducted this week and will be confirmed at the May 5, 2004 board meeting. Based on revenue received to date, we anticipate 04/05 BIA revenue of $79,300, and a carryover of $7,000 resulting from more than anticipated 03/04 revenues and cost containment by PSBA. This brings our 04/05 BIA budget to $86,300. We would be glad to answer any questions you have regarding the attached material. Sincerely, Lars ansso President Park Street Business Association _4-17 Santa Clara Avenue, Sui:e 302 (510) 523 -1392 Alameda. CA 9 -1501 ACalifontta Main Street Program FAX (51(1) 523 -2372 PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 2447 Santa Clara Ave., #302, Alameda, CA 94501 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FISCAL YEAR 2004/2005 INTRODUCTION: The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) is recommending a BIA budget of $85,800 for the Park Street Business District for fiscal year 2004/2005. This recommendation is based on the estimate of the income derived from the BIA assessment in fiscal 03/04 as well as a carryover from the 03/04 budget, which resulted from more than expected revenue and cost containment by PSBA. The formulas, budgets, and proposed activities are the result of monthly Board of Director and committee meetings between December, 2003, and May, 2004. BUDGET: The BIA is one of four sources of funding for the activities proposed in this report. The other three sources are funds raised by the Park Street Business Association, reimbursement from the Landscape and Lighting Budget, and a proposed grant we will be seeking from the Development Services Department. PSBA will continue its current activities, as well as implement new ones, that are in line with the National Trust's Main Street Four -Point plan for revitalizing Main Street Cities. BOUNDARIES: We are not proposing any changes this year. ACTIVITIES: Attached is a summary of the proposed activities for the fiscal year 2004/2005. These activities are designed to improve the pedestrian friendly look of the Park Street District, improve the vitality of the District in order to increase sales and sales tax revenues, promote members' businesses, attract new businesses to the District and increase the overall business atmosphere in the Park Street District. Several projects are continuations from the 2003/2004 fiscal year. In addition, we will be breaking ground on our Streetscape Project in January. Park Street Business Association 2004/05 Design Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Streetscape a. Assure continuation of the streetscape project b. Conduct public meetings to gain approval of final plans c. Ensure MTC timeline is met d. Monitor construction progress e. Begin Phase II planning and funding 2. Design Guidelines a. Solicit sub - committee members b. Determine acceptable and not acceptable design criteria c. Write guidelines d. Submit to PSBA Board for Approval e. Work with City Staff to have new ordinances presented to City Council 3. Sign Ordinance a. Review New Draft b. Make additional suggestions for final draft ordinance c. Review Final Draft d. Take Final Draft to PSBA Board for Approval e. Submit final changes to Planning Dept. f. Review completed ordinance g. Submit completed ordinance to Council h. Council Approval i. Begin Enforcement 4. News Rack Ordinance a. Review New Draft b. Make additional suggestions for final draft ordinance c. Review Final Draft d. Take Final Draft to PSBA Board for Approval e. Submit final changes to Planning Dept. /City Attorney f. Review completed ordinance g. Submit completed ordinance to Council h. Council Approval i. Begin Enforcement j. Review Santa Clara Ave. Newsstand Park Street Business Association 2004/05 Econ -Revi Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Identify Locations For New Businesses a. Work With City of Alameda b. Work With Commercial Brokers c. Physical Survey of the District d. Provide district vacancy list on a monthly basis 2. Ordinances a. Newsracks — assist with council passage b. Signs — assist with council passage c. Vacant Buildings — begin discussions with city staff to beef up ordinance d. Work with city and ACI for better working garbage contract 3. Maintenance a. Continue current level of service b. Request additional grant funds from the City of Alameda c. Ad one additional maintenance person d. With additional maintenance person, implement 4 days on/3 days off overlapping work schedule 4. Security a. Coordinate with Police Department implementation of private security in the district b. Contract with private security company Park Street Business Association 2004/05 Membership Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Conduct Meetings a. Mixers b. Special Meeting (October) c. Programs at half the meetings d. Holiday Party 2. Awards a. Continue current awards program 3. Welcome /New Members a. Update New Members Packet b. Recruit ambassadors to greet new members c. Greet new members with packet as they move into the district 4. Kiosks a. Review effectiveness b. order new signs if appropriate c. install new signs if appropriate 5. Newsletter a. Continue mailing newsletter every month b. Update mailing list Park Street Business Association 2004/05 Promotions Committee Work Plan Outline 1. Continue Special Events a. Spring Festival (mother's day weekend) c. Art & Wine Faire (the first weekend in August) d. Classic Car Show (2nd Saturday in October) 2. Promotions a. Traditional shopping guide to continue for general distribution b. Web site (newly improved) c. Work with ACLO on cross marketing idea d. Work with U.S.S. Hornet on cross marketing idea 3. Print Advertising a. Continue Best of Alameda PSBA pages (defines the district and our members) b. Continue SF Chronicle campaign c. Continue Holiday campaign d. Continue Alameda Sun campaign e. Continue Alameda Magazine campaign f. Possible Oakland Magazine campaign 4. Cable Advertising a. Continue Spring Festival ads b. Continue Art & Wine Faire ads c. Continue Classic Car Show ads d. Continue Holiday campaign ads e. Continue month of March campaign ads 5. Holiday Promotional Event a. two weekend program b. Two weekends prior to Xmas c. Friday Nights (stores have to commit to staying open late) d. Saturdays (free parking, entertainment, attractions) 6. Radio Ads a. Solicit bids for special events b. With West Advertising determine best proposals c. Implement selected proposals d. Determine effectiveness of event ads e. Determine if radio ads are appropriate for other marketing opportunities throughout the year METHOD AND BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT Budget: See Exhibit A CONCLUSION PSBA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Community Development, Public Works and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. The increased participation from the business community and the continued quality of projects has shown the BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize the Park Street Historic Business District. Exhibit A Park Street Business Association 2004/2005 BIA Budget Submission INCOME: BIA Projection $79,300 Accumulated Carryover $7,000 Total Income: $86,300 EXPENSES: Personnel Services Executive Director $0 Maintenance Person $4,000 Administrative Assistant $28,200 Payroll Taxes $10,000 Workers Comp Insurance $10,900 Sub Total $53,100 Membership Services Meetings /Training $2,000 Supplies $1,200 Printing $525 Newsletter $5,000 Postage $2,800 Sub Total $11,525 Indirect /Overhead Accounting /Audit $7,000 Rent $11,775 Utilities $1,400 Equipment $1,500 Sub Total $21,675 Total Expenses $86,300 ATTACHMENT B WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION PO Box 215, Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 523 -5955 west_alameda@yahoo.com PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2004 - JUNE 30, 2005 INTRODUCTION The West Alameda Business Association (WABA) is recommending the following assessment for the Webster Street Business District FY 2004 -2005. The formulas, budgets and proposed activities are the result of various Board and Committee meetings. The draft Business Improvement Area (BIA) Budget will be presented for adoption at the Board of Directors meeting May 19, 2004. PROPOSED CHANGES WABA is not recommending any changes to the Business Improvement Area. ACTIVITIES The following is a summary of proposed activities for the fiscal year 2004 -2005. These activities are an update of the 5 -Year plan and have been discussed at various Board and committee meetings, and by request. WABA's mission is to use these activities to increase the vitality of Webster Street and West Alameda and preserve Webster Street's historic character. We seek to generate more foot traffic, increase sales and sales tax, promote members' businesses and increase the public goodwill and atmosphere in West Alameda. The BIA is the source of funding for these activities. WABA will continue its current activities and implement others that follow the Main Street Four -Point Approach established by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Carry forward from the 2004 -2005 budget is estimated to be $ 0. The estimated BIA revenue for 2004 -2005 is $ 31,900. The following are activities proposed for 2004 -2005. Several projects are continuations from the 2003 -2004 year. 1 ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING • Integrate 5 -Year Plan into community activities related to Economic Restructuring • Facilitate development of high - potential properties • Work with the City to attract appropriate businesses • Monitor the impact of new and re -use housing projects • Determine the potential for eco- tourism as a West Alameda business opportunity • Investigate sources of entertainment as a business opportunity for West Alameda • Finalize and implement a Strategic Economic Development Plan • Proceed with Phase Two of the Property Based Improvement District concept DESIGN • Collaborate with the City on the implementation of the Webster Renaissance Project • Work with consultant and the City in the refinement of Design Guidelines for commercial buildings • Develop beautification program • Help members with the Storefront Assistance Program • Build broad -based community support for ongoing projects SPECIAL EVENTS • Develop additional promotions for the district • Produce advertising for the Association and businesses • Produce year -round Farmers' Market • Produce Concerts at the Cove • Produce annual Halloween event • Produce 3rd annual Peanut Butter & Jam Festival PUBLIC RELATIONS • Generate increased favorable publicity about West Alameda • Maintain contacts with key media representatives • Update and distribute marketing literature promoting West Alameda businesses • Develop and implement an improvement campaign for the district 2 ORGANIZATION • Manage the administrative activities of the organization • Expand community and business participation with WABA • Develop and implement a fundraising plan • Organize and host business and community events for members • Conduct annual self - evaluation of Board members and staff • Produce and distribute WABA newsletter • Recruit members from outside the BIA and among residents • Distribute information door -to -door • Involve important neighbors e. g. College of Alameda, Marina Village, Alameda Point in WABA's activities METHOD & BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT Budget, see Exhibit A Assessment, see Attachment C CONCLUSION WABA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Development Services, Public Works and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. The increased participation from the business community and the continued quality of projects has shown that the BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize West Alameda's historic business district. 3 Exhibit A West Alameda Business Association 2004/05 BIA Budget INCOME: BIA Projection Accumulated Carryover Total income $31,900 -0- $31,900 EXPENSE: Membership Services Meetings & Training 4,000 Supplies 1,400 Printing 1,400 Postage 2,500 Newsletter /website 5,000 Committees 2,000 Equipment 2,000 Business retention, attraction, & marketing 1,500 Subtotal 19,800 Indirect /overhead Accounting /audit 6,000 Rent /utilities 2,100 Liability insurance 4,000 Subtotal 12,100 Grand Total 31,900 ATTACHMENT -C ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - NON - RETAIL FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 Professionals and independent contractors who primarily go out into the public to sell to clients and /or do not operate retail stores. Accountant Advertising Ambulance Answering service Architect Attorney Building maintenance Business services Construction Consultants Contractors Counselor Credit Unions with restricted membership Decorator Electrician Employment Engineer Gardener Graphic arts Handyman Health/Medical professions Importers Insurance Landscape Mail order Manufacturer Manufacturer's /sales reps Mortuary Newspaper publishing Nursing facility Painters Pest control Plumber Property management Real estate School /Instruction Security Stockbrokers Tax consultants Travel Veterinary Wholesalers Misc. professional /office 1 AREA A = $ 114.00 AREA B = $ 75.00 PRO -RATED FEES A B $114.00 $ 75.00 JULY 114.00 75.00 AUG 105.00 69.00 SEPT 95.00 62.00 OCT 86.00 56.00 NOV 76.00 50.00 DEC 66.00 44.00 JAN 57.00 38.00 FEB 48.00 32.00 MAR 38.00 25.00 APR 29.00 19.00 MAY 19.00 13.00 JUNE 9.00 6.00 ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL SERVICE FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a service. Alarm and fire extinguisher service Appliance service Athletic /Health Club Auto glass Auto upholstery Auto wash/parking Auto repair Barber Beauty Cleaners Electronics service Furniture repair Hotel /motel Keys /Locksmith Laundromat /laundry Marine service Pet services Photography studio Printing Shoe service Storage Tailor Tattoo Upholstery 2 JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE AREA A = .40/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 114.00 MAXIMUM = $1,512.00 AREA B = .20/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 75.00 MAXIMUM = $742.00 PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES A B $114.00 $75.00 114.00 75.00 105.00 69.00 95.00 62.00 86.00 56.00 76.00 50.00 66.00 44.00 57.00 38.00 48.00 32.00 38.00 25.00 29:00 19.00 19.00 13.00 