The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-07-20 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - JULY 20, 2004 - - - 5:20 P.M. Time: Tuesday, July 20, 2004, 5:20 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item. 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig Jory. Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employee Association, Management and Confidential Employees Association, Police Association Non - Sworn, Alameda Police Officers Association, Alameda Police Managers Association, Alameda Fire Managers Association, International Association of Firefighters, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment everly . o.' ton Mayor CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION TUESDAY - - - JULY 20, 2004 - - - 5:55 P.M. Time: Tuesday, July 20, 2004, 5:55 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 REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR Property: 1650 Park Street. Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiations: HLM Development, Inc. and Alameda Community Improvement Commission. Price and terms. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment CITY OF ALAMEDA•CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TUESDAY - - - JULY 20, 2004 - - - 6:10 P.M. Time: Tuesday, July 20, 2004, 6:10 p.m. Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Agenda: 1. Roll Call. 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only. Anyone wishing to address the Council /Authority 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 to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9. Number of cases: One. 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNCIL - EXISTING LITIGATION Name of case: Alameda Unified School District v. City of Alameda. 3 -C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property: Alameda Point, 2200 Central Avenue and Encinal Terminals. Negotiating Parties: Under Negotiations: City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Alameda Unified School District. Price and terms. 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any. Adjournment n i , ' 7 ayor Chair, Al • -d. ! Reuse and Redevelop t Authority Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Executive Director, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Board of Commissioners meetings. AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE & TIME Tuesday, July 20, 2004, 7:25 PM LOCATION City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - Board of Commissioners 2. CONSENT CALENDAR • Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public. 2 -B. Revising the FY 2005 Budget and Approving the Reorganization of the Housing Authority. The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend that the Board of Commissioners: "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service." Board of Commissioners Meeting July 6, 2004 Page 2 1. Approve the proposed 2004 -2005 revised budget; and 2. Approve the proposed reorganization of the Housing Authority; and 3. Adopt the proposed resolution revising the budget for the Conventional Low - Rent Housing Program No. CA -062 (Esperanza). 3. AGENDA 3 -A. Update on Section 8. This is an oral report for information only. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non - Agenda (Public Comment) 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS, (Communications from the Commissioners) 6. ADJOURNMENT * * * Note: * Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Carol Weaver, Secretary, at 747 -4325 voice or 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. * Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. * Minutes of the meeting are available in large print. * Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request. * Please contact Carol Weaver at 747 -4325 voice of 522 -8467 TDD at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service. 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 - - - JULY 20, 2004 - - - 7:27 P.M. Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the 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 MINUTES Minutes of the Annual Community Improvement Commission Meeting and the Special Joint Community Improvement Commission and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting of June 15, 2004. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Recommendation to adopt the Community Improvement Commission budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005. ADJOURNMENT AGENDA TUESDAY CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk, and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Council meetings. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL JULY 20, 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 5:20 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 5:55 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 6:10 P.M. ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 7:25 P.M. OF COMMISSIONERS, 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. Presentation by Rails to Trails. 3 -B. Presentation of $65,036 Incentives Award by Alameda County Waste Management Authority for the City's estimated diversion over the first year of the Single Family Residential Food Waste and Contaminated Paper Collection Program. 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 June 10, 2004 and June 15, 2004; the Special Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting and Special City Council Meeting of July 1, 2004; the Special City Council Meeting, the Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings of July 6, 2004; and the Special City Council Meeting of July 7, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period Ending June 30, 2004 for sales transactions in the first calendar quarter of 2004. 4 -C. Recommendation to accept the work of SIMCO Construction, Inc. for the Alameda Fire Station No. 3 facade repair and apparatus upgrade, No. P.W. 08- 03 -17. 4 -D. Recommendation to reject the Bid; authorize a second Call for Bids and adopt modified Plans and Specifications for the Webster Street Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07. 4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Years 2004 -06, and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2004 -05; and • Adoption of Resolutions Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Development Review Activities to Increase Cost Recovery and to Add a Community Planning Fee Equal to 0.3% of the Project Valuation to All Permit Activities Processed by Permit Center. 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Ordering Vacation of an Existing Pubic Utility Easement (Alameda County Recorder Series No. #2003654531 November 3, 2003) within Lot 9, Parcel Map No. 4744 and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (First Marina Village, LLC(Requires four affirmative votes). 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Delegating Authority to the Public Utilities Board to Select the Appointee to the Utility Joint Powers Authorities. 4 -H. Bills for ratification. 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Recommendation to nominate Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee Representatives. 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider an appeal of Variance, VO4 -0004 and Design Review, DR04 -0007 at 903 Delmar Avenue to construct a 230 square -foot, single -story addition to the rear of the residence. The height of the proposed addition would measure approximately thirteen feet five inches (13'5 ") from grade. A Variance is required to allow the addition to encroach approximately fourteen feet (14') into the required rear yard setback of fifteen feet five inches (15'5 "). A Major Design Review approval is also requested for the exterior changes to the residence; and adoption of related resolution. The project is located within the R -1, One - Family Residence Zoning District. Applicant: Ronald and Myrna Put. 5 -C. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 30 -17, (Residential Density Bonuses and Incentives) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). 5 -D. Appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's decision regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue. 5 -E. Recommendation to authorize fuel surcharge on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. 5 -F. Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Special Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November 2, 2004 for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Deleting References to the Board of Education; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment. 5 -G. Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Forty -Five Day Moratorium on the Issuance of Zoning or Use Permits for the Establishment of Work /Live Studios Under Alameda Municipal Code Section _30-15. [Requires four (4) affirmative votes] 5 -H. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsections 2 -8.2 (Membership; Term of Office; Removal) and 2 -8.3 (Qualifications; Quorum; Voting) of Section 2 -8 (Transportation) of Chapter II (Administration) to Reduce the Size of the Transportation Commission from Nine to Seven Members; Allow for Staggered Terms and to Reduce the Size of the Quorum from Five to Four Members. 5 -I. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 21 -1 (Definitions) of Article I (Definitions) and Subsection 21 -20 -4 (Charges for Service) of Section 21 -20 (Franchise Agreements) of Article III (Franchise Agreements); and Adding a New Subsection 21 -2.7 (Integrated Waste Collection Required) to Section 21 -2 (Collection and Removal) of Article II (General Regulations) of Chapter XXI (Solid Waste and Recycling). 5 -J. Final. Passage of Ordinance Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA04- 0002 - Bayport Stormwater Improvement Project - Amendment to the Catellus Master Plan and Catellus Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan to Allow for a Stormwater Treatment and Detention Pond, Pump Station and Force Main along the Western Edge of the Proposed Business Park and a Stormwater Outfall into the Estuary at the Former FISC site, North of Tinker Avenue, Tract 7179. 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. Written communication from the League of California Cities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's Annual Conference. 8. ADJOURNMENT * ** • 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: July 8, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Regular and Special City Council Meetings, Special Joint Meeting of the Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Special Meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of July 20, 2004 Transmitted herewith are the agendas and related materials for the Regular and Special City Council Meetings, Special Joint Meeting of the Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Special Meeting of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of July 20, 2004. HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING CONSENT CALENDAR 2 -B Revising the FY 2005 Budget and Approving the Reorganization of the Housing Authority. The Housing Commission and the Chief Executive Officer recommend that the Board of Commissioners approve the proposed 2004 -05 Revised budget; approve the proposed reorganization of the Housing Authority; and, adopt the proposed resolution revising the budget for the Conventional Low -Rent Housing Program No. CA -062 (Esperanza). REGULAR AGENDA 3 -A Update on Section 8. At this time the Executive Director will make an oral report. SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA ITEM 1 -A Recommendation to Adopt the Community Improvement Commission Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -05. Honorable Mayor And Councilmembers Page 2 July 8, 2004 It is recommended that the CIC adopt the proposed CIC Budget for fiscal year 2004 -05. CITY COUNCIL MEETING PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3 -A. Presentation by Rails to Trails. At this time the Project Coordinator Melanie Mintz for Rails -to- Trails will make a presentation on the Cross Alameda Trail. 3 -B. Presentation acknowledging the City of Alameda as a recipient of Alameda County Waste Management Authority's Incentives Award. At this time the City will be presented with a monetary award in recognition of our food waste recycling achievements. CONSENT CALENDAR 4 -A. Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of June 10, 2004 and June 15, 2004, the Special Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Special City Council meetings of July 1, 2004, the Special City Council, Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Special and Regular City Council meetings of July 6, 2004 and the Special City Council Meeting of July 7, 2004. The City Clerk has presented for approval the Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of June 10, 2004 and June 15, 2004, the Special Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Special City Council meetings of July 1, 2004, the Special City Council, Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Special and Regular City Council meetings of July 6, 2004 and the Special City Council Meeting of July 7, 2004. 4 -B. Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the Period Ending June 30, 2004 for sales transactions in the first calendar quarter of 2004. The Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending June 30, 2004 for the first calendar quarter of 2004 indicates an 8.82% decline as compared to the quarter of the prior year after adjusting for one -time payments. Key declines are primarily in Honorable Mayor And Councilmembers Page 3 July 8, 2004 the categories of office equipment, miscellaneous retail, leasing and miscellaneous vehicle sales. The current two -year financial plan assumed that a decrease in sales tax would occur and the revenue estimates were adjusted accordingly. 4 -C. Recommendation to accept the work of SIMCO Construction, Inc. for the Alameda Fire Station No. 3 facade repair and apparatus upgrade, No. P.W. 08- 03 -17. It is recommended that Council accept the Fire Station 3 facade repair and apparatus upgrades completed by SIMCO Construction. 4 -D. Recommendation to reject the Bid; authorize a second Call for Bids and adopt the modified plans and specifications for Webster Street Renaissance, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07. It is recommended that Council reject the single bid received for the Webster Street Renaissance project and authorize a second call for bids with a modification to the plans and specs for the project. The modifications should result in considerable cost savings. WABA has indicated their support for these changes. 4 -E. Recommendation to approve and adopt the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Year 2004 -05 and appropriating certain moneys for the expenditures provided in said Fiscal Year. After multiple work sessions and direction from Council, the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for fiscal year 2004 -05, are presented for approval. Council is also asked to appropriate moneys for annual expenditures. Adoption of Resolutions Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Development Review Activities to Increase Cost Recovery and to Add a Community Planning Fee Equal to 0.3% of the Project Valuation to All Permit Activities Processed by Permit Center. In order to relieve cost recovery goals, changes to the fee schedule and implementation of a community planning fees are proposed. 4 -F. Adoption of Resolution to Vacate and Quitclaim an Existing Public Utility Easement (Alameda County Recorder Series #2003654531 November 3, 2003) within Lot 9, Parcel Map No. 4744 to First Marina Village (Requires four affirmative votes). Honorable Mayor And Councilmembers Page 4 July 8, 2004 This resolution vacates a public utility easement originally granted last year as it is no longer necessary. 4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Delegating Authority to the Public Utilities Board to Select the Appointee to the Utility Joint Powers Authorities. This resolution delegates authority to the PUB to select an appointee to the Utility Joint Powers Activities. 4 -H. Bills for ratification. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Recommendation to nominate Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee Representatives. It is recommended that nominations be made for representation on the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider an appeal of Variance, VO4 -0004/ Design Review, DR04 -0007 at 903 Delmar Avenue to construct a 230 square -foot, single -story addition to the rear of the residence. The height of the proposed addition will measure approximately thirteen feet five inches (13'5 ") from grade. A Variance is required to allow the addition to encroach approximately fourteen feet (14') into the required rear yard setback of fifteen feet five inches (15'5 "). A Major Design Review approval is also requested for the exterior changes to the residence; and adoption of related resolution. The project is located within the R -1, One- Family Residence Zoning District. Applicant: Ronald and Myrna Put. This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comment on the appeal of the Planning Board's approval of a variance to add a 230 square -foot addition to the residence at 903 Delmar. It is recommended that after the public hearing has been concluded, Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Board's decision. A resolution is provided for this action. 5 -C. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 30 -17, (Residential Density Bonuses and Incentives) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). This hearing has been scheduled to receive public comment on the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to provide residential density bonuses and incentives. The ordinance would provide incentives to developers to develop Honorable Mayor And Councilmembers Page 5 July 8, 2004 affordable housing. It is recommended that after the public hearing has been concluded, Council introduce the proposed ordinance. 5 -D. Recommendation to consider an appeal of the Transportation Commission decision regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue. It is recommended that Council deny the appeal of the decision to abate vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue. 5 -E. Recommendation to authorize fuel surcharge on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. Because of the increased cost of fuel, it is recommended that Council authorize a fuel surcharge for City ferry services. 5 -F. Adoption of Resolution Calling a Consolidated Special Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November 2, 2004 for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter by Deleting References to the Board of Education; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment. Adoption of this resolution would place a charter amendment on the November 2nd ballot that would delete reference to the Board of Education in the City Charter. 5 -G. Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Forty -Five Day Moratorium on the Issuance of Zoning or Use Permits for the Establishment of Work /Live Studios Under Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -15. [Requires four (4) affirmative votes] Passage of this Ordinance will provide a 45 -day stay on approval of work/live use permits. Four votes are required to pass this urgency ordinance. 5 -H. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsections 2 -8.2 (Membership; Term of Office; Removal) and 2 -8.3 (Qualifications; Quorum; Voting) of Section 2 -8 (Transportation) of Chapter II (Administration) to Reduce the Size of the Transportation Commission from Nine to Seven Members; Allow for Staggered Terms and to Reduce the Size of the Quorum from Five to Four Members. Honorable Mayor And Councilmembers Page 6 July 8, 2004 Final passage of this ordinance amends the Municipal Code by reducing the membership of the Transportation Commission from nine to seven members with staggered terms by one -third rotation. Based on the new composition of the Committee, the legislation also changes the quorum requirement from five to four members. 5 -I. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 21 -1 (Definitions) of Article I (Definitions) and Subsection 21 -20 -4 (Charges for Service) of Section 21 -20 (Franchise Agreements) of Article III (Franchise Agreements); and Adding a New Subsection 21 -2.7 (Integrated Waste Collection Required) to Section 21 -2 (Collection and Removal) of Article II (General Regulations) of Chapter XXI (Solid Waste and Recycling). Final passage of this ordinance amends the Municipal Code to increase rates for Alameda County Industries. 5 -J. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA04- 0002 - Bayport Stormwater Improvement Project - Amendment to the Catellus Master Plan and Catellus Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan to Allow for a Stormwater Treatment and Detention Pond, Pump Station and Force Main along the Western Edge of the Proposed Business Park and a Stormwater Outfall into the Estuary at the Former FISC site, North of Tinker Avenue, Tract 7179. Final passage of this ordinance approves a Master Plan Amendment and Catellus Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan to allow for a Stormwater treatment and Detention Pond, Pump Station and Force Main along the Western Edge of proposed business park, and a stormwater outfall into the Estuary at the former FISC site, north of Tinker Avenue. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS 7 -A. Written communication from the League of California Cities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's Annual Conference. At this time the Council is asked to designate the voting delegate for the League of California Cities annual conference. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522 -8467 July 7, 2004 TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners FROM: James M. Flint Chief Executive Officer RE: Revising the FY2005 Budget and Approving the Reorganization of the Housing Authority Background: On April 6, 2004, the Board of Commissioners approved the Housing Authority's budget for two fiscal years, which run from July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2006. Federal funding cuts are projected to have a negative impact on the FY2005 budget. In addition, several extraordinary maintenance projects will not be completed in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004. The Housing Commission reviewed this budget revision at its June 16, 2004, meeting. Discussion: The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has informed the Housing Authority that there will be a reduction in funding for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. The current projection is that the Housing Authority will receive funds of $18,537,655 for Housing Assistance Payments (HAP), a reduction of $669,845 from the current budget. This reduction is lower than might be expected because it was assumed in the original budget that there would be funding cuts in HAP for the new fiscal year. HUD also has advised that the amount of funding for administering the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program (i.e., administrative fees) also will be reduced. Since the administrative fee is based on the number of subsidized units, the reduction in units also reduces fees to be received from HUD. The Housing Authority is projecting that administrative fees will total $1,231,184 compared with the FY2005 HCV operating budget of $1,387,359, a reduction of $156,175. In addition, the growing number of tenants porting to other jurisdictions is reducing administrative fee income even more. Estimated savings needed equal $200,000 for FY2005. A cost analysis was completed to determine how best to reduce the HCV Program budget by this dollar amount. The only way to do so with the least amount of disruption to customer service is to spread the burden across all funds. As such, it Report 2 -B (HABOC) 7 -20 -04 "Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members of Board of Commissioners July 7, 2004 Page 2of4 was necessary to Zook at cost savings of $200,000 in the budget as a whole. The following describes how this cost savings can be achieved. REORGANIZATION Staff recommends revising the budget to match anticipated federal funding. Currently, 79.3 percent of this program's operating budget is expended on salaries and benefits; therefore, there is no alternative but to reduce staffing. This budget amendment proposes reducing the number of funded positions by 2.5, one full -time and one half- time Intermediate Clerk and one Housing Specialist I. Staff proposes not funding these positions in the hopes that funding is restored and that these positions could be filled at a later date. We believe that these positions are critical to ensure the continued excellent level of customer service provided by Housing Authority staff. Staff also recommends eliminating the Housing Facilities Manager position. This position is currently responsible for issuing Invitations for Bids for construction contracts, managing those contracts once awarded, and overall management of the Maintenance Division. With Tess funding available for extraordinary maintenance, there are fewer projects. The number of scheduled projects for FY05 are Tess than half of those scheduled in FY04. Staff believes these few remaining duties could be shifted to other existing staff members. Any remaining contract management would be shifted to Housing Authority Manager (for Operations) who has experience in this area. Overall management of the day -to -day maintenance operations, which will be significantly reduced for the reasons explained above, would be shifted to Housing Authority Manager (for Housing Management), who prior to 1997 had this responsibility. With these changes, the Maintenance Division would be eliminated. At one time, Section 8 was a division of the Housing Authority. In 1997, Section 8 became a part of the Housing Programs Division. Section 8 is the largest program that the Housing Authority administers. It involves the largest amount of money and has more staff than any other work group at the Housing Authority. As such, staff proposes to recreate the Section 8 Program division, and calling it the Housing Assistance Division, since the Section 8 name is being phased out by HUD. Responsibility for managing this program would fall to the existing Program Services Coordinator. As a manager with additional responsibilities overseeing all Housing Assistance activities, a position upgrade is recommended. The Program Services Coordinator position is proposed to be upgraded to the equivalent of a Senior Management Analyst, tentatively titled Housing Assistance Manager, with a modest salary adjustment. This position will not be assuming any of the duties or responsibilities covered by the Housing Facilities Manager. As stated above, $200,000 in savings is needed , to meet anticipated reductions in administrative fees. The cost analysis shown from making these changes is shown on the following page. The savings realized by these changes meet the goal needed for the 2004 -2005 fiscal year. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members of Board of Commissioners July 7, 2004 Page 3 of 4 COST ANALYSIS Unfund 1 Intermediate Clerk position* $34,330 Unfund 1 Housing Specialist I position 39,979 Eliminate 1 Housing Facilities Manager position 91,728 Upgrade Prog. Serv. Coord. to equivalent of Sr. Mgmt. Analyst - 5,496 Benefits for all positions 40,126 $200, 667 * The second half -time position was not funded in the FY05 budget These changes also would result in a structural reorganization of the Housing Authority, allowing a more streamlined organizational structure conducive to efficient service delivery in difficult financial times. A copy of the current organizational chart is attached as Exhibit A. A copy of the proposed organizational chart is attached as Exhibit B. MAINTENANCE PROJECTS Several extraordinary maintenance projects (EMPs) were not completed in FY2004. In order to complete these projects, staff proposes carrying these projects over to the FY2005 budget. The labor- intensive bid process managed by the Housing Facilities Manager has been completed for all but one of these projects. Oversight of the projects in the field is handled by other staff and is not adversely impacted by the elimination of the Housing Facilities Manager position. In some cases, the amount budgeted in FY2004 was not adequate to match bids received; therefore, the dollar amount has been increased accordingly. In addition, the project known as ESP8 -05, to replace the utility meter closets would be revised to include an additional cost of $40,805 to cover the cost of moving the gas lines per the quote received from Pacific Gas and Electric. The project shown as RV2 -05 is the only new project in this proposed budget revision. It is proposed for addition because there is a significant cost savings in going out to bid on the same project at all complexes where needed. EV3 -04, which will become EV1 -05 if approved, would be amended to include cabinets and countertops in five units rather than one unit. All proposed EMP changes are outlined in Exhibit C. Fiscal Impact All proposed changes would result in a reduction in Total Expenses of $709,964 or 2.6 percent. The change in the Operating Budget (not including HAP, Mortgage expenses, contributions to reserves, and capital expenditures) would be a reduction of $320,282 or 6.1 percent. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Chair and Members of Board of Commissioners July 7, 2004 Page 4of4 The budget for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program alone, not including Housing Assistance Payments (HAP), would be reduced under the proposed budget by 13.8 percent. Expenses would increase for Esperanza due to the addition of EMPs not completed last fiscal year. Reserves will cover 100 percent of these expenditures. Exhibit D compares the current FY2005 budget, as previously revised, with the proposed revised budget. All changes to the budget for Esperanza must be done by resolution. The proposed resolution is attached as Exhibit E. Recommendation The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend that the Board of Commissioners: 1. Approve the proposed 2004 -2005 revised budget; 2. Approve the proposed reorganization of the Housing Authority; and 3. Adopt the proposed resolution revising the budget for the Conventional Low -Rent Housing Program No. CA -062 (Esperanza). Respectfully submi MTP:ED Attachments Michael T. Pucci Executive Director Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Cfl O O N LL c C LLI C Q O Q N LL >- Q LI- c- °.� w } = LL F- LL O Q H c.) � J O Q 2 Z O O • y NU' a° in Q = p a 0 1- z 2 0 A N N ^ Q U C Y 0 O 2 N U C l0 — O • 0 g 5 T N m N j 0) o c 2 m 2 U o 7 U co 2 N N M w U z z LL c •_ 4) • U O N 2 a Exhibit A w - J LL 0 0 w 1- LL 0 0 2 1- C7 Z u, /'ate^ 0 re 20 Yi O O LL 0 W Cl) a 0 a 1- 0 J z 0 1- N_ Z C p_ O N N o E E 0 rn c c .4 .N N O E E O U Z O ADMINISTRA 0 U x0 W c O .