9.00 6.00 ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL GOODS FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a product. Alcoholic Amusement Antiques Appliances sales Art Auto dealer Auto stereo Auto supply Bakery Bar Bicycles Books Clothing Coin Computer sales Drug/variety Electronics sales Fishing Floor coverings Florist Food Furnishings Furniture Gasoline stations Gift Hardware Hobby Jewelry Magazines /newspaper sales Marine sales Market Medical supplies Music Nursery Office supplies /equipment Optical supplies Pet supply Product rentals Restaurant Shoe sales Sporting goods Thrift /used merchandise Theater /club 3 AREA A = .40/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 227.00 MAXIMUM = $1,512.00 AREA B = .20/1,000 GR MINIMUM = $ 114.00 MAXIMUM = $ 759.00 PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES A B $227.00 $114.00 JULY 227.00 AUG 209.00 SEPT 188.00 OCT 170.00 NOV 152.00 DEC 132.00 JAN 1 14.00 FEB 95.00 MAR 75.00 APR 57.00 MAY 39.00 JUNE 18.00 114.00 105.00 95.00 86.00 76.00 66.00 57.00 48.00 38.00 29.00 19.00 9.00 Video Other retail goods ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS /UTILITIES FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 Banks Savings and Loans Credit Unions operating to the general public Utilities AREA A & B = $ 759.00 ATTACHMENT D CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. (Draft Resolution scheduled for CIC adoption on 5/18/04) RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON THE ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR FY 2004 -05 AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 1, 2004. WHEREAS, Section 6 -7 of Article II of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code establishes the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda (hereinafter "Area "); and WHEREAS, the Area comprises all of the Park Street Business Area, included by reference on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit A and C, respectively; and all of the Webster Street Business Area included by reference on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit B and C, respectively; and WHEREAS, the improvements and activities authorized by the Ordinance include the general promotion of business activities in the Area, the promotion of the public events which are to take place on or in public places in the Area, the decoration of any public place in the Area, the furnishing of music in any public place in the Area, and the acquisition, construction or maintenance of parking facilities for the benefit of the Area; and WHEREAS, agreements between the City of Alameda (hereinafter "City") and the Park Street Business Association (hereinafter "PSBA ") and the West Alameda Business Association (hereinafter "WABA ") designated PSBA and WABA to administer Business Improvement Area (hereinafter `BIA ") funds for their respective geographic zones of the BIA; and WHEREAS, PSBA and WABA have filed reports with the City Clerk describing the surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from FY 2003 -04 and describing the improvements and activities, estimated costs and methods and basis for levying the assessment for FY 2004 -05. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that PSBA and WABA are hereby designated as the BIA Advisory Body for 2004 -05; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sets a public hearing to consider the annual assessment for the Area and to consider any modification of benefit areas or change in boundary for June 1, 2004, at which time written or oral protests may be made; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise said public hearing by causing this Resolution of Intention to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City not less than seven days before the public hearing. CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. CONFIRMING THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA REPORT FOR FY 2004 -05 AND LEVYING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON THE ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR FY 2004 -05 WHEREAS, Section 6 -7 of Article II of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code establishes the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda (hereinafter Area); and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda desires to continue said Area in FY 2004 -05 for the purpose set forth in Section 6 -7.3 of the Alameda Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a report has been filed with the City Clerk describing the surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from FY 2003 -04 and describing the improvements and activities, estimated costs and methods and basis for levying the assessment for FY 2004 -05; and WHEREAS, the City Council at its regular meeting of May 18, 2004 adopted a Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2004 -05 and to set a public hearing for such action; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing regarding each action was held by the City Council on June 1, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the BIA report for FY 2004 -05 with any modifications as directed by the Council following closure of the Public Hearing, is hereby confirmed. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that an assessment for the Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2004 -05 is hereby levied. Resolution # 5 -B 6 -1 -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 Date: Memorandum May 19, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor. and Councilmembers From: Re: James M. Flint City Manager Public hearing to consider introduction of an Ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section 30 -16, Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects, to the Alameda Municipal Code. BACKGROUND In May 2003, the City Council adopted a new Housing Element, a mandatory element of the City's General Plan. The Housing Element contains the City's housing policies and includes a number of implementation measures. These implementation measures range from development of assistance programs to changes to zoning designations and regulations. In August 2003, the City received conditional certification of the Housing Element by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The certification was predicated upon the City performing certain actions. In accordance with the Housing Element and State certification letter, the City has begun to implement the Element. The Planning Board initiated a new ordinance for inclusionary housing requirements on July 8, 2003. On November 10, the Planning Board held a public workshop to receive input on the new ordinance for inclusionary housing requirements and on December 8, 2003, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the inclusionary housing ordinance. The final draft ordinance incorporating Planning Board direction was recommended for City Council approval at their January 26, 2004 meeting. Subsequent to this action by the Planning Board minor technical changes have been made to the draft ordinance to conform to the CIC inclusionary housing resolution and to areas outside of the redevelopment areas; these minor changes are shown in underline /strikeout in the attached exhibit. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Planning Board focused on the following issues during their discussion of the inclusionary ordinance: Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Hearing and Intro of Ordinance #5 -C 6 -1 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 May 19, 2004 In Lieu Fee. Both the public and the Planning Board were concerned about the in -lieu fee, how it would be calculated and to what developments it would apply. Both the public and the Planning Board expressed a desire for units to be constructed rather than fees paid. For this reason, the ability to pay an in -lieu fee is very narrowly defined and permitted for up to 9 units; developments of 10 or more units must construct the affordable housing unit(s). Below is a table indicating how much would be collected, based on the size of the development. SIZE ' FEE PER UNIT AMOUNT TO BE PAID 5 units $14, 735.00 per unit $73,675.00 6 units $14, 735.00 per unit $88,410.00 7units $14, 735.00 per unit $103,145.00 8 units $14, 735.00 per unit $117,880.00 9 units $14, 735.00 per unit $132,615.00 City Manager Discretion and Review Authority. There was public concern expressed about the discretion of the City Manager to: 1) allow the affordable units to be constructed off -site, 2) make arrangements for alternative performance, 3) assure acceptable documents are recorded, and 4) consider adjustments to the requirements if the applicant believes the requirement to be a taking. The ordinance was modified to clarify implementation and require the approval of a Affordable Housing Plan. The right of the City Manager to assure that any administrative documents are acceptable and appropriate is set forth in Article VII of the City Charter. Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance where these proposed regulations will reside, references to the City Manager have been changed to Planning and Building Director or Planning and Building Department (which act as the City Manager's designee). Decisions of the Planning and Building Director or the Planning Board can be appealed under this ordinance in the same manner as any other development requirement with the same noticing requirements, fees and time frame. Occupancy Standards. According to the Housing Authority Executive Director, there are occupancy standards for Alameda Housing Authority units, which are reviewed at the time of eligibility. Staff is recommending that units be distributed using a lottery system for larger projects. In order to be considered in the lottery, families must qualify in terms of eligibility, including family size. Improvements to Dwellings. According to the Housing Authority Executive Director, the covenants and agreements signed between the City and the property owner in projects of the Alameda Housing Authority explain improvements and have provisions for equity sharing in the event of increase in value of the unit. According to Housing Development Manager, the more recent covenants contain a resale formula that allows owners to adjust their cost basis by the value of capital improvements, and use that adjusted basis to calculate a maximum resale price. However, homeowners could also face loss if the value exceeds the price range for that level of income. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 3 May 19, 2004 Affordable Housing Guidelines for Residential Development. Draft Affordable Housing Guidelines reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Board are included under a separate item for City Council adoption at the June 01, 2004 meeting. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends the City Council adopt the Ordinance adding Section 30 -16, Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects, to the City of Alameda Municipal Code. By: Respectfully submitted, Gregory Fuz Planning and Building Director Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Revised PB Resolution No. PB -04 -14 2. January 26, 2004 Planning Board Staff Report 3. January 26, 2004 Planning Board Minutes 4. December 8, 2003 Planning Board Staff Report 5. December 8, 2003 Planning Board Minutes Cc Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope Eve Bach, ARC Ecology G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS \2004\k -June 01\inclusionaryhousingord.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. PB -04 -14 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 30 -16, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, TO THE CITY OF ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the Planning Board initiated this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on July 14, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public workshop on November 10, 2003 to consider the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on December 8, 2003 to consider the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and testimony from all interested parties; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board continued the public hearing to January 26, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on January 26, 2004 to consider the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and testimony from all interested parties; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.; "CEQA ") and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq.), the amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code is exempt per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations; WHEREAS, the Planning Board makes the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment will not effect consistency of the Zoning Ordinance with the General Plan, as the amendment is consistent with and furthers the Housing Element, which in turn, reflects the land use policies and other requirements of the balance of the General Plan. 2. The proposed amendment will have a beneficial effect on the welfare of the community because it will provide additional housing opportunities for very low -, low- and moderate- income households. 3. The proposal is equitable because it will apply to all properties outside of the redevelopment districts; properties within redevelopment project districts areas bear comparable affordable housing requirements under Community Redevelopment Law. Attachment #1 1 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby resolves that the amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.; "CEQA ") and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 et seq.), per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations. THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby recommends to the City Council that it adopt the amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code as follows: Section 1. Section 30 -16, "Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects," is hereby added to Chapter 30, Development Regulations, of the City of Alameda Municipal Code as follows: Section 30 -16 Inclusionary Housing Requirement For Residential Projects Subsection 30 -16 -1 Purpose. Subsection 30 -16 -2 Findings. Subsection 30 -16 -3 Definitions. Subsection 30 -16 -4 Inclusionary Unit Requirements. Subsection 30 -16 -5 Exemptions. Subsection 30 -16 -6 Alternatives. Subsection 30 -16 -7 Incentive. Subsection 30 -16 -8 Compliance Procedures. Subsection 30 -16 -9 Requirements for Inclusionary Units. Subsection 30 -16 -10 Continued Affordability. Subsection 30 -16 -11 Limited Use of Fees. Subsection 30 -16 -12 Adjustments, Waivers. Subsection 30 -16 -13 Community Improvement Project Areas. Subsection 30 -16 -14 Enforcement. Subsection 30 -16 -1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to (a) implement the goals and objectives of the Housing Element of the City of Alameda General Plan, (b) mitigate the impacts on housing affordability caused by new residential development, and (c) meet the need for housing affordable to persons of very low -, low- and moderate - income. Subsection 30 -16 -2 Findings. a. California and the City of Alameda face a serious housing problem that threatens their economic security. Persons of very low -, low- and moderate - income are experiencing increasing difficulty in locating and maintaining adequate, safe and 2 sanitary affordable housing. Lack of access to affordable housing has a direct impact upon the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Alameda. Alameda will not be able to contribute to the attainment of State housing goals or to retain a healthy environment without additional affordable housing. As noted in the City's Housing Element, a regional shortage of affordable housing is contributing to overpayment for housing accommodations, sometimes leading to temporary or permanent homelessness. b. A lack of new Inclusionary Units will have a substantial negative impact on the environment and economic climate because (i) housing will have to be built elsewhere, far from employment centers and therefore, commutes will increase, causing increased traffic and transit demand and consequent noise and air pollution, and (ii) City businesses will find it more difficult to attract and retain the workers they need. Inclusionary housing policies contribute to a healthy job and housing balance by providing more affordable housing close to employment centers. c. Development of new market -rate housing encourages new residents to move to the City. These new residents will place demands on services provided by both public and private sectors. Some of the public and private sector employees needed to meet the needs of the new residents earn incomes only adequate to pay for affordable housing. Employees who are unable to find affordable housing in the City will be forced to commute long distances. This situation adversely impacts on their quality of life, consumes limited energy resources, increases traffic congestion and has a negative impact on air quality. d. Increasing the production and availability of affordable housing is problematic. Prices and rents for affordable housing remain below the level needed to attract new construction. At the same time, escalating land costs and rapidly diminishing amounts of land available for development hinder the provision of affordable housing units solely through private action. Federal and state funds for the construction of new affordable housing are insufficient to fully address the problem of affordable housing within the City. e. The City wishes to retain an economically balanced community, with housing available to very low -, low- and moderate - income households. The City's General Plan implements the established policy of the State of California that each community should foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic levels. f. It is appropriate to impose some of the cost of the increased burden of providing housing for very low -, low- and moderate - income persons directly on the developers, and indirectly upon the occupiers, whose developments necessitate the need for such housing. In addition to the demands on services from such developments, new development without affordable units contributes to the shortage of 3 affordable housing. Zoning and other ordinances concerning new housing in the City should be consistent with the community's goal to foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic levels. Subsection 30 -16 -3 Definitions. As used in this section: Affordable Rent shall mean monthly rent (including utility allowance) that does not exceed one - twelfth of 30 percent of the maximum annual income for a Household of the applicable income level (Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income). Affordable Housing Guidelines shall mean guidelines adopted by the City Council to specify location and design standards for Inclusionary Units. Affordable Housing Plan shall mean a legally binding agreement between a Developer and the City to ensure that the requirements of this Chapter are satisfied. The Affordable Housing Plan establishes the number and location of Affordable Units, production schedule and other standards. Affordable Ownership Cost shall mean a sales price that results in a monthly housing cost (including mortgage, insurance, utilities, taxes, assessments and home owner association costs, if any) that does not exceed one - twelfth of 30 percent of the maximum annual income for a Household of the applicable income (Very Low -, Low - or Moderate - Income). Household shall mean one person living alone or two or more persons sharing residency whose income is considered for housing payments. Inclusionary Unit shall mean a dwelling unit that must be offered at Affordable Rent or available at Affordable Housing Cost to Very Low -, Low - or Moderate - Income Households. In -Lieu Fee shall mean the fee described in Subsection 30- 16 -6(a) that is paid to the City as an alternative to the production of inclusionary housing, which fee shall be used in accordance with Subsection 30- 16 -11. Low- Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "lower income households" in Section 50079.5 of the California Health & Safety Code. Market -Rate Unit shall mean a dwelling unit in a Residential Development that is not an Inclusionary Unit. 4 Moderate - Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "persons and families of low or moderate income" in Section 50093 of the California Health & Safety Code. Residential Development shall mean any planned development district, subdivision map, conditional use permit or other discretionary land use approval that authorizes the construction of residential dwelling units. Very Low- Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "very low income households" in Section 50105 of the California Health & Safety Code. Subsection 30 -16 -4 Inclusionary Unit Requirements. a. Unit Requirement. For all Residential Developments of five (5) or more units, at least fifteen percent (15 %) of the total units must be Inclusionary Units restricted for occupancy by Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income Households. The number of Inclusionary Units required for a particular project will be determined only once, at the time of project approval. If a change in the Residential Development design results in a change in the total number of units, the number of Inclusionary Units required will be recalculated to coincide with the final approved project. b. Calculation. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units required by this subsection, any additional units authorized as a density bonus under California Government Code Section 65915(b)(1) or (b)(2) will not be counted in determining the required number of Inclusionary Units. In determining the number of whole Inclusionary Units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shall be rounded up on the nearest whole number. c. Types of Inclusionary Units: Four percent (4 %) of the total units must be restricted to occupancy by Low - Income Households; four percent (4 %) of the total units must be restricted to occupancy by Very Low - Income Households; and seven percent (7 %) must be restricted to occupancy by Moderate - Income Households. For Residential Developments with sixty -nine (69) or fewer total units, Inclusionary Units shall be restricted for occupancy by very low -, low- or moderate - income households in the following proportions, which are based upon the above calculations: Total Inclusionary Units Units Income Levels 5 to 9 1 1 moderate 5 10 to 16 2 1 moderate, 1 low 17 to 23 3 1 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 24 to 29 4 2 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 30 to 36 5 3 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 37 to 43 6 3 moderate, 2 low, 1 very low 44 to 49 7 3 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low 50 to 56 8 4 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low 57 to 63 9 4 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low 64 to 69 10 5 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low d. Affordable Housing Guidelines. Inclusionary Units built under this section must conform to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council. Subsection 30 -16 -5 Exemptions. The requirements of this section do not apply to: a. Reconstruction. The reconstruction of any structures that have been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature provided that the reconstruction takes place within three (3) years of the date the structures were destroyed. b. Residential Developments of four (4) units or less. c. Residential building additions, repairs or remodels. Residential building additions, repairs or remodels; provided, that such work does not increase the number of existing dwelling units beyond four (4) units. d. Affordable housing projects. Residential Developments that already have more dwelling units that qualify as affordable to Very Low -, Low- and Moderate - Income Households than this Section requires. e. Residential Developments with approved maps. Residential Developments for which a tentative map or vesting tentative map was approved, or for which a building permit was issued, prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section and which continue to have unexpired permits. Subsection 30 -16 -6 Alternatives. a. In -Lieu Fees. For Residential Developments of nine (9) or fewer units, including Inclusionary Units, the requirements of this section may be satisfied by paying an In -Lieu Fee. The fee will be set by the City Council by resolution and shall be sufficient to make up the gap between (i) the amount of development capital typically 6 expected to be available based on the amount to be received by a developer or owner from Affordable Housing Cost or Affordable Rent, and (ii) the anticipated cost of constructing the Inclusionary Units. Fees shall be paid upon issuance of building permits for Market -Rate Units in a Residential Development. If building permits are issued for only part of a Residential Development, the fee amount shall be based only on the number of units then permitted. b. Off -site construction. Inclusionary Units may be constructed off -site if the Planning Board can make a finding that the purposes of this section would be better served by the construction of off -site units. In determining whether the purposes of this section would be better served by this alternative, consideration should be given as to whether the off -site units would be located in an area where, based on availability of affordable housing, the need for such units is greater than the need in the area of the proposed development. Subsection 30 -16 -7 Incentive. The City may provide the following incentive to a developer who elects to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of this section by producing Inclusionary Units on the site of the Residential Development. a. Expedited Processing. Eligibility for expedited processing of development and permit applications for the Residential Development. Subsection 30 -16 -8 Compliance Procedures. a. Conditions to carry out the purposes of this section shall be imposed on the approval of any Residential Development to which this section pertains. b. As part of the application for a Residential Development, the applicant shall submit an Affordable Housing Plan demonstrating compliance with this section. The Affordable Housing Plan must include: (i) a description of the number and size of each Market -Rate Unit and each Inclusionary Unit, including the income levels to which each Inclusionary Unit will be made affordable, (ii) a narrative describing how the plan adheres to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council, and (iii) a site map, with the location of the Inclusionary Units clearly marked. c. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the decision - making entity concurrently with the Residential Development in accordance with the procedures in the Alameda Municipal Code. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be made a condition of approval of the Residential Development and shall be recorded by the applicant together with any implementing regulatory agreements, 7 resale restrictions, deeds of trust and /or similar implementing documents as a restriction on the parcel or parcels on which the Affordable Units will be constructed. d. The Planning Board shall review any applications requesting off -site construction within their Affordable Housing Plan. The Affordable Housing Plan shall include a site map of the off -site location, a description of the arrangements made for construction at that site and demonstration that the proposed off -site construction complies with Section 30- 16 -6(b). Off -site construction may only be approved in accordance with Subsection 30- 16 -6(b). e. All Inclusionary Units shall be constructed and occupied as specified in the approved Affordable Housing Plan concurrently with or prior to the construction and occupancy of Market Rate Units unlessor received certification is obtained from the Planning and Building Director that the applicant has met, or made arrangements satisfactory to the City to meet, an alternative procedure set forth in subsection 30 -16 -6. In phased Residential Developments, Inclusionary Units shall be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of units in each phase of the Residential Development. No final inspection for occupancy for any Market -Rate Unit shall be completed for the Residential Development or for any phase of the Residential Development until the applicant has constructed the Inclusionary Units required in the approved Affordable Housing Plan for the Residential Development or for any phase of the Residential Development by subsection 30 -16 -4 or completed corresponding alternative performance under subsection 30 -16 -6. Subsection 30 -16 -9 Requirements for Inclusionary Units. a. Eligibility Requirements. No Household may occupy an Inclusionary Unit unless the City or its designee has approved the Household's eligibility in accordance with City- approved policies. Each Household that occupies a rental Inclusionary Unit or purchases an owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit must occupy that unit as that Household's principal residence. b. Initial Sales Price of Owner - Occupied Units. The initial sales price of an owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit shall be set so that the eligible Household will pay an Affordable Ownership Cost. Resale and other restrictions on the Inclusionary Unit will be governed by the regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust or other recorded agreements recorded against the Inclusionary Unit as approved in the Affordable Housing Plan per Section 30 -16 -8. c. Rent of Rental Units. Rental Inclusionary Units shall be offered to eligible Households at an Affordable Rent. Subsection 30 -16 -10 Continued Affordability. a. Regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and /or other documents acceptable to the City Manager, all consistent with the requirements of this section, shall be recorded against Inclusionary Units and Residential Developments containing Inclusionary Units. These documents shall legally restrict occupancy of Inclusionary Units to Households of the income levels for which the units were designed for a minimum of fifty -nine (59) years. The forms of regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and other documents authorized by this subsection, and any change in the form of any such document which materially alters any policy in the document, shall be approved by the City Manager. b. The resale restrictions required by subsection 30- 16 -10(a) shall allow the City a right of first refusal to purchase any owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit at the maximum price which could be charged to a qualified purchaser Household, at the time the owner proposes a sale. Subsection 30 -16 -11 Limited Uses of Fees. a. Use and Disbursement of Fees. In -Lieu Fees collected under this section shall be used in accordance with and in support of affordable housing as determined by the City Manager. Expenditures of In -Lieu Fees shall be limited to direct expenditures for capital projects or incidental non - capital expenditures related to capital projects, including but not limited to pre - development expenses, land acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, subsidization, counseling or assistance to other governmental entities, private organizations or individuals to expand affordable housing opportunities to very low -, low- and moderate - income households. Authorized expenditures also include, but are not limited to, assistance to housing development corporations, equity participation loans, grants, predevelopment loan funds, participation leases, loans or other public /private partnership arrangements to develop affordable housing or other public/ private partnership arrangements. The In -Lieu Fees may be expended for the benefit of either rental or owner - occupied housing. The In -Lieu Fees may not be used to support operations, or on -going housing services not directly related to the construction, acquisition, rehabilitation or preservation of affordable housing units. b. Accounting of Fees. All In -Lieu Fees shall be deposited into a segregated account and all expenditures of funds from the same shall be documented and included in an annual report that shall be made available for public inspection. 9 Subsection 30 -16 -12 Adjustments, Waivers. a. Adjustment. The requirements of this section may be waived, adjusted or reduced if an applicant shows that there is not a reasonable relationship between the impact of a proposed Residential Development on the demand for affordable housing in the City and the requirements of this section or that applying the requirements of this section without the requested waiver, adjustment or reduction would constitute a taking in violation of the United States or California Constitutions or be otherwise illegal. Under current law, mere economic hardship or diminution in value does not constitute an unlawful taking of property. Such a request shall be made in writing and filed with the Planning and Building Department at the time of initial submittal an application for approval of a Residential Development and / or as part of any appeal from a decision regarding such an application. The request shall state completely and in detail: (i) the requested waiver, adjustment or reduction of the requirements, (ii) the factual basis for the request, and (iii) the legal basis of this request. If the Planning Board determines that the requirements of this section lack a reasonable relationship to the impact of a proposed Residential Development on demand for affordable housing in the City or that those requirements constitute a taking in violation of the United States or California Constitutions, the requirements of this section shall be modified, adjusted or waived to the extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional result or illegal outcome. b. Appeal Procedure. The applicant, a member of the public or a member of the City Council or Planning Board may appeal a determination under this ordinance within ten (10) days after the decision under subsection 30- 21.11. Appeals shall be heard pursuant to Section 30 -25. c. Fee for Adjustment Request or Appeal. The cost of the consideration of a request for adjustment or waiver of the requirements of this section and appeal shall be borne by the applicant in an amount set forth in the Master Fee Resolution of the City Council. Subsection 30 -16 -13 Community Improvement Project Areas. This section shall not apply to Residential Developments in the City's Community Improvement Project Areas as long as the Community Improvement Commission adopts separate resolutions or policies pertaining to inclusionary housing requirements in such areas. Subsection 30 -16 -14 Enforcement. a. Misdemeanor Violation. It shall be a misdemeanor to violate any provision of this Section. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it shall be a 10 misdemeanor for any person to sell or rent to another person an Inclusionary Unit under this Section at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed under this Section or to sell or rent an Inclusionary Unit to a Household not qualified under this Section. It shall further be a misdemeanor for any person to provide false or materially incomplete information to the City or to a seller or lessor of an Inclusionary Unit to obtain occupancy of housing for which he or she is not eligible. b. Additional Enforcement Mechanisms. In addition to the penalties provided in this Subsection, any violation of this Section may be redressed by any enforcement mechanism, including but not limited to a civil action, described in Section 1 -5, Penalty Provisions; Enforcement, of this Code. Section 2. Severability. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of the Ordinance or any part thereof, is for any reason held unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, said decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof. The City of Alameda City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase herein, irrespective or the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall either (a) have this Ordinance published once within 15 days after adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with Section 36933(a) of the California Government Code, or (b) have a summary of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once five days before its adoption, and again within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Section 36933(c) of the California Government Code. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or final action on any appeals plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2004 by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda by the following vote: AYES: (5) Bard, Cook, Lynch, Mariani, Piziali NOES: (0) 11 ABSENT: (1) Cunningham 12 ATTEST: Gregory Fuz, Secretary City Planning Board City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum January 22, 2004 To: Members of the Planning Board From: Cynthia Eliason ;__ Planning Manager Re: ZTA -03 -0006 - City of Alameda — Ordinance to add inclusionary housing requirement for residential projects (Citywide) and continuation of ZTA -03- 0005 (Second Units) and ZTA -03 -0007 (Density Bonus Ordinance) BACKGROUND In May 2003, the City Council adopted a new Housing Element, a mandatory element of the City's General Plan. The Housing Element contains the City's housing policies and includes a number of implementation measures. These implementation measures range from development of assistance programs to changes to zoning designations and regulations. In August 2003, the City received conditional certification of the Housing Element by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The certification was predicated upon the City performing certain actions. In accordance with the Housing Element and State certification letter, the City has begun to implement the Element. The Planning Board initiated three zoning ordinance amendments on July 8, 2003. On November 10, the Planning Board held a public workshop to receive input on the proposed amendments to the second unit regulations, a new ordinance for inclusionary housing requirements and a density bonus ordinance. On December 8, 2003, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the second unit ordinance and inclusionary housing ordinance (See Attachment 2). The Planning Board raised several questions about the ordinances and directed staff to make certain changes to the second unit ordinance in particular to address public concerns. In order to provide more attention to each individual ordinance, staff is separating the ordinances for Planning Board consideration. The focus for this evening's hearing is the inclusionary housing ordinance. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of January 26, 2004 Page 1 Attachment #2 ANALYSIS The Planning Board and public expressed the following concerns at the December 8, 2003 meeting regarding the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (See Attachment 3): In Lieu Fee. Both the public and the Planning Board were concerned about the in -lieu fee, how it would be calculated and to what developments it would apply. Both the public and the Planning Board expressed a desire for units to be constructed rather than fees paid. For this reason, the ability to pay an in -lieu fee is very narrowly defined and permitted. The inclusionary housing ordinance applies to residential developments of five or more units. Only developments between 5 — 9 residential units may pay an in -lieu fee. Developments of 10 or more units must construct the affordable housing unit(s). As the December 8, 2003 Planning Board staff report indicates, the fee is estimated at this time to be $14, 735.00 per project dwelling unit. Below is a table indicating how much would be collected, based on the size of the development. SIZE FEE PER UNIT AMOUNT TO BE PAID 5 units $14, 735.00 per unit $73,675.00 6 units $14, 735.00 per unit $88,410.00 7units $14, 735.00 per unit $103,145.00 8 units $14, 735.00 per unit $117,880.00 9 units $14, 735.00 per unit $132,615.00 Development cost of a new market rate dwelling unit is $271,000.00 per unit according to the Keyser - Marston study (March 2002). The Keyser- Marston study is the most recent study the City has regarding residential development costs and therefore, represents the best available data for setting the in -lieu fee. The estimated required assistance, per unit, depends upon whether or not the unit is rental or ownership and what income level of support is required. Very low- income ownership units require the maximum subsidy of $183,000.00 while moderate - income ownership units require less. The fee was calculated based on an average of the subsidies. For example, the proposed in -lieu fee for a 9 -unit development would generate sufficient funds for development of a moderate- income unit and would almost generate sufficient funds for subsidy of a lower income unit ($133,800.00 /unit). Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of January 26, 2004 Page 2 City Manager Discretion and Review Authority. There was public concern expressed about the discretion of the City Manager to: 1) allow the affordable units to be constructed off -site, 2) make arrangements for alternative performance, 3) assure acceptable documents are recorded, and 4) consider adjustments to the requirements if the applicant believes the requirement to be a taking. The ordinance has been modified to clarify implementation and require the approval of a Affordable Housing Plan. The Affordable Housing Plan is typically presented with the development proposal and is evaluated by staff alongside the development. Since most development projects would require review by the Planning Board and/or City Council, their review and approval is specified. Any use of these alternative provisions would be noted in the staff report to the Planning Board and/or City Council. The Planning Board must approve any off -site construction. The right of the City Manager to assure that any administrative documents are acceptable and appropriate is set forth in Article VII of the City Charter. Consistent with the Zoning Ordinance where these proposed regulations will reside, references to the City Manager have been changed to Planning and Building Director or Planning and Building Department (which act as the City Manager's designee). Decisions of the Planning and Building Director or the Planning Board can be appealed under this ordinance in the same manner as any other development requirement with the same noticing requirements, fees and time frame. The appeals section has been modified to reference the existing appeal provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. Occupancy Standards. Planning Board member Cunningham questioned whether there were guidelines for unit occupancy to prevent over - crowding. According to the Housing Authority Executive Director, there are occupancy standards for Alameda Housing Authority units, which are reviewed at the time of eligibility. Staff is recommending that units be distributed using a lottery system for larger projects. In order to be considered in the lottery, families must qualify in terms of eligibility, including family size. Improvements to Dwellings. Planning Board member Cunningham had questioned whether or not modifications to the affordable housing units would be permitted. According to the Housing Authority Executive Director, the covenants and agreements signed between the City and the property owner in projects of the Alameda Housing Authority explain improvements and have provisions for equity sharing in the event of increase in value of the unit. According to Housing Development Manager, the more Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of January 26, 2004 Page 3 recent covenants contain a resale formula that allows owners to adjust their cost basis by the value of capital improvements, and use that adjusted basis to calculate a maximum resale price. Similar covenants will be used in implementation of this ordinance. However, homeowners could also face loss if the value exceeds the price range for that level of income. Affordable Housing Guidelines for Residential Development. Staff is continuing to work on the draft Affordable Housing Guidelines referenced in the Ordinance. These guidelines will serve to provide guidance to developers of inclusionary housing projects both within and outside of redevelopment areas. The guidelines specify location and design standards for affordable units. The guidelines will address public comments regarding the ability to cluster or disperse inclusionary units. The guidelines are proposed for adoption Citywide and will be brought back to the Planning Board for public review prior to adoption at a later date. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Board hold a public hearing, review pertinent information and documents, then act to: • Recommend approval of Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA -03 -0006, based upon the findings contained in the attached Draft Resolution; and • Continue ZTA -03 -0005 and ZTA -03 -0007 until the Planning Board meeting of February 9, 2004. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution — Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 2. Planning Board Staff Report dated December 8, 2003 3. Planning Board Minutes of December 8, 2003 GAPLANNING\PB\REPORTS\2004Uanuary 26\inclusionary housing ord.DOC Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of January 26, 2004 Page 4 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8 -A. ZTA -03 -0006 - City of Alameda — (CE) Ordinance to add inclusionary housing requirement for residential projects (Citywide) and consideration of the Draft Affordable Housing Guidelines for Residential Development; and continuation of ZTA -03 -0005 (Second Units) and ZTA -03 -0007 (Density Bonus Ordinance) (Continued from the Planning Board meeting of December 8, 2003.) Planning Manager Cynthia Eliason summarized the staff report, and requested continuation of the Draft Affordable Housing Guidelines for Residential Development and ZTA -03 -0005 (Second Units) and ZTA -03 -0007 (Density Bonus Ordinance). The Second Unit Ordinance would be brought before the Board during the next regularly scheduled meeting, and the Density Bonus Ordinance would be heard during the following meeting. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Edward Murphy noted that he had inquired about the agenda for this meeting before January 16, 2004, and was informed by Mr. Valeska that it would be only the Second Unit Ordinance. He noted that the agenda had all three ordinances on it, and that he had directed all of his attention on the details of the Second Unit Ordinance. He did not believe that this item was properly agendized, and requested that the item be continued. He inquired when the agenda was revised, and did not believe it should be changed at the last minute. He noted that Mr. Valeska was no longer in attendance, and could not provide more information regarding this issue. In response to an inquiry by President Piziali, Mr. Fuz confirmed that the three ordinances were on the previous agenda, and were all continued to this date. Staff focused on one ordinance each night, so that sufficient time may be allocated for the Board's and the public's attention. He noted that the agenda had been revised the previous week to make minor corrections, and emphasized that the agenda was not revised the same day as the meeting. Mr. Murphy inquired whether the Second Unit had ever been a single agenda item. Ms. Eliason replied that as Mr. Fuz indicated, all of the items had been continued to this meeting, and staff requested that Board examine only one of them. She advised that at no time was the Second Unit Ordinance the only item on the agenda. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. Eliason noted that staff received two pieces of correspondence, one from Mr. Murphy and another letter regarding second units. Staff did not provide those letters this evening because the Second Unit Ordinance was to be continued; they will be provided to the Board when the Second Unit Ordinance is discussed. Planning Board Minutes Attachment #3 January 26, 2004 In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Eliason advised that the Second Unit Ordinance should be heard on February 9, 2004, and the Density Bonus Ordinance should be heard on February 23, 2004. The Housing Element was adopted in May 2003, and these Ordinance should have a 30 -day notice for an April or early May City Council meeting. Mr. Fuz advised that staff s recommendation was to continue the other two ordinances to February 9, 2004. M/S Bard /Cook and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -14 to (recommend to City Council) Ordinance to add inclusionary housing requirement for residential projects (Citywide), and to continue of the Draft Affordable Housing Guidelines for Residential Development, and ZTA -03 -0005 (Second Units) and ZTA -03 -0007 (Density Bonus Ordinance) to the Planning Board meeting of February 9, 2004. AYES — 5 (Cunningham absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 11 January 26, 2004 City of Alameda Liter- department Memorandum To: December 8, 2003 President Piziali and Members of the Planning Board From: Cynthia Eliason Advanced Planning Manager Re: Margaret Kavanaugh -Lynch Planner III Zoning Ordinance Amendments to: 1) construct second units, 2) administer land use controls to make the construction of affordable housing feasible, and 3) to provide density bonus and other incentives to developers who propose to construct affordable housing. BACKGROUND Dn November 10, 2003, the Planning Board held a study session to consider implementation of ordinances pertaining to second dwelling units, inclusionary housing outside of redevelopment areas and density bonus regulations. Input provided by the public and members of the Board is reflected in this staff report and in the attached draft ordinances. ANALYSIS Second Unit Ordinance. At the work session, the Planning Board provided direction on the size, location, and standards. The Board cautioned that second units should not have a negative impact on urban design and aesthetic of the R -1 zone. Staff has integrated these changes into the attached draft ordinance. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of December 8, 2003 Page 1 Attachment #4 Criterion Minimum Size Maximum size Existing Proposed Attached to Main unit Detached from Main unit Attached second unit conforms setbacks of main buildings of district Detached second unit conforms setbacks of main buildings of district Height (attached unit) Height (detached unit) Rental only Parking Design Review Required ...May be established through conversion of existing floor space within the living area of a single family residence or addition to an existing single family residence not to exceed ten (10 %) percent of the existing living area. 350 sq ft Mandated by State? Lesser of 1,000 sq ft or 25% 150 sq. ft. Not specified Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, but unclear about non - conforming residences. Yes, administrative Variance for residences with non - conforming setbacks N/A N/A Yes N/A As specified by the district and subject to Design Review N/A Yes One space per bedroom —max 2 spaces As specified by the district and subject to Design Review One story Yes N/A One space per bedroom —max 2 spaces Yes Yes N/A N/A Max standard: One space per bedroom — max 2 spaces N/A This amendment will create a definition for Second Unit which will take the place of Servants Quarters in the Glossary. The outdated definition of Servants Quarters will be removed. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of December 8, 2003 Page 2 "Second Unit" - an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include pernlwinent provisions, for, cooking and sanitation on the same parcel as the primary dwelling is situated. The intent is to treat Second Units as a class of dwelling units that will be subservient to the primary dwelling in size and use. This restriction is consistent with the spirit and intent of Government Code Section 65852.150, which states: The Legislature finds and declares that second units are a valuable form of housing in California. Second units provide housing for, family members, students, the elderly, in -home health care providers, the disabled, and others, at below market prices within existing neighborhoods. Homeowners who create second units benefit from added income, and an increased sense of security. Inclusionary Ordinance. The Planning Board requested additional information about how other cities have implemented similar ordinances. Attached is a report entitled "Inclusionary Housing in California: A Decade of Progress" prepared by the California Coalition for Rural Housing to provide comparative information. The Planning Board provided specific direction regarding in -lieu fees in terms of applicability, calculation and unit distribution. In -Lieu Fee. The in -lieu fee is intended to subsidize the difference between the total development cost of a unit and the average affordable sales price of a unit. For the sake of establishing a baseline, both the sales price and the total development cost per unit are based on the Keyser - Marston Memorandum dated March 29, 2002 and adjusted for inflation. Legal Counsel has advised staff that an Inclusionary Ordinance is more legally defensible if a viable in -lieu option is identified. The Planning Board suggested that only a small window be created for the allowance of an in -lieu fee, consistent with the Housing Element goal of the construction of affordable housing, not the collection of monies, to be a top priority of the City of Alameda. Staff reviewed these different criteria when establishing the new threshold. It was determined that a threshold could be set that would only allow for use of the in -lieu fee option for projects that are calculated to require up to one affordable unit. The new standard would be implemented as follows: An applicant wishing to build five to nine new dwellings would be eligible to pay an in -lieu fee or Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of December 8, 2003 Page 3 build one affordable unit. However, an applicant wishing to build ten units would lose the choice to pay the in -lieu fee and would be required to build two affordable units as a part of the project. The Planning Board raised questions as to the method of calculation of the affordable units to be provided. The following is a table which illustrates the number and distribution of affordable units, based upon the number to be developed. This table is included in the draft ordinance. Total Units Inclusionary Developed Units Income Levels 5 to 9 1 1 moderate 10 to 16 2 1 moderate, 1 low 17 to 23 3 1 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 24 to 29 4 2 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 30 to 36 5 3 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 37 to 43 6 3 moderate, 2 low, 1 very low 44 to 49 7 3 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low 50 to 56 8 4 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low 57 to 63 9 4 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low 64 to 69 10 5 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low For projects of more than 69 units, the ordinance provides for a percentage allocation of affordable units allocated for each applicable income category. The Planning Board also expressed concern about how to ensure that the City of Alameda is utilizing a process for calculating the in -lieu fee that results in an amount that is legally defensible and is reflective the true high cost of constructing the necessary unit. The only fiscal analysis that the City of Alameda has on affordable housing construction is the Keyster Marston memorandum, cited in our current Housing Element. Therefore, these numbers, adjusted for inflation, are the hest legally defensible source of information for setting the in -lieu fee for the construction of a dwelling. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of December 8, 2003 Pane 4 As discussed in the report included as Attachment 4, the amount collected via in -lieu fees differ greatly throughout the state. The example given on page 12 compares Patterson's fee of $7,340 per affordable unit required with Santa Cruz County which charges $272,889 per affordable unit. Within this range, the in -lieu fee of $14,73.5 per dwelling unit constructed falls between the two extremes. If, for example, the construction of nine new dwelling units were proposed, this approach would result in a total in -lieu fee payment of $132,615.00. In -lieu fees collected in the implementation of this ordinance will be kept in a dedicated account and expended only in the support of affordable housing. Examples of appropriate uses of the monies include: direct expenditures for capital projects or incidental non- capital expenditures related to capital projects, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, subsidization, counseling or assistance to other governmental entities, private organizations or individuals to expand affordable housing opportunities to very low -, low- and moderate - income households. Specific language to this effect is included in the draft ordinance. Unit Di.S'iributi011 The Planning Board suggested adding wording that would allow the clustering of units as opposed to the even distribution of inclusionary units, if efficiency is created. This language has been noted and will be considered in the discussion of the Inclusionary Unit standards currently being co- written by the Planning and Building Department and Development Services staff and will be brought to the Planning Board in the late winter. Density Bonus Ordinance. Staff is continuing to work on refining the State Model Ordinance to reflect Alameda's unique requirements. Additionally, staff is reviewing recent legislation (Assembly Bill 305) regarding availability of a density bonus for projects with childcare facilities to ensure compliance. This ordinance will be presented to the Planning Board for consideration at a later date. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent information then act to recommend to the City Council to: Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of December 8, 2003 Page 5 1) Adopt Zoning Text Amendment ZA03- 000.5, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow the construction of second units; and 2) Adopt Zoning Text Amendment ZA03 -0006, a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create an Inclusionary Housing. Ordinance. Staffs further recommends the Planning Board continue the discussion of the Density Bonus Ordinance to January 26, 2004. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution - Second Unit Ordinance 2. Draft Resolution - Inclusionary Housing Ordinance 3. Planning Board Staff Report Dated November 5, 2003 4. Inclusionary Housing in California: A Decade of Progress (Included for Planning Board and available on file in the Planning and Building Department) Planning Board Staff Report Meeting, of December 8, 2003 G:\ PLANNING\ SPECPROJ\Margaret\inclusionary - affordable -2nd \December 8 PI3.DOC Page 6 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board 9 -B. ZA03- 0005/ZA03- 0006/ZA03 -0007 — City of Alameda — Citywide (MKL). Consideration of amending the Zoning Ordinance to: 1) construct second units, 2) administer land use controls to make the construction of affordable housing feasible, and 3) to provide density bonus and other incentive to developers who propose to construct affordable housing. President Piziali noted that the public hearing would be held at this meeting, and that no Board action would be taken. This item will be continued to the Planning Board meeting of January 26, 2003. Mr. Fuz advised that staff would like the Board to consider all three ordinances as a package; the draft ordinance relating to density bonus was not completed yet. The other two ordinances were available to the Board in ordinance form for the first time. The public hearing would be reopened on January 26, 2004. President Piziali advised that 13 speaker slips had been received. M/S Cunningham/Lynch and unanimous to reduce the speakers' time to three minutes. AYES — 6 (Bard absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 The public hearing was opened. Mr. Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope, thanked staff for the forward movement regarding these ordinances, particular with respect to inclusionary housing. He was pleased they would be presented as a package in January, and added that Renewed Hope would recommend some changes to the ordinance. He noted that regarding the in lieu fee, they did not receive Attachment 4 which addressed in lieu fees in a variety of cities. Renewed Hope did not understand how the in lieu fee of $14,735 was set. He noted that the Keyster Marston study stated that $47,000 was adequate for a moderate income unit, $147,000 for rental units for very low income residents, and $73,000- 183,000 for a for -sale unit. He did not believe the fee was strong enough to encourage people to construct, as opposed to paying the fee. He noted that the requirements set for different numbers of units at various income levels did not allow a developer to build more low and very low income units. Mr. Matthews noted that the ordinance allowed the affordable units to be developed off -site, Planning Board Minutes Page 12 December 8, 2003 Attachment #5 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board with the City Manager's authorization. Renewed Hope was concerned about that part of the ordinance, and would like to see the affordable housing integrated with the rest of the housing in the community. Ms. Eve Bach, ARC Ecology, concurred with Mr. Matthew's comments. She expressed concern about the discretion given to the City Manager to either waive or reduce the requirements. ARC Ecology believed that would create constitutional problems for this ordinance. She cited case law for inclusionary ordinances that judges relied on when they found the ordinances not to be a taking, and noted that they must be applied uniformly. The discretion given in Sections 30- 16 -6(b), 30- 16 -7(c), 30- 16- 10(a), and 30 -16 -12 would give the City Manager the discretion to apply this in a way that would subject the ordinance to heightened scrutiny if it were challenged as a taking. She believed that would make the ordinance vulnerable, and suggested that the City attorneys examine the ordinance very carefully. She added that the Section 30 -16 -12 also provided for appeal if the manager exercised discretion because someone believed the ordinance was already a taking. She noted that it was unclear whether anyone would know that the decision had been made, and that notification of the City Manager's decision was not required. She noted that it would be difficult to meet the ten day appeal period, and suggested that a section be added to require public notification of such decisions. Mr. Christopher Buckley wished to address the second unit ordinance, and noted that he had sent a letter to the Board. He noted that under State law, the City was required to allow second units by right; currently, second units were allowed with a Use Permit. He was concerned that the ordinance should be written to meet the requirements of State law, while still preserving the character of Alameda's neighborhoods, particular the R -1 neighborhoods. He believed the standards set forth in the draft ordinance should be strengthened to help preserve that character. He included several examples of other cities' ordinances that were slightly stronger. He noted that with respect to the minimum lot sizes that would include a by -right second unit, Paragraph D of the Zoning regulations set forth various requirements for development in that zone, including minimum height, bulk, space, and lot sizes. He believed those provisions did apply to the second units, and would take precedence over item 1 of his letter. Mr. Buckley believed that having an owner /occupancy requirement for each unit would be important in order to maintain a high level of proprietorship for the units, and added that there was ample precedent for that requirement. He agreed with staff's determination that the City could perform discretionary Design Review for second units. However, the State law Planning Board Minutes Page 13 December 8, 2003 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board was drafted somewhat ambiguously. Other cities had made determinations that the Design Review must be ministerial, and determined by standards. He believed that distinction should be clarified with the City Attorney. Mr. Don Patterson agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments, and requested that the size of the units be examined more carefully. He noted that Alameda was the third most dense community in the Bay Area, behind San Francisco and Daly City. He did not believe that a suburb like Orinda would apply to Alameda, and added that their average lot sizes constituted a very large lot in Alameda. He believed that the detached units were very important, and added that design issues, open space, pervious surfaces, parking turnaround, and functionality were equally important. He believed that a lot between 6,000 -7,500 square feet would be required for second units. He requested that the Board address tandem parking. Ms. Jean Sweeney spoke in opposition to this item. She realized that the State requires that the ordinance be enacted, but noted that because Alameda was a charter city, and not a general law city, that the City may not be required to go forward with the ordinance. She believed that single family zoning in town was under attack. She disagreed with the ability of the City Manager to make decisions about inclusionary housing. She believed the ministerial nature of that action took away the public's right to review, and inquired whether it would affect the homeowners associations. Mr. Ed Murphy noted that the comments of previous speakers highlighted the potential for future litigation, and believed that the Board would face a Solomon -like decision. He was pleased that there would be more time to consider this decision. He noted that he owned R -4 and R -5 property, which had primarily single family homes; he inquired whether he would be able to place a second unit on those lots. He was unfamiliar with ministerial land use controls, and inquired how that would be administered; he was concerned that people would not be treated equally under the law. He inquired whether the developers would receive incentives to provide affordable housing irrespective of Article XXVI of the City Charter. He noted that he had opposed Measure A, but never suggested that it should be bypassed. Ms. Pat Baile expressed concern about the possibility of Measure A being usurped by this ordinance. She noted that there had been movement in the community that Measure A should be either abolished or amended. She strongly opposed the abolition of Measure A. She inquired whether this new rule would apply to homeowners association; if it did not, that would leave Old Alameda to be subject to these rules. The lot size requirements for the second units would apply only to the older homes in town, which would put the older Planning Board Minutes Page 14 December 8, 2003 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board structures in jeopardy. She did not wish to see additional square, boxy apartments with no provision for off - street parking in town. She inquired whether the beneficiaries of this ordinance would be current or future residents of Alameda, and noted that this was a quality of life issue. She understood the need for more housing and low cost housing, but she did not believe this was the correct approach to take. Mr. Jim Sweeney believed strongly that this ordinance should not be approved, and believed that it would kill many of Alameda's neighborhood. He noted that it would adversely impact traffic, and that more green space would be paved over. He believed this would adversely affect the quality of life in Alameda, and was disappointed to find that there were already so many second units in town. He did not believe the ministerial application of the ordinance was an appropriate addition. Mr. Tom Billings, 1607 High Street, spoke in support of this item. He noted that since his wife passed away, he has wished to build a cottage behind his home so that he could live in a more manageable and easy -to- navigate house. He noted that the implementation of the second unit ordinance would enable him to rent the main house and stay in Alameda. Mr. Robert Chasse noted that he was a long -time resident Alameda, and believed that the City's leaders wished to turn Alameda into a low- income community. He did not believe his neighbors would support the increase in density and traffic, which would make life more difficult for older people. Ms. Arlene Kerr spoke in opposition to this item, and noted that she had lived in Alameda for most of her life. She was dismayed to see the increase in density, and understood that there was sufficient low - income and Section 8 housing in town. She believed that more market - rate housing would bring more income to the City. She was strongly opposed to any change to Measure A. Mr. Ray Bolton spoke in opposition to this item. He believed that this ordinance would be an end run around Measure A, and believed that it provided incentive for more density in town. He noted that traffic and parking were already seriously impacted, and that higher density would exacerbate those problems. The public hearing was closed. Planner III Kavanagh -Lynch advised that staff was available to answer questions. Planning Board Minutes Page 15 December 8, 2003 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board Mr. Lynch believed that part of the Housing Element issue was a matter for City Council as elected policy- makers, not for the Planning Board. He noted that conformance with State law, and the decision whether to litigate, fell within the purview of the Council. He referred to the December 8, 2003, letter from ARC Ecology and Renewed Hope, and requested that staff clarify the computation of the in lieu fee at the next meeting. Mr. Fuz advised that the $14,735 in lieu fee applied for each unit; a nine unit project would require an in lieu fee of $132,615. The in lieu fee did not apply to projects larger than nine units, and that the developer would be required to actually provide the affordable units. Mr. Lynch noted that Alamedans were not residents of only a homeowners association, but of the City, and believed that major policy decisions affected every resident. He noted that it appeared on the surface that residents were being separated with respect to quantifiable aspects of their homes and uses, and requested clarification from staff. Ms. Harryman advised that she would research that issue before the next meeting. She believed that, for instance, if the hot tub /gazebo applicant had requested a second