- 2 cc • 'U o Q) fn o m CI) c E 0 a O) W • 2 Q Z a m= • =w O • c O aN CD W ay = cg 0 O > U •. c c .92 c O U j co • — c N (0 >>0 a) O CV -C1 J Exhibit B l0 o 7 v U �U W U Z — 2 Q o Exhibit C SCHEDULE OF EXTRAORDINARY MAINTENANCE PROJECTS FOR FY2005 - PROPOSED REVISION 1 Approved Projects in Budget ESPERANA? $ 30,300 Approved Projects in Budget N/A $ 437,840 ESP8 -05 Replace 12 utility meter closets 115,805 ESP4 -04 Replace bath flooring of —14 units /yr 19,199 19,199 ESP8 -04 TOTAL Retrofit/repair /seal stairs in 6 units 14,000 14,999 $ 33,199 $ 587,843 PA gRC V LACEi Approved Projects in Budget 36,630 figmiNpArnipm `lf ]tAfial Approved Projects in Budget ABD2 -04 Replace wall and base cabinets in 10 units /yr N/A 25,750 $ 179,713 55,000 RV2 -05 Replace wall and base cabinets in 5 units 31,500 PG 1 -04 Replace wall and base cabinets in 2 units 8,240 12,200 CC5 -04 Remove asbestos in 2 units 4,000 4,000 EV3 -04 Replace cabinets and counter tops in one five units 4,000 33,300 TOTAL INQ PEN ENCE i AZA $ 41,990 $ 315,713 Approved Projects in Budget O ....RAN ........... $ 320,500 FY2004 -2005 BUDGET COMPARISON OF APPROVED AND PROPOSED REVISION HCV PROGRAM gl TOTAL ALL FUNDS APPROVED PROPOSED APPROVED PROPOSED 2005 2005 2005 2005 19,207,500 18,537,655 22,292,208 21,622,363 1,392,861 1,231,184 4,351,798 4,190,121 25,000 0 112,303 87,303 12.850 10 000 333 515 330 755 20,638,211 19,778,839 ::: 27 089,925 26,230 554 807,809 683,725 1,481,296 1,431,390:::: 20,085 20,085 43,271 43,268 196.637 242.910 % %: 532 79S 452 470'•':0 1,024,531 946,720 2,056,862 1,927,128 68,235 0 153,868 64,145 100 100 30 400 20 400 68,335 100 184,268 94,545 4,490 4,490 274,333 274,333 536 536 105,856 105,856 850 850 50 964 50 264 5,876 5,876 430,453 430,453 3,392 2,838 821,991 786,103 1,108 1,108 144,493 144,493 10.792 11 501 535 241 535 242 15, 292 15,447 1,601,725 1,565,838 19,000 19,000 190,000 190,000 33,353 33,353 137,894 137,894 O 0 15,000 15,000 220,972 174,160 655,389 590,450 O 0 7 243 7 243 273,325 226,513 1,005,526 940,587 1,387,359 1,194,656 5,278,833 4,958,551 19, 207,500 18, 537,655 19,616,500 18,946,655 O 0 1,345,240 1,345,240 4,000 4,000 18,000 18,000 O 0 125 455 126 458 19,211,500 18,541,655 21,108,198 20,438,353 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,004,983 1,285,146 10.000 10 000 1,014,983 1,295,146, 27 407 014 25 692 0501 (312,089) (461,497) O 0 20.598.859 19735311 39,352 42,528 E:� APPROVED PLAZA IPROVED PROPOSED 2005 I 2005 574,188 574,188 1,195,000 1,195,000 12,731 12,731 16.974 16.974 1,798,893 1,798,893 169,003 191,887 4,821 4,821 74.972 65.353 248,796 262,061 28,397 21,008 100 100 28,497 21,108; 65,650 65,650 42,470 42,470 19.320 19.320 127,440 127,440 , 194,262 182,016 34,805 34,805 190.870 190.488 = 419,937 407,309 2,850 2,850 31,970 31,970: 0 0: 110,886 100,177 424 424, 146 130 135 421 970,800 953,339 O 0 730,000 730,000 5,000 5,000 44.700 44.700 1 779,700 779,700E O 0 • 0 Of 0 0 320,500 320,500 - 0 0, 320,500 320,500 2,071.000 2053.539 (272,107) (254,646)E `L HA OWNED APPROVED PROPOSED 2005 2005 1,546,000 1,546,000 901,422 901,422 42,745 42,745 12,360 12,360 262,465 289,674 7,762 7,762 156,347 60,238 426,574 357,674 26,838 19,854 100 100 19,954 72,300 72,300 42,390 42,390 27,320 27,320 142,010 142,010 331,906 320,368 61,898 61,898 205,251 205,057 599,055 587,323 55,670 55,670 36,290 36,290 O 0 171,380 171,380 2,575 2,575 1,_460,492 1,372,876 O 0 420,240 420,240 5,600 5,600 61,973 61,973 487,813 487,813 O 0 O 0 O 0 179,713 315,713 O 0 179,713 315,713 2,128,018 2,176,402 374,509 326,125 PARROT VILLAGE APPROVED I PROPOSED 2005 I 2005 449,185 449,185 257,057 257,057 3,183 3,183 2,122 2,122 EE, 711,547 711,547 74,639 87,675 2,476 2,476 43,128 30,316 120,243 120,467 7,618 5,520 100 100 7,718 5,620 56,000 56,000 7,490 7,490 475 475 63,965 63,965 138,123 139,544 16,343 16,343 76,869 76,920 231,335 232,807:1 41,420 41,420:; 12,831 12,831 O 0: 64,698 59,039 1,061 1,061 120,010 114,351 543,271 537,210 II 0 195,000 195,000 O 0: 11,785 11,785 206,785 206,785 0 0 0 0 0 36,630 0 0 36,630 t. 786,686 780,625 W 0 0 0 co 0, CO LO • APPROVED PROPOSED 2005 I 2005 94,335 94,335 580,958 580,958 12,731 12,731 245,000 245,000 933,024 933,024 137,251 148,300 . 8,127 8,1241 61,211 53,653, 206,589 210,077: 21,172 16,155 30,000 30,000( 51,172 46,155 75,893 75,893 12,970 12,970 2,299 2,299 91,162 91,162`: 150,226 137,255 30,339 30,339 151,459 151,276, 332,024 318,870: 71,060 71,060 23,450 23,450 O 0. 78,294 76,535 3,183 3,183: 175,987 174,228 856,933 840,492 O 0 0 0: 2,200 2,200 O 0' 0 00 0 N N O 00 O N N O 0: 437,840 582,003 O 0 427,840 092,003:: 1,296,973 1,424,695; (363,950) (491,671) :I GENERAL FUND APPROVED I PKOPOSED 2005 2005 421,000 421,000 24,500 24,500 15,914 15,914 44,310 44,310 000,724 505,724 30,129 30,129 0 0 0 0, W WOW O CO D r WOW D ,- 0000 O W 0000 W. .- NO0 CO p a NNO0i O I 7 4,081 4,082 O 0 O 0 15,000 15,000 9,159 9,159 O 0 24,109 24,159 59,978 59,978 409,000 409,000 O 0 1,200 1,200 10000 10,000 0 00 0 N 0 N Q 0 001 ,N 0 Y 7 O 0 30,300 30,300 10,000 10,000 40,300 40,300 520,478 520,478 ,DESCRIPTION: OPERATING INCOME: HAP /Operating Subsidy Admin Fee /Rents Interest Other Income TOTAL INCOME OPERATING EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATIVE: Total Admin. Salaries Legal Sundry TOTAL TENANT SERVICES Salaries Tenant Activities TOTAL UTILITIES: Water & Sewer Electricity Gas TOTAL MAINTENANCE: Salaries Materials Contract Costs TOTAL GENERAL: Police Services Insurance Claims Account Employee Benefits Collection Losses TOTAL TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES MORTGAGE/HAP /RESERVES :I HAP Mortgage Replacement Reserve(Equip.) Replacement Reserve(Bld.) TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENSES: Replacement Equipment Additions TOTAL OTHER EXPENSES: Extraordinary Maint. Pre- development/Admin costs TOTAL TOTAL EXPENSES TRANSFERS (IN) /OUT Exhibit D O A O N W � 00 0 m m PHA/IHA Board Resolution • Approving Operating Budget or Calculation of Performance Funding System Operating Subsidy U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Public and Indian Housing OMB Approval No. 2577 -0026 (Exp. 6/30/2001) Exhibit E Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may not conduct . or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless that collecton displays a valid OMB control number. This information is required by Section 6(c)(4) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937. The information is the operating budget for the low- income housing program and provides a summary of proposed /budgeted receipts and expenditures, approval of budgeted receipts and expenditures, and justification of certain specified amounts. HUD reviews the information to determine if the operating plan adopted by the PHA and the amounts are reasonable and that the PHA is in compliance with procedures prescribed by HUD. Responses are required to obtain benefits. This information does not lend itself to confidentiality. Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the below -named Public Housing Agency (PHA) /Indian Housing Authority (IHA), as its Chairman, I make the following certifications and agreements to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regarding the Board's approval of (check one or more as applicable): X Operating Budget Submitted on: Operating Budget Revision Submitted on: Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: Revised Calculation of Performance Funding System Submitted on: (date) July 6, 2004 I certify on behalf of the: (PHA /IHA Name) Housing Authority of The City of Alameda that: 1. All regulatory and statutory requirements have been met; 2. The PHA has sufficient operating reserves to meet the working capital needs of its developments; 3. Proposed budget expenditures are necessary in the efficient and economical operation of the housing for the purpose of serving low- income residents; 4. The budget indicates a source of funds adequate to cover all proposed expenditures; 5. The calculation of eligibility for Federal funding is in accordance with the provisions of the regulations; 6. All proposed rental charges and expenditures will be consistent with provisions of law; 7. The PHA /IHA will comply with the wage rate requirements under 24 CFR 968.110(e) and (f) or 24 CFR 905.120(c) and (d); 8. The PHA /IHA will comply with the requirements for access to records and audits under 24 CFR 968.110(i) or 24 CFR 905.120(g); and 9. The PHA /IHA will comply with the requirements for the reexamination of family income and composition under 24 CFR 960.209, 990.115 and 905.315. I hereby certify that all the information stated within, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and /or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802) Board Chairman's Name (type) Beverly Johnson, Chair Signature Date Previous edition is obsolete form HUD -52574 (10/95) ref. Handbook 7575.1 3A. Update on Section 8. This will be a verbal report. No staff report. Re: Agenda Item #3 -A (HABOC) 7 -20 -04 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 15, 2004- -7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 8:04 p.m. Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners Daysog, Kerr, Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *04- ) Minutes of the Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of May 13, 2004; the Special Joint City Council, Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and CIC Meetings of May 20, 2004 and May 27, 2004; and the Special CIC Meetings of June 1, 2004. Approved. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 04 -129, "Approving Interim Expenditures Prior to Adoption of Budget for Fiscal Year 2004 - 2005 ". Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA None. COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual Meeting at 8:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, Secretary Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Annual Meeting Community Improvement Commission June 15, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 15,2004- -7:27 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:07 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, Torrey, and Chair Johnson -6. Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION Resolution No. 765, "Authorizing the Chief Executive Officer to Execute an Owner Participation Agreement between the City of Alameda Housing Authority, Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda and Resources for Community Development for the Development of the 10 Unit Project on Certain Real Property within the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station and the Fleet Industrial Site Center (FISC)." Adopted. Commissioner Daysog moved adoption of resolution. Commissioner Matarresse seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION (04- ) Resolution No. 04 -130, "Authorizing the Executive Director to Execute an Owner Participation Agreement between the City of Alameda Housing Authority, Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda and Resources for Community Development for the Development of the 10 Unit Project on Certain Real Property within the East Housing Portion of the Naval Air Station and FISC and Approving the Use of Catellus In -lieu Funds to be Used Solely for Development of the 10 Unit Project ". Adopted. Commissioner Daysog moved adoption of resolution. Commissioner Matarresse seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Special Joint Meeting Community Improvement Commission And Housing Authority Board of Commissioners June 15, 2004 1 Adjournment There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, Secretary Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Community Improvement Commission And Housing Authority Board of Commissioners June 15, 2004 2 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM July 6, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: James M. Flint Executive Director Re: Recommendation for the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) to Adopt its Fiscal Year 2004 -2005 Budget Background The City of Alameda's Proposed Financial Plan for Fiscal Years 2004 -06 also includes the budget for the Community Improvement Commission (CIC). In addition to the City's budget process, California Redevelopment Law (CRL) mandates each agency take separate action to adopt its annual budget. The budget is required to contain anticipated revenues, proposed expenditures and indebtedness, a work program for the coming year, as well as the goals and accomplishments of the previous years. The indebtedness incurred by the CIC is reported to the State Controller and the Alameda County Auditor's Office each year. Under CRL, this debt qualifies agencies to collect tax increment revenue for use towards community and economic revitalization efforts within designated redevelopment project areas. Discussion/Analysis One of the most significant changes to the FY04 /05 CIC budget and cash flow was an increased payment to the State's Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF). In FY02 /03 and FY03 /04, the CIC was required to make ERAF payments of $215,000 and $395,000, respectively. On May 13, 2004, the Governor of California released his proposed budget for FY04 /05, with proposals to reduce the state's $14.0 billion budget deficit. This proposal, also known as the "May Revise," shifts $250 million annually for the next two fiscal years from redevelopment funds statewide to ERAF. This figure is significantly greater than the $135 million preliminarily proposed in the January budget proposal. As a result, the CIC is scheduled to make payments of $711,213 of tax increment in FY04 /05 and FY05 /06 (Attachment 1). This is an 80% increase in the payments made in 02/03- 03/04. In the proposed 04/05 CIC budget proposal these payments will be made from tax increment, not bond proceeds, directly reducing tax increment cash flow. The total revenue loss from 2002 -2006 to the CIC is estimated at $2.023 million. The possibility of further shifts to redevelopment agencies in future years is possible. In an agreement to support the two -year budget, the Governor agreed to support a State Constitutional Amendment to protect these and other local funds from further garnishment. However, the protection from these State imposed reductions is dependent upon the results of the November 2004 election. The details, which surround the proposals on the November ballot, are transmitted herewith in Attachments 2 and 3. Any updates will be forwarded to the Commission as soon as available. Report #1 • (CIC 7 -20 -04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Community Improvement Commission July 6, 2004 Page 2 In addition to ERAF, the CIC make payments to the City's Cost Allocation Plan (CAP), which reimburses departments for the operational overhead cost of City staff and functions which support CIC activities. The CIC 's portion of cost allocation (Attachment 4) is budgeted at $1,121,168.00 for FY04 /05, an increase of $421,598.00, or 60.27 %, over last year. ORGANIZATION The Development Services Department (DSD) is the primary implementer of one of the City's three strategic initiatives - Community and Economic Development. The other initiatives are Employee Well -Being and Productivity, and Customer Service. DSD is responsible for the planning and implementation of neighborhood development, community services, rehabilitation of housing and non - profit facilities, new housing development, economic development, and redevelopment projects. CIC funds are a core component of these activities. The CIC and the Commercial Revitalization proposed budgets for FY04 /06 (Attachment 5) contains programs and activities that support these initiatives and assist DSD to achieve its goals and objectives. The focus of the budget is to: ❑ Integrate the former Alameda Point Naval Station into fabric of our community ❑ Create and maintain vibrant, attractive commercial districts ❑ Create and preserve affordable housing opportunities ❑ Create and preserve employment opportunities ❑ Generate resources to fund City services o Preserve and revitalize neighborhoods ❑ Support of business associations o Develop and enhance capacity for delivery of community services ❑ Provide Staff support to Advisory Boards ❑ To inform, engage and empower citizens to build community; and ❑ To educate, train, and create employment opportunities for the local workforce PRIOR YEAR ACHIEVEMENTS: Despite a weak economy, the CIC was able to leverage its existing tax increment revenue to bond, achieving favorable interest rates in the market in late 2003. This success is attributable to the Agency's fiscal strength, the high demand for property in the San Francisco Bay Area coupled with low mortgage rates, keeping residential real estate markets strong in the first quarter of 2004. In late 2003, the CIC issued tax allocation bonds. The 2003 BWIP Refunding bonds refinanced the original 2002 issue that funded the demolition and backbone infrastructure of the Catellus Bayport Housing project. By refinancing, the CIC achieved a lower rate, a conventional tax- exempt structure and was able to modify the debt service obligation by capitalizing interest and deferring the initial bond payment for two years to 2007. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\DsAdmin\REPORTS \CIC Budget 0406b.dac The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Community Improvement Commission July 6, 2004 Page 3 In addition, the fiscal merger of BWIP and WECIP was completed, along with the annexation of the Catellus project area from APIP into BWIP; a prerequisite to the issuance of the 2003 Merged Area Bond. The approved amendment gave the CIC greater legal and financial flexibility to better alleviate blighting conditions and promote economic development in its redevelopment project areas. It also set forth financing methods to achieve the agency's goals in a more efficient and effective manner than was possible under their former improvement plans. The Merged Issue will provide funding for many key activities and projects The original 2002 BWIP and 2003 Merged Area Bonds also repaid the General Fund approximately $5.0 million in principal for loans used to jump start and fund the creation and maintenance of BWIP and WECIP. In addition to the $5.0 million principal payment, the interest only payments, made on a quarterly basis while the loan was outstanding, exceeded $4.5 million. Other major accomplishments of various DSD budget funds include: Affordable Housing Development - Resources for Community Development (RCD) a non - profit affordable housing developer was chosen to develop 101 units within the Bayport Housing Project. Construction of the first 59 apartments and 10 townhomes will begin in July 2004 with occupancy expected in Fall 2005. Alameda Point Improvement Project Area — The general plan was amended to place the APIP in conformance with the City's General Plan. As a result, the CIC can now access the tax increment generated from this project area in previous years and use these funds along with future revenue for its redevelopment efforts at Alameda Point. Alameda Theatre — Discussions continue with the Theatre owner regarding its possible acquisition. Historic preservation architect, Architectural Resources Group (ARG) is finalizing preplanning activities related to the reuse of this historic structure. Phased development plans are being prepared and negotiations underway to reuse the theatre and enhance its operation with the construction of a modern multi - screen first -rate theatre complex. Bayport Development — First new development to be built on former U.S. Navy property in Alameda. Private in -tract street improvements for Residential Phase 1 began in September 2003 - scheduled for completion in 2004. Catellus partnered with Warmington Homes, a residential developer, to build the 485 home community that includes 48 moderate -priced duets. Several homes are currently under construction. Bridgeside Shopping Center — An executed DDA with Regency Centers was approved December 2003. The property was purchased from the CIC and Regency's developer, Foothill Partners, continue their work to finalize entitlement approvals by September 2004, when demolition is scheduled to begin. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G: \DsAdmin\REPORTS \CIC Budget 0406b.doc The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Community Improvement Commission July 6, 2004 Page 4 Business District Support and Revitalization - Business Retention - DSD has been working closely with existing owners and developers to retain and attract business in and to Alameda. Commercial Rehabilitation - To date, twelve storefronts have been improved with a range of treatments, from new signs and awnings to window replacements and new paint. Twenty -six storefronts have been tentatively approved, pending business and property owners' successful completion of the proposed work. Enterprise Landing - Advancing California's Emerging Technologies (ACET) is a biotechnology incubator that is currently located in a 7,000 square foot building at Alameda Point. The CIC approved a DDA with Catellus and ACET to build the incubator on a 3.4 -acre parcel at Enterprise Landing. The ACET building will be the first non - residential project at the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC). New Alameda Parking Structure — Design/Development continues for a new City parking structure. Alternative design concepts are being investigated. A number of preliminary studies, such as geotechnical and CEQA studies are underway. Northern Waterfront Development - Encinal /Del Monte Lofts - Staff has formed an interdepartmental team to review an application to develop the historic Del Monte Building and surrounding area for mixed use, including work/live or commercial studios, discuss related preliminary proposals, and to coordinate Northern Waterfront development issues. Park Street Streetscape Project - Construction is estimated to begin early next year. Alameda's plans have progressed further than any other grantee in MTC's Round 4 grant cycle. Webster Street Renaissance Project — Legislation to relinquish Webster from the Caltrans state highway route jurisdiction has been approved by the State Assembly. Caltrans has executed a Cooperative Agreement that will enable the project to begin prior to the relinquishment being approved by the State. 