unit, that would be an acceptable use. If the CC &Rs stated that was not a permitted use, she believed that State law would trump the CC &Rs. She believed that the law would apply to homeowners associations, and would give a more detailed response at the next meeting. In response to President Piziali's question regarding a general law city, Ms. Kavanagh -Lynch advised that documentation distributed by HCD addressed that issue. It was HCD's stance that this ordinance specifically applied to charter cities, as well as general law cities. Ms. Kavanagh -Lynch advised that the State did not set a maximum square footage for an efficiency unit; the model language suggested 1,200 square feet. Guidance from the Board at the previous meeting set the square footage at 1,000 square feet or 25% of the size of the primary dwelling on the lot. Ms. Kavanagh -Lynch advised that conformance to the setbacks of attached second units from the main buildings in the district was not stipulated in the State regulations. The draft Ordinance included an administrative Variance for residences of nonconforming setbacks, which was in line with the existing (k) & (I) standards. Planning Board Minutes Page 16 December 8, 2003 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board With respect to height in an attached unit, Ms. Kavanagh -Lynch stated that it was specified in the district in existing regulations, and was subject to Design Review. The proposed draft Ordinance echoed that same language; the State does not speak specifically to that issue. Staff proposed in the Draft Ordinance that detached second units be limited to one - story; the State was silent on that issue as well. With respect to the unit being a rental -only unit, both the existing and proposed Code state that it would be; State Code was silent on this issue. Ms. Kavanagh -Lynch further stated existing second units must have one parking space per bedroom, with a maximum of two spaces. That language was echoed in the proposed ordinance, and that reflected the maximum State standard for off - street parking for the second unit. Ms. Kavanagh -Lynch addressed Mr. Buckley's inquiry regarding Design Review. The City of Alameda believed that the use was ministerially permitted, but the design required a Design Review. Staff did not find a specific statement by the State one way or the other. Mr. Fuz advised that the City was required by law to submit the ordinance to HCD for their review and comment. He noted that the Housing Element review was still pending final action by HCD. Mr. Cunningham believed that criteria in the Inclusionary Ordinance should be set by family size as well as income. He believed that the smallest units would not be appropriate for a family of four people or more, and did not wish to exclude them. Ms. Eliason noted that staff would be presenting at the next meeting development guidelines for the inclusionary units. Some of the ordinance language being suggested reflected the concern that the low and moderate income units not be identifiable as such. She noted that issue would be addressed at the next meeting. Mr. Cunningham inquired whether expansion or modification of those units would be allowed to accommodate a larger family. Ms. Eliason advised that the Inclusionary Ordinance and the guidelines were currently silent to that issue. Staff believed that the residents of those units would have the right of any homeowner to add on to their home in conformance with the Municipal Code. Planning Board Minutes Page 17 December 8, 2003 PRELIMINARY DRAFT Subject to modification prior to approval by Planning Board In response to an inquiry by Mr. Cunningham, Ms. Eliason replied that the units were deed restricted as far as the income levels. If a homeowner made an addition that increased the value of the home, they would not necessarily be able to recoup that expense upon sale of the unit. She noted that some cities in California had a way of balancing equity and the length of ownership. Staff suggested a 59 year cap that could be renewed at the City's discretion, and added that keeping affordable units affordable was a primary concern. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook, Ms. Eliason noted that those examples did not match, and added that the State held the City to a per bedroom standard not a square footage standard. If a second unit were to be added, the homeowner would be required to add one parking space for the first bedroom, and one parking space for a second bedroom. Ms. Cook noted that she would rather encourage development of new space within the existing historic building envelope, rather than put an additional unit in the back. Mr. Lynch suggested that staff examine the existing policy, and make it consistent what would be adopted. Ms. Eliason noted that staff would do that to the extent that was possible. No action was taken. This item will be continued to the Planning Board meeting of January 26, 2004. Planning Board Minutes Page 18 December 8, 2003 CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING NEW SECTION 30 -16 (INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS) TO CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Section 30 -16, "Inclusionary Housing Requirement for Residential Projects," to Chapter 30, Development Regulations, thereof to read: 30 -16 Inclusionary Housing Requirement For Residential Projects Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection Subsection 30 -16 -1 Purpose. 30 -16 -1 Purpose. 30 -16 -2 Findings. 30 -16 -3 Definitions. 30 -16 -4 Inclusionary Unit Requirements. 30 -16 -5 Exemptions. 30 -16 -6 Alternatives. 30 -16 -7 Incentive. 30 -16 -8 Compliance Procedures. 30 -16 -9 Requirements for Inclusionary Units. 30 -16 -10 Continued Affordability. 30 -16 -11 Limited Use of Fees. 30 -16 -12 Adjustments, Waivers. 30 -16 -13 Community Improvement Project Areas. 30 -16 -14 Enforcement. The purpose of this section is to (a) implement the goals and objectives of the Housing Element of the City of Alameda General Plan, (b) mitigate the impacts on housing affordability caused by new residential development, and (c) meet the need for housing affordable to persons of very low -, low- and moderate - income. 30 -16 -2 Findings. a. California and the City of Alameda face a serious housing problem that threatens their economic security. Persons of very low -, low- and moderate - income are experiencing increasing difficulty in locating and maintaining adequate, safe and 1 Introduction of Ordinance # 5 -C 6 -1 -04 sanitary affordable housing. Lack of access to affordable housing has a direct impact upon the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Alameda. Alameda will not be able to contribute to the attainment of State housing goals or to retain a healthy environment without additional affordable housing. As noted in the City's Housing Element, a regional shortage of affordable housing is contributing to overpayment for housing accommodations, sometimes leading to temporary or permanent homelessness. b. A lack of new Inclusionary Units will have a substantial negative impact on the environment and economic climate because (i) housing will have to be built elsewhere, far from employment centers and therefore, commutes will increase, causing increased traffic and transit demand and consequent noise and air pollution, and (ii) City businesses will find it more difficult to attract and retain the workers they need. Inclusionary housing policies contribute to a healthy job and housing balance by providing more affordable housing close to employment centers. c. Development of new market -rate housing encourages new residents to move to the City. These new residents will place demands on services provided by both public and private sectors. Some of the public and private sector employees needed to meet the needs of the new residents earn incomes only adequate to pay for affordable housing. Employees who are unable to find affordable housing in the City will be forced to commute long distances. This situation adversely impacts on their quality of life, consumes limited energy resources, increases traffic congestion and has a negative impact on air quality. d. Increasing the production and availability of affordable housing is problematic. Prices and rents for affordable housing remain below the level needed to attract new construction. At the same time, escalating land costs and rapidly diminishing amounts of land available for development hinder the provision of affordable housing units solely through private action. Federal and state funds for the construction of new affordable housing are insufficient to fully address the problem of affordable housing within the City. e. The City wishes to retain an economically balanced community, with housing available to very low -, low- and moderate - income households. The City's General Plan implements the established policy of the State of California that each community should foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic levels. f. It is appropriate to impose some of the cost of the increased burden of providing housing for very low -, low- and moderate - income persons directly on the developers, and indirectly upon the occupiers, whose developments necessitate the need for such housing. In addition to the demands on services from such developments, new development without affordable units contributes to the shortage of 2 affordable housing. Zoning and other ordinances concerning new housing in the City should be consistent with the community's goal to foster an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic levels. 30 -16 -3 Definitions. As used in this section: Affordable Rent shall mean monthly rent (including utility allowance) that does not exceed one - twelfth of 30 percent of the maximum annual income for a Household of the applicable income level (Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income). Affordable Housing Guidelines shall mean guidelines adopted by the City Council to specify location and design standards for Inclusionary Units. Affordable Housing Plan shall mean a legally binding agreement between a Developer and the City to ensure that the requirements of this Chapter are satisfied. The Affordable Housing Plan establishes the number and location of Affordable Units, production schedule and other standards. Affordable Ownership Cost shall mean a sales price that results in a monthly housing cost (including mortgage, insurance, utilities, taxes, assessments and home owner association costs, if any) that does not exceed one - twelfth of 30 percent of the maximum annual income for a Household of the applicable income (Very Low -, Low - or Moderate - Income). Household shall mean one person living alone or two or more persons sharing residency whose income is considered for housing payments. Inclusionary Unit shall mean a dwelling unit that must be offered at Affordable Rent or available at Affordable Housing Cost to Very Low -, Low- or Moderate - Income Households. In -Lieu Fee shall mean the fee described in Subsection 30- 16 -6(a) that is paid to the City as an alternative to the production of inclusionary housing, which fee shall be used in accordance with Subsection 30- 16 -11. Low- Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "lower income households" in Section 50079.5 of the California Health & Safety Code. Market -Rate Unit shall mean a dwelling unit in a Residential Development that is not an Inclusionary Unit. 3 Moderate- Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "persons and families of low or moderate income" in Section 50093 of the California Health & Safety Code. Residential Development shall mean any planned development district, subdivision map, conditional use permit or other discretionary land use approval that authorizes the construction of residential dwelling units. Very Low- Income Household shall mean a Household whose annual income does not exceed the qualifying limits set for "very low income households" in Section 50105 of the California Health & Safety Code. 30 -16 -4 Inclusionary Unit Requirements. a. Unit Requirement. For all Residential Developments of five (5) or more units, at least fifteen percent (15 %) of the total units must be Inclusionary Units restricted for occupancy by Very Low -, Low- or ivioderate- Income Households. The number of Inclusionary Units required for a particular project will be determined only once, at the time of project approval. If a change in the Residential Development design results in a change in the total number of units, the number of Inclusionary Units required will be recalculated to coincide witr the final approved project. b. Calculation. For purposes of calculating the number of affordable units required by this subsection, any additional units authorized as a density bonus under California Government Code Section 65915(b)(1) or (b)(2) will not be counted in determining the required number of Inclusionary Units. In determining the number of whole Inclusionary Units required, any decimal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or more shall be rounded up on the nearest whole number. c. Types of Inclusionary Units: Four percent (4 %) of the total units must be restricted to occupancy by Low - Income Households; four percent (4 %) of the total units must be restricted to occupancy by Very Low - Income Households; and seven percent (7 %) must be restricted to occupancy by Moderate - Income Households. For Residential Developments with sixty -nine (69) or fewer total units, Inclusionary Units shall be restricted for occupancy by very low -, low- or moderate - income households in the following proportions, which are based upon the above calculations: 4 Total Inclusionary Units Units Income Levels 5 to 9 1 1 moderate 10 to 16 2 1 moderate, 1 low 17 to 23 3 1 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 24 to 29 4 2 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 30 to 36 5 3 moderate, 1 low, 1 very low 37 to 43 6 3 moderate, 2 low, 1 very low 44 to 49 7 3 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low 50 to 56 8 4 moderate, 2 low, 2 very low 57 to 63 _ 9 4 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low 64 to 69 10 5 moderate, 3 low, 2 very low d. Affordable Housing Guidelines. Inclusionary Units built under this section must conform to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council. 