2004 -05 Work Program Highlights of the FY 2004 -05 Work Program Includes: • Business District Support and Revitalization • Continued Development/Implementation of the Catellus/Warmington Bayport Housing Project • Construction of a Ten -Unit For -Sale Affordable Housing at the Bayport Project • Construction of a 52 -Unit Affordable Housing Project at the Bayport Housing Project • Continuation of the First Time Homebuyer Downpayment Assistance Program • Demolition and Construction of the New Bridgeside Shopping Center Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\DsAdmin\REPORTS \CIC Budget 0406b.dcc The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Community Improvement Commission July 6, 2004 Page 5 • Complete DDA Predevelopment Tasks for Downtown Public Parking Structure/Multiplex Theater Project • Construction of the Webster Street Streetscape Project • Construction of the Park Street Streetscape Project • Continued Implementation of Commercial Revitalization Program • Completion of OPA for Expansion of Len Goode Toyota • Completion of Webster Street Strategic Plan • Continue Business Attraction Activities with Emphasis on New Retail Business • Complete Predevelopment Planning for Northern Waterfront Redevelopment • Development of Business Retention Program Fiscal Impact: The proposed budget includes an interest payment of $74,853 to the General Fund for a $1.2 million loan used in the formation of the Alameda Point Improvement Project area — Fund 205. This repayment plan was approved by the CIC at its June 18, 2002 annual meeting. To date the State budget has not been approved. Staff continues to monitor legislative activities in Sacramento for changes that may require action. Recommendation: The Executive Director recommends that the Community Improvement Commission adopt the CIC Budget for FY 2004 -05. JMF/LAL /GISH Res . ec,,ly submitted (004 eslie A. Little Development Services Director By: Grace I. Sagun Harley Management Analyst Finance & Administration Division Attachments: 1) ERAF formula and CIC portion for 2004 -05 2) Legislative Update from CRA, dated 5/10/04 3) The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act 4) Summary of CIC Cost Allocation Plan 5) FY04 /05 CIC Fund Budgets Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service G:\DsAdmin\REPORTS \CIC Budget 0406b.dce 14 1 40 UOi � N 0 L C3 y..+�t c1c�, O to 101 E•- A,, C (17 O 43 u7 -0= C1 N 45 ).tt4) )M)o eE 0 O. 4" v - 69 tt) 69 0 (A © lf)Ia)1 co r... r1 . - fit')`. 0 0 C tq. claw 3U)1 C Soh 3 (*1 Q 09!.(4,1 (Ng 1t1%;11, Q 171 0 0 f. 1,-10 U]Ih., Mi (4-000 Ufa t1D? C 0. 7 r114, '1 0 Wt 0 V)in tr). N 1- ti 8 O (U 3 r 4 t0 0 CO 4 0) It f) Ce- r ail 0 360;148.09 Q tI(') NiOt)pNN el M(A(t)tOt1N(DNp7tDG1 t±t`J(Ar 0)C7t'(Dh (O te) CA et C4 Tr. r`tatA O fO �i I•• (A tO r CO 0 It, 0. 0 r. 0, D to 01 0 0 r u9 (1' 1. q (�J t~ h 01 cFl eci' h t`- f! r (q u (:) t(� ct7' (r) e- h ( O 'r u1 sh G) sl• W tf) tr) 90 C1 s!' (0 11 00 t0 h+ 1f) h+ 1nOQN(f) [hH'N r.• !y' r tr1rOC.t e- (V M 40 MM49 0n 4940 (941 M410)41 1414140 41 0)41 01 M 3$1,064.44 SO 0) 0)9007 6000 (0000 Tt 00 0 00 C•1 0)N.(O(O t0 117 0 . C- •tt t0 1+. ("J (.0 (Ni (J tl) { r (0 Sri t'1 et fL) 00iO3N(V Iti7i6N1 'Qt- e- f+jt>4tbCAvh.(+'i^UuiN +^ a -htfjm (Q - (+1(`Je^ttrh(7!Ah•txt020)OSh 0 tO)tot0 O0(0U7[f el C7 u) e- x01+1+. rr0(d Ce; m."� h, 07 07. 01e- SAr0) 0 `it M } ("lI14) (VC7 t() (r) tr)Ct) 0 400 (r)try(Y)1' nO01 tryir)U)0") Q�t'4't U70 (Ni ('•1*0( 0*it $"Mr - e--a (e) r' Me -•u')01 toER SflM49ORto01 ER V3 t9 v9 totoORV3CO h`. (1!010)13)!0 0i,e�t.ivf 0 03O�t(«`(Aimi o a0ti0toIU)qr:tO h &O N CO0 ) ehltle- tc)NI. Qe'4•t.O W;N €t") 0) NAM!'" 4'' RI 0:20,011 eiloi 1h �t ) N arcilh• N`� u' a+•:'c 0.1th 0 3M Q r ti'=s lcn 0)ENqu7ttq?M r tL) Cif�tttgu7a trt,1c9.vsttp1O RI co h'st cola)), 0)f0 W4.0) a«3 (O :0 e) � r..)1C•li(`i rth.l N 01C)4t•- 0 i r3a-1 1 t0 NEB e•S0 .4 '1 Ni(09�*(1•A0t(73.3) 0) 'e'-,0 OR C7it0 sr tq� w' 114§0 (r7ts -ERtf *- D to t"'itTt1i0 t0. ti)! t'ia a:14,410.0) (13(!�h. W toitnoN., 01001 c0 t�3e-=(ry 1in1t0Ur (1A'(yiin «3 r- i~7 oltpf .1"-,« c0b0) CJ 00(0c0 )SO (O 0 03 ail of 41101 61NiM T-1.05 t- 1(Vie- !Nf(O10Px 1 co 1(3 1fl ;117 )t 5') 00,,N 4,0!1,-4 Cli PP Pco,N ) 1..• E' 0. '(v. Ml y 6 M ret Na ta C 47 4) a ` f^ C tTNJ, tC '4 tt" u 0 .0 «3 N (p ) 4D O0ht0 `4' (0 N 700)1• U C - ( ('1 N. MI C°4 0? tt M 07 MSt3f 4 N 69 CA 69 0 O 0)1' e4• J x(9:0) i;r•Ai 0t0.1g•N t41t 0)L0' (030 ittr tr f 1 • kh�0) Nf 0Nco) «3(4r(O(9 0) e(31;0) (0 ci 14P15 11r25415 10 o. - 1 u); (v 0 1g 104 MO 4 ei 4J C ..11 .5' B'. t.'1ik •.3141 )mt,Zi 818 �n t (A1 U) @)t 443 .0 w � 0 or 01 o' 010 0 41 Qioj 0 0 (3'. :(..w.)!(,) 0 ()t0 0.0.0 U1UPUtO.U� U.t0 U (.01(2 0[ (3iri.0i0 121 01 21 3 ( 21; 01014 N1 ia�...t .5 wt..• ;.- `jiL -C.. bit1�..pI . .q ....,,1;114.-,g � O'0; 00o 04)(3p4)4010 (3 0,00904 UUUwtoa000.0:00, 0- UU..._000*0 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 2 FROM: JOHN F. SHIREY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Legislative Update - May 10, 2004 The Governor's revised budget proposal for FY 2004 -05, referred to as "the May Revise," is due to be released on May 14, and we fully expect it to contain a significantly different proposal for local government compared to his January proposal. The outline of this new proposal is as follows: • County and city VLF revenues would be permanently reduced by $4.1 billion annually and replaced by an equal amount of property tax revenues. For FY 2004 -05 and FY 2005 -06, the replacement revenue would be only $3.4 billion, amounting to a contribution of $350 million each from cities and counties each year to reduce the State deficit. The counties' funds and cuts would be apportioned on a per capita basis. The cities' formula is to be decided by the League of California Cities, and information about that will be sent to cities by the League. In addition, local governments may have the option of using redevelopment agency funds to replace their cuts in funding under this proposal. • Beginning in the third year, FY 2006- 07, cities and counties would receive full replacement revenue for the swap and then receive the natural growth in property tax revenues thereafter. Language will be included in the legislation to assure that cities and counties with redevelopment project areas will realize the growth of property taxes from the VLF swap inside their project areas for their general funds. • The VLF tax rate would be permanently reduced from 2% to 0.65 %. • Special Districts would contribute $350 million for each of the next two fiscal years in an ERAF shift. • Redevelopment agencies would contribute $250 million for each of the next two fiscal years to ERAF using the same formula as in current law. • County, city, special district, and redevelopment agency property tax, sales tax, and VLF revenue would be permanently protected in future years through a constitutional amendment to be placed on the November ballot by the Legislature with the full support and leadership of the Governor. The property tax backfill associated with the "triple flip" would also be protected. Instead of requiring the Legislature to seek approval of the voters at a statewide election to make a cut in local government funding —as our Initiative, the Local Taxpayers & Public Safety Protection Act, requires —the new constitutional amendment would contain a straight- forward prohibition. (Of course, by a two - thirds vote, the Legislature could always submit another amendment to the constitution at a future election.) • A mandate reform provision would be included in the amendment similar to, but modified from, the provision that is in our Initiative. Instead of allowing each local government to decide whether it will implement an unfunded mandate, the new provision will automatically repeal mandates that remain unfunded. • The second year of local government budget cuts will be repealed if the constitutional amendment does not pass at the November, 2004 election. In addition to this general outline of provisions, a number of provisions specific to redevelopment are to be included in the legislation as follows (the bracketed information indicates whether there is a similar provision in current law): • Each agency's ERAF payment will be based on the total amount of tax increment it receives in proportion to the total amount of tax increment received by all agencies with 50% of the payment based on gross tax increment received and 50% based on net tax increment received after pass- through payments to other taxing entities. [Current law] (For an estimate of the ERAF payments next year for all redevelopment agencies, go to our website, www.calredevelop.org, and click on the first item in the right hand column on the home page.) • Funds set aside for housing (20% of gross tax increment received) are not reduced as a result of making ERAF payments. [Current law] • Payments are due on May 10, 2005 for FY 2004 -05 and May 10, 2006 for FY 2005 -06. [Current law] • Payments may be made in whole or in part from other available redevelopment agency or local government funds, with the exception of the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. [Current law] • Payments can be made from the proceeds of redevelopment agency bonds if otherwise permissible under federal tax law. [Current state law is not explicit] • If an agency has insufficient funds to make its payment, it may borrow up to 50% of the current year housing set -aside amount to make its payment. (That amount exceeds the amount any agency will have to pay under this proposal.) The amount borrowed must be repaid within 10 years of the last ERAF payment. [Similar to current law] • Any agency having to make an ERAF payment may have its redevelopment plan amended by ordinance to extend the time limit on the effectiveness of the plan by one year for each year it is required to make payments. (The specific provision is to be confirmed with Governor's Office.) • Any agency having to make an ERAF payment may have its redevelopment plan amended by ordinance to extend the time limit on the use of tax increment to repay indebtedness by one year for each year it is required to make payments. (The specific provision is to be confirmed with Governor's Office.) • ERAF payments made in FY 2004 -05 and FY 2005 -06 can be subtracted from revenues that count against a redevelopment plan's tax increment limit. (Applies to older plans.) [Current law] • For agencies that have to incur additional debt to make payments under this requirement and that have project areas for which the time limit to incur debt expired on or before January 1, 2004, that time limit may be extended until July 1, 2006 for the purpose of making ERAF payments solely, without incurring an obligation to make pass- through payments to other taxing entities under H &S Code Section 33607.5. • ERAF payments are subordinate to new and existing repayment obligations. • ERAF accounts in each county are to be defined in such a way that they cannot be considered a "taxing agency" for purposes of making pass- through payments. • Redevelopment agencies are permitted to enter into loan agreements with a financing authority to borrow funds to make their ERAF payments with repayments to be made with future years' tax increment. (Read more on this below.) • Funds borrowed by redevelopment agencies to make ERAF payments are not subject to pre- existing pass- through agreements /requirements, housing fund set -aside requirements, or bonded indebtedness limits. Concerning the last two points, CRA has been consulting with bond counsel to develop a program that would permit agencies to borrow funds at reasonable rates from a financing authority for the purpose of making their ERAF payments. Loans would be repaid over several years using future years' tax increment. This would help financially strapped agencies and hopefully avoid a situation where an agency would have to rely on its host city or county general fund for its ERAF payment. More information about this loan program will be provided by CRA at a later date. If the four organizations representing local government —CSAC, the League, CSDA, and CRA- support this package, it will be submitted to the Legislature by the Governor. CRA's Board of Directors will meet on Thursday, May 13 during LOCAL Legislative Days to vote on the proposal. Under this scenario, the Initiative that was filed on April 15 (the Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act) will still appear on the ballot but not be actively supported. If legislative efforts fail to pass an acceptable alternative constitutional amendment for placement on the November ballot and appropriate implementing statutes, as described above, then we have the option of working to pass our original Initiative. Governor Schwarzenegger has made it clear that he is personally committed —in partnership with local government —to gaining passage of the above proposal in the Legislature and to leading the campaign for passage of a constitutional amendment in November generally equivalent to our Initiative. He has compared his commitment on this issue to his recent efforts on workers compensation reform and winning voter approval of Propositions 57 and 58. He has also indicated that if a compromise agreement is not reached, he will have no alternative but to oppose our Initiative. If you have comments or suggestions regarding this proposal for me or that you would like conveyed to the CRA Board for Thursday's meeting, please e-mail me at ishirevC@calredevelop.orcl. If you have a comment send an email to ishirev@ calredevelop.org. ATTACHMENT 3 The Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act Ensuring Voter Control Over Local Tax Dollars for Public Health, Safety and Other Essential Local Services The Problem: For more than a decade, the California State Legislature has been taking away increasing amounts of local tax dollars that local governments use to provide essential services like police and fire protection, emergency and public health care, roads, parks, libraries and water delivery. In fact, through good times and bad, the State has been taking away billions in local tax dollars each year -- forcing local governments to either raise local fees or taxes to maintain services, or cut back on critically needed services. The system is broken. Voters must act now to protect local services by protecting local revenues from being taken by the State. The Solution: The 2004 Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act would increase local control over our local tax dollars. This measure would let the voters have the final say on proposed actions by the State Legislature that would further reduce local government funding. It would protect the vital local services that California residents rely on each and every day — such as public safety and emergency care, roads, libraries, parks and transportation — by requiring voter approval before the State could reduce funding for local services or shift more costs to local governments. What this measure does: ❑ Requires voter approval before the Legislature can reduce local government revenues or take them for state, rather than local, purposes. ❑ Ensures that local tax dollars are available to fund local services like police and fire, emergency and trauma care, parks, roads, libraries and water delivery. ❑ Makes it absolutely clear that if the State Legislature mandates that local governments provide new or expanded programs or services, then the State would have to reimburse local governments for the cost of those programs. ❑ Provides flexibility for state budgeting decisions, but requires voter - approval on any future State Legislative actions that would reduce funding for essential local services. What this measure DOES NOT do: o Does not raise taxes. In fact, this measure will help decrease pressures for local fees and taxes by protecting local revenue sources from State raids. o Does not increase funding to local governments. Simply prevents the State Legislature from raiding future local government funding. o Does not reduce funding that schools receive from local property taxes or funding that schools receive from the State. o Does not reduce funding for other state programs like schools or highways. CALIF % RE]EVL WPIORT ASSOCIATION A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A STATEWIDE BALLOT INITIATIVE TO REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL BEFORE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY TAKE LOCAL TAX. FUNDS WHEREAS, state government annually shifts over SS0tl nnill %on in city property tax fiends statewide, costing cities ova S6,9 billion in lust revenues over the past 1.2 yam. seriously reducing resources available for local public safety and other services; and WHEREAS, state government annually shifts over 54,4 billion in cotmty property tax funds statewide, costing counties over 534.5 billion in lost revenues over the past 12 years, seriously redwing resources available for local health services and other services; and HEREEAS, on fvc occasions the state government has taken away redcvel • !rc increment funds totaling 5540 million,. including $135 million in fiscal year 2003-04 and fiscal year 2002-03; and aoy tax million in WHEREAS, in adopting the stage budget for fiscal. year 2003.04 the Legislature- and Governor appropriated loud vehiolc license fee backfill and redevelopment property tax funds that are needed to finance eritiesral services such as public safety, parks, street maintenance, housing and ecor,crrruc development; and WHEREAS, the deficit financing plan in the state budget depends on a local property and sales tax swap that le city and county services vu l► crablc if the state's economic condition fails to improve; and WHEREAS, the adopted state budget for fiscal year 2003 -04 assumes an cr budget deficit of at lcat SS billion, putting local government resources and services years; and ing structural risk m future WEI REAS, the deceit psrsistS that state leaden will continue tci use local tax funds to balance the state budget unless the voters limit the power of the Legislature and Governor to do so; and WHEREAS, the voters of California arc the best judges of whether local tax funds should be diverted, shifted or otherwise taken. to !mance state government; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly of the League of :California Cities alt its September 10, 2003 meeting vatcd to sponsor a statewide- ballot initiative to empower the voters to limit the ability of state government to divert or shift local tax funds to fund state government. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE- BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CALIFORNIA. REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION than the Board hereby expresses its strong support for a statewide ballot initiative to allow voters to decide whether local tax. funds, including redevelopment tax increment farads, may be taken, shifted; diverted or otherwise used to fund state government operations and responsibilities; and RESOLVED Fi3RTUER.,. that the Board of Dire tors. and staff are autliari • to provide impartial informational. materials on the initiative as may be lawfully provided; and RESOLVED FU�'BER, that the members of CRA are crease, to - become well infctrtiied on the initiative and its possible befits for the important services they provide. t400 K .ice, CA 95B143ittli 915:442.8760 It floc 916.4413.9397 * wwwca•red lopmentrorg ATOP R D this 7' day of Noventbee. 2003. T 0. CO E m 10 O 0 1) U_ O 0 0) L 0 ([I 17 f0 - 4 CO N E 0_ O O E > (0 N N N N (O 4' EE O 0 U4- 1D CO CO U CO = CO < O 0 ▪ C O) 0 4.-■ c 0 CO CD -o O m to 0 1- �� 0)) O) > • E.75 L rn [� (O • CO D- O CI (U 0 U 0 Q O o co 1nco c vi CD p) C6 L= ca LL U to U O 0 U CD N 0 (L C 0 0 0 11) ▪ 0 I- W O O Z ATTACHMENT 4 \ \ \ \° \° �° \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tt) to u0 u0 6 u) u) \° 0 O 0 u0 \o \o \o \o \° \ \ \ \ \ \o \o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . ui u0 u) u0 lL) LO u) u0 u) u0 u) LO \ 0 O 0 . u) \° 0 O 0 . ui \° \o \ \ 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 . . . . LD u) u) L1) \ 0 O 0 . u) \ o O 0 . L1) FY 05- Amount I NI-OCDTT0) N0)T1-0Tr 1'- co T - _ c c_ - (_ MN� CD LO V CDNN T L10 CO CD N N h h T T O6CDP.-0)OCDCDTr (0 N- co Nr0LD W 01'- (Ohl- CD CV MOOI-TrNODTO)(0 ' CD OD _ ou1WO ) O Tr co hNTT('4 - Tr co 10 OD T T N N co 1` (n _ T T T 0 M ' (DMTr (+) I�uOTT TT L.6 CD 117 D _ CD 0) N N _ T to o -- 0 0° a ii �u)h W'ct W OD0Tr WC) h h T CC C\i 6 6 ■ Co co�Cn u? o CO N O Co 0 o° ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 p ° CV OC'O h CO Tto 0 h 10 .