30 -16 -5 Exemptions. The requirements of this section do not apply to: a. Reconstruction. The reconstruction of any structures that have been destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature provided that the reconstruction takes place within three (3) years of the date the structures were destroyed. b. Residential Developments of four (4) units or less. c. Residential building additions, repairs or remodels. Residential building additions, repairs or remodels; provided, that such work does not increase the number of existing dwelling units beyond four (4) units. d. Affordable housing projects. Residential Developments that already have more dwelling units that qualify as affordable to Very Low -, Low- and Moderate - Income Households than this Section requires. e. Residential Developments with approved maps. Residential Developments for which a tentative map or vesting tentative map was approved, or for which a building permit was issued, prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section and which continue to have unexpired permits. 5 30 -16 -6 Alternatives. a. In -Lieu Fees. For Residential Developments of nine (9) or fewer units, including Inclusionary Units, the requirements of this section may be satisfied by paying an In -Lieu Fee. The fee will be set by the City Council by resolution and shall be sufficient to make up the gap between (i) the amount of development capital typically expected to be available based on the amount to be received by a developer or owner from Affordable Housing Cost or Affordable Rent, and (ii) the anticipated cost of constructing the Inclusionary Units. Fees shall be paid upon issuance of building permits for Market -Rate Units in a Residential Development. If building permits are issued for only part of a Residential Development, the fee amount shall be based only on the number of units then permitted. b. Off -site construction. Inclusionary Units may be constructed off -site if the Planning Board can make a finding that the purposes of this section would be better served by the construction of off -site units. In determining whether the purposes of this section would be better served by this alternative, consideration should be given as to whether the off -site units would be located in an area where, based on availability of affordable housing, the need for such units is greater than the need in the area of the proposed development. 30 -16 -7 Incentive. The City may provide the following incentive to a developer who elects to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of this section by producing Inclusionary Units on the site of the Residential Development. a. Expedited Processing. Eligibility for expedited processing of development and permit applications for the Residential Development. Subsection 30 -16 -8 Compliance Procedures. a. Conditions to carry out the purposes of this section shall be imposed on the approval of any Residential Development to which this section pertains. b. As part of the application for a Residential Development, the applicant shall submit an Affordable Housing Plan demonstrating compliance with this section. The Affordable Housing Plan must include: (i) a description of the number and size of each Market -Rate Unit and each Inclusionary Unit, including the income levels to which each Inclusionary Unit will be made affordable, (ii) a narrative describing how the plan adheres to the Affordable Housing Guidelines adopted by the City Council, and (iii) a site map, with the location of the Inclusionary Units clearly marked. 6 c. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the decision- making entity concurrently with the Residential Development in accordance with the procedures in the Alameda Municipal Code. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be made a condition of approval of the Residential Development and shall be recorded by the applicant together with any implementing regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and / or similar implementing documents as a restriction on the parcel or parcels on which the Affordable Units will be constructed, d. The Planning Board shall review any applications requesting off -site construction within their Affordable Housing Plan. The Affordable Housing Plan shall include a site map of the off -site location, a description of the arrangements made for construction at that site and demonstration that the proposed off -site construction complies with Section 30- 16 -6(b). Off -site construction may only be approved in accordance with Subsection 30- 16 -6(b). e. All Inclusionary Units shall be constructed and occupied as specified in the approved Affordable Housing Plan concurrently with or prior to the construction and occupancy of Market Rate Units unless certification is obtained from the Planning and Building Director that the applicant has met, or made arrangements satisfactory to the City to meet, an alternative procedure set forth in subsection 30 -16 -6. In phased Residential Developments, Inclusionary Units shall be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of units in each phase of the Residential Development. No final inspection for occupancy for any Market -Rate Unit shall be completed for the Residential Development or for any phase of the Residential Development until the applicant has constructed the Inclusionary Units required in the approved Affordable Housing Plan for the Residential Development or for any phase of the Residential Development by subsection 30 -16-4 or completed corresponding alternative performance under subsection 30 -16 -6. 30 -16 -9 Requirements for Inclusionary Units. a. Eligibility Requirements. No Household may occupy an Inclusionary Unit unless the City or its designee has approved the Household's eligibility in accordance with City- approved policies. Each Household that occupies a rental Inclusionary Unit or purchases an owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit must occupy that unit as that Household's principal residence. b. Initial Sales Price of Owner- Occupied Units. The initial sales price of an owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit shall be set so that the eligible Household will pay an Affordable Ownership Cost. Resale and other restrictions on the Inclusionary Unit will be governed by the regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust or other 7 recorded agreements recorded against the Inclusionary Unit as approved in the Affordable Housing Plan per Section 30 -16 -8. c. Rent of Rental Units. Rental Inclusionary Units shall be offered to eligible Households at an Affordable Rent. 30 -16 -10 Continued Affordability. a. Regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and/or other documents acceptable to the City Manager, all consistent with the requirements of this section, shall be recorded against Inclusionary Units and Residential Developments containing Inclusionary Units. These documents shall legally restrict occupancy of Inclusionary Units to Households of the income levels for which the units were designed for a minimum of fifty -nine (59) years. The forms of regulatory agreements, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and other documents authorized by this subsection, and any change in the form of any such document which materially alters any policy in the document, shall be approved by the City Manager. b. The resale restrictions required by subsection 30- 16 -10(a) shall allow the City a right of first refusal to purchase any owner - occupied Inclusionary Unit at the maximum price which could be charged to a qualified purchaser Household, at the time the owner proposes a sale. 30 -16 -11 Limited Uses of Fees. a. Use and Disbursement of Fees. In -Lieu Fees collected under this section shall be used in accordance with and in support of affordable housing as determined by the City Manager. Expenditures of In -Lieu Fees shall be limited to direct expenditures for capital projects or incidental non - capital expenditures related to capital projects, including but not limited to pre - development expenses, land acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, subsidization, counseling or assistance to other governmental entities, private organizations or individuals to expand affordable housing opportunities to very low -, low- and moderate - income households. Authorized expenditures also include, but are not limited to, assistance to housing development corporations, equity participation loans, grants, predevelopment loan funds, participation leases, loans or other public /private partnership arrangements to develop affordable housing or other public/ private partnership arrangements. The In -Lieu Fees may be expended for the benefit of either rental or owner - occupied housing. The In -Lieu Fees may not be used to support operations, or on -going housing services not directly related to the construction, acquisition, rehabilitation or preservation of affordable housing units. 8 b. Accounting of Fees. All In -Lieu Fees shall be deposited into a segregated account and all expenditures of funds from the same shall be documented and included in an annual report that shall be made available for public inspection. 30 -16 -12 Adjustments, Waivers. a. Adjustment. The requirements of this section may be waived, adjusted or reduced if an applicant shows that there is not a reasonable relationship between the impact of a proposed Residential Development on the demand for affordable housing in the City and the requirements of this section or that applying the requirements of this section without the requested waiver, adjustment or reduction would constitute a taking in violation of the United States or California Constitutions or be otherwise illegal. Under current law, mere economic hardship or diminution in value does not constitute an unlawful taking of property. Such a request shall be made in writing and filed with the Planning and Building Department at the time of initial submittal an application for approval of a Residential Development and / or as part of any appeal from a decision regarding such an application. The request shall state completely and in detail: (i) the requested waiver, adjustment or reduction of the requirements, (ii) the factual basis for the request, and (iii) the legal basis of this request. If the Planning Board determines that the requirements of this section lack a reasonable relationship to the impact of a proposed Residential Development on demand for affordable housing in the City or that those requirements constitute a taking in violation of the United States or California Constitutions, the requirements of this section shall be modified, adjusted or waived to the extent necessary to avoid an unconstitutional result or illegal outcome. b. Appeal Procedure. The applicant, a member of the public or a member of the City Council or Planning Board may appeal a determination under this ordinance within ten (10) days after the decision under subsection 30- 21.11. Appeals shall be heard pursuant to Section 30 -25. c. Fee for Adjustment Request or Appeal. The cost of the consideration of a request for adjustment or waiver of the requirements of this section and appeal shall be borne by the applicant in an amount set forth in the Master Fee Resolution of the City Council. 30 -16 -13 Community Improvement Project Areas. This section shall not apply to Residential Developments in the City's Community Improvement Project Areas as long as the Community Improvement Commission adopts separate resolutions or policies pertaining to inclusionary housing requirements in such areas. 9 30 -16 -14 Enforcement. a. Misdemeanor Violation. It shall be a misdemeanor to violate any provision of this Section. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, it shall be a misdemeanor for any person to sell or rent to another person an Inclusionary Unit under this Section at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed under this Section or to sell or rent an Inclusionary Unit to a Household not qualified under this Section. It shall further be a misdemeanor for any person to provide false or materially incomplete information to the City or to a seller or lessor of an Inclusionary Unit to obtain occupancy of housing for which he or she is nct eligible. b. Additional Enforcement Mechanisms. In addition to the penalties provided in this Subsection, any violation of this Section may be redressed by any enforcement mechanism, including but not limited to a civil action, described in Section 1 -5, Penalty Provisions; Enforcement, of this Code. Section 2. Severability. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of the Ordinance or any part thereof, is for any reason held unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, said decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any part thereof. The City of Alameda City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase herein, irrespective or the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective. Section 3. Publication. The City Clerk shall either (a) have this Ordinance published once within 15 days after adoption in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with Section 36933(a) of the California Government Code, or (b) have a summary of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once five days before its adoption, and again within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Section 36933(c) of the California Government Code. Section 4. Effective Date. 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. 10 NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this decision or final action on any appeals plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. Presiding Officer of the 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 11 CURRENT APPLICATIONS ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT AUTHORITY PARATRANSIT ADVISORY PLANNING COMMITTEE (PAPCO) Marleen Cooney Robert Frazer Marjorie B. Lunceford Re: Council Communications #7 -A 6 -1 -04 CURRENT APPLICATIONS SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD Betsy Elgar Amanda E. Flores -Witte Lisa Grove Dr. Jerome B. Healy Kristoph Lukesh Jennifer Miller Jesse D. Tamplen Re: Council Communications #7 -B 6 -1 -04