• co CAhMc - .c O 6 m" c6 ui T W h 0 • p O Tr ��TNNNC0CDWT rs o W T 6 CD o c) Tr Tf °-0 o o TO W Q) hCDhN Ui 'R °f W CDT .0 o ti co o h N CO FY 04- Amount I 0) 0701 0)hN6 U1 r- Tr Tr W r- CO N tr co u) N co co _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (AL10N W rC CD (0 `Zr )CD0N W CO r _ T CV T Eft NO)OT.(0 CD CID 00) 100 W NNh V' CD CD 0 Tr OD CO r u) h e (D c) ' 6 CD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0)W W 0(') N-0)0) ON 01N.COCVNTNTNN U1 CO CO M (D _ W O T Ffl h W N' NO CAN r- up c)T O T _ N CO 0 0/ u) _ CV - CD Ee. W CD T- _ T (fl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 00 0 0 0) LC) u) t1) L1) 6 Ti 0 O 0 (I) Zile, 0.- 0 0 0 0.- 0 0.- .- 0) O O O O T O 0 0 0 0 0 0)0000C)0 0 v L1) L1) LC) ui L1) L1) t1) 10 ui L1) 6 0 O 0 LC) 0 (D h Ti 0 0-- 0 0 0 0 0 0000 O L() ui O 0 O 0 (C) 0 O u) FY 03- Amount CO OD O N W u) W0)0(1 (0 0) 0 T 0) W ' (D O (V h 0) h c`) O N 6 T CO T 0.1) h CO 0) 0) (0 MN CO W h Tr h h OD 11) r (D sr Tr WNMCAO)00)NO 0 CO CO 0 V' CO T CD CO T N ' LO N- h 0 C0 . • 0) N h h 0) O N CD C') C) CD T T T N N T 0, T T T W h 0) O M' CD O O CO ' T 1- (OT TOCOT N W L1) $ 58,594 1 O h 110 0) (A CD g.;..' o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00000 0 u) u) u) LC) ui u) 0 O 0 ui 8'9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 0 u) u) LC) 6 ui ui LC) ui ui 6 L1) u) 0 0 L1) 0 O O L1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 Lo (1) ui ui 5.00% 0 0 0 10 FY 02- Amount pu)0)ON CO uOCDTMO 0) CD CD COW C0 ' T 00 00 0) . 0 0) CD N CO N LO T N T N (O N CO CO CD (A h T W ONr Trr -T0)(0 CO u)NT W 11)N W Od)c7W (0 hTr Tr 0)hMNOMODN ' O 10 0) 0 (7 � 00 N (1) co- 0) NOD N O LO T r- T N NT N T T T 0) L) V' O T (O 69. h co N' T�rc- TC) CID T V L10 u) (1 $ 55,804 ((0 N CD CO CO 69 Fy 01 -02 Amount -O W CD W ONO) V' (1) P- CO ODhT ' h Whu)OCh W u)NhN V T N T ,L1) () 6 V R'') '(0 Oc+)N- 0) Wc010C)c+)1— 0) MLI)T N- NWT MLD O T 1- 0MOT Tr NTr '.1".6 0 CO �' ' (0 _W CD D O N.-. .,- h CV CD N CA tt T T r T N T N T r X) X00 CO. 0) Lc) M 1- N ' 0�r00 T CO CDT h N t1) $ 53,147 L1) M L) Tr CO CD From: WECIP WECIP - HOUSING BWIP BWIP - HOUSING APIP APIP - HOUSING COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION Total To: General Fund City Council City Manager City Clerk City Attorney Accounting/Treasurer Accounts Payable Human Resources Information Tech Dev Review /Policy Dev /Hab PW Admin PW Land Dvlp & Transport Building Service Code Enforcement Total General Fund Worker's Comp Risk Management Dental Insurance Unemployment Insurance Total other Fund Grand Total T 0. CO E m 10 O 0 1) U_ O 0 0) L 0 ([I 17 f0 - 4 CO N E 0_ O O E > (0 N N N N (O 4' EE O 0 U4- 1D CO CO U CO = CO < O 0 ▪ C O) 0 4.-■ c 0 CO CD -o O m to 0 1- �� 0)) O) > • E.75 L rn [� (O • CO D- O CI (U 0 U 0 Q O o co 1nco c vi CD p) C6 L= ca LL U to U O 0 U CD N 0 (L C 0 0 0 11) ▪ 0 I- W O O Z ATTACHMENT 4 WEST END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Fund 201 REVENUE Estimated Fund Balance brought forward Estimated Revenue Projection ?�? .,.� e xaam,&viiwr:.,w�n:dh� �F 2003 -04 ; Actual as of5/31/04 ,w�.,, . ,mss LD Varx � ' - ::s s„ 2004 -05 4,072,928 4'455,964 3,934,240 $ 2,653,698 3,565,992 TOTAL REVENUE $ 4,072,928 ; ,$ 4,390,204 $ 6,219,690 EXPENDITURES Administration 536,544 407,115 661,589 Debt & Interfund Transfers CIC Transfer Out 215,309 372,009 Interest Expense 139,959 71,196 Debt Service Obligations 474,987 2,710,867 Interfiend Transfers 174,982 161,259 ERAF 243,808 474,165 Subtotal Operating $ 676,503 i ,$ 1,587,398 $ 4,379,889 PROJECTS: Other Catalyst Projects /Public Iinprvts 661,615 23,465 233,457 Webster Street Streetscapes Phase I 100,000 91,269 10,000 Facade Improvements 100,000 27,450 50,000 Marina Village OPA 2,474,811 - (see footnote) Hawthorn Suites OPA 60,000 40,000 Subtotal Projects $ 3,396,426 ,$ 149,108 $ 333,457 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 4,072,929 ,$ 1,736,505 $ 4,713,346 REVENUE LESS EXPENDITURES -$ 1 $ 2,653,698 $ 1,506,344 FY 2003 -04: Actual fund balance brought forward based on audited financials as of 6/30/03 Marina Village OPA reimbursement paid from 2003 Merged Bond FY 2004 -05: Estimated Fund Balance brought forward based on actual spending as of 5/31/04 ATTACHMENT 5 —A WEST END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - HOUSING Fund 202 REVENUE Estimated Fund Balance brought forward Estimated Revenue Projection 2003 -04 ; 41 In � a• o. 2004 -05 Actual as of5/31/04 1,162,959 875,567 904,747 $ 1,060,975 898,000 TOTAL REVENUE $ 1,162,959 ; ' 1,780,314 $ 1,958,975 EXPENDITURES Administration Debt & Interfund Transfers Debt Service Obligations Intefazd Transfers Subtotal Operating PROJECTS: Independence Plaza 52 Unit 39 Unit Subtotal Projects 148,505 230,396 51,696 228,920 22,573 76,039 232,745 48,478 $ 378,901 1 $ 303,189 $ 357,262 779,502 - 416,151 630,000 585,000 85,000 $ 779,502 ; i 416,151 $ 1,300,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,158,403 1 i 719,340 $ 1,657,262 i REVENUE LESS EXPENDITURES $ 4,556 ; i 1,060,975 $ 301,713 FY 2004 -05: Estimated Fund Balance brought forward based on actual spending as of 5/31/04 ATTACHMENT 5 -B BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Fund 203 FY 2003 -04: Actual fund balance brought forward based on audited financials as of 6/30/03 FY 2004 -05: Estimated Fund Balance brought forward based on actual spending as of 5/31/04 ATTACHMENT 5 -C C 2003 -04 I as of5/31/04 2004 -05 REVENUE Estimated Fund Balance brought forward 0 107,404 1,319,370 Estimated Revenue Projection 2,538,300 2,840,009 2,828,000 TOTAL REVENUE $ 2,538,300 ; $ 2,947,413 $ 4,147,370 EXPENDITURES Administration 1,134,490 692,050 1,487,107 Debt & Interfund Transfers Debt Service Obligations - 869,000 Intefund Transfers - 232,538 515,343 ERAF 149,430 237,096 Subtotal Operating $ 1,134,490 i $ 1,074,019 $ 3,108,546 PROJECTS: Bridgeside shopping Center $ 100,000 100,000 Design Guideline 25,000 - 5,000 Downtown Vision Plan - - 10,000 Economic Development Strategic Plan - - 15,000 Facade Improvements 50,000 46,913 50,000 MTC Grant Match - - 200,000 North Waterfront Plan 30,000 2,632 Park Street Business Association 60,000 54,588 98,200 Passthroughs 833,810 301,595 350000 Property Based Improvement District - - 40,000 Other Catalyst /Public Improvements 130,000 1,254 Retail Business Training 40,000 - 5,000 Land Planning Project 30,000 Website - - 5,000 West Alameda Business Association 60,000 47,042 74,000 Subtotal Projects $ 1,403,810 ; $ 554,025 $ 882,200 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 2,538,300 i $ 1,628,043 $ 3,990,746 i REVENUE LESS EXPENDITURES $ - ; $ 1,319,370 $ 156,623 FY 2003 -04: Actual fund balance brought forward based on audited financials as of 6/30/03 FY 2004 -05: Estimated Fund Balance brought forward based on actual spending as of 5/31/04 ATTACHMENT 5 -C BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - HOUSING Fund 204 FY 2003 -04: Actual fund balance brought forward based on audited financials as of 6/30/03 FY 2004 -05: Estimated Fund Balance brought forward based on actual spending as of 5/31/04 ATTACHMENT 5 -D � 2003 -04 : Actual as of5/31/04 2004 -05 REVENUE Estimated Fund Balance brought forward 300,000 399,706 406,105 Estimated Revenue Projected 643,300 581,171 653,000 TOTAL REVENUE $ 943,300 ; $ 980,877 $ 1,059,105 EXPENDITURES Administration 215,014 200,326 344,131 Debt & Interfund Transfers Interest Expense AUSD Obligation 202,000 232,468 261,200 Debt Service Obligation 143,160 79,884 189,854 Interfund Transfers 22,922 17,191 68,059 Subtotal Operating $ 583,096 ; $ 529,869 $ 863,244 PROJECTS: 626 Buena Vista 19,732 4,864 14,868 Marina Cove Phase II 50,000 Housing Projects Miscellaneous 33,126 ADC Agreement 118,537 40,040 78,497 39 / 52 Unit Predevelopment - Subtotal Projects $ 221,395 I $ 44,904 $ 93,365 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 804,491 I $ 574,772 $ 956,609 REVENUE LESS EXPENDITURES $ 138,809 I $ 406,105 $ 102,496. FY 2003 -04: Actual fund balance brought forward based on audited financials as of 6/30/03 FY 2004 -05: Estimated Fund Balance brought forward based on actual spending as of 5/31/04 ATTACHMENT 5 -D ALAMEDA POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Fund 205 REVENUE Estimate Fund Balance brought forward Estimated Revenue Projections CIC Transfer In 2003 -04 ; Actual as of5/31/04 2004 -05 584,854 - 0 309,455 215,309 0 392,965 372,009 TOTAL REVENUE $584,854 I 1524,764 $764,974 EXPENDITURES Administration Debt & Interfund Transfers Interest Expense Inte and Transfers Subtotal Operating PROJECTS: Subtotal Projects 332,044 252,810 293,748 94,991 136,024 381,834 74,853 308,287 $ 584,854 I 1 524,763 $ 764,974 $ - ; 1 - $ - TOTAL EXPENDITURES $584,854 ; 1524,763 $764,974 i REVENUE LESS EXPENDITURES $0 1 10 $0 ATTACHMENT 5 -E ALAMEDA POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - HOUSING Fund 206 REVENUE Estimated Fund Balance brought forward Estimated Revenue Projecttions 2003 -04 i Actual as of5/31/04 2004-05 74,797 174,300 77,364 208,544 76,293 TOTAL REVENUE $ 74,797 I 4' 251,664 $ 284,837 EXPENDITURES Administration Debt & Interfund Transfers Interfund Transfers Subtotal Operating PROJECTS: Subtotal Projects 67,676 7,121 43,120 107,048 21,372 $ 74,797 ; $ 43,120 $ 128,420 $ - 1 $ - i TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 74,797 ; 4' 43,120 $ 128,420 REVENUE LESS EXPENDITURES $ - ; J/ 208,544 $ 156,416 FY 2003 -04: Actual fund balance brought forward based on audited financials as of 6/30/03 FY 2004 -05: Estimated Fund Balance brought forward based on actual spending as of 5/31/04 ATTACHMENT 5 -F 2004 -05 I 5,778,018 537.531 c 't arc — rn N 537,531 $ 537,531 I n so 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 •- r o _ o 0 m o rn '. w N 0' 0 co � rn w. '0 G u1 M SO 0 o o °o o $0 1 55.778.018 I as of5/?1/ 11.1 9 8.000. ti 0, S 2.200. 1 3 2. ) ; S 32.. 2.232,. 6 0' O nl 3 ('I Cn GO O 4 00 CO r nr Y C rn r 0 co rn CO C 0 N GO C) co O N O 00 G. r u'f O M 49 r -t o ri O to O O b 0 0 co- n! .■ 0 ui N 00 w N N C< 8 0 0 0 00 00 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' O r r a n 0 r - ^ (-4, u'1 cel' Cal O rn O N rrnj 3' Cn -r 'T C• l0 N CO 0 0 N 0 cnO 00 h 'n 0 0 'n GO O o 0 O 0 0 tfr 53 h Cr 0 00 GO O Tr, 9D 0 _ a 0 u � o .1c=.1 = r: jr c '14 Et Lr SCtiC W TOTAL EXPENDITURES z W W • O CO �+7 CD to a. 0' O 3 vi • l0 N C L • C � CZ N X C N N N Cy U a la E m li m c C U a !a 0 A U a i9 L TI M m 2 .0 O • d 9 0 • 3 = 0 a • U a Tc m • d 0 C . CO 0 a0 U Cp 9 N N Q 0 E E • o Lm •p mW O m9a W O O ▪ NN } l Z L u. ATTACHMENT 5 -G BWIP HOUSING BOND Fund 204.4 REVENUE Estimated Fund Balance brought forward Estimated Revenue Projections Earned Interest s ;ABU ®GE�� 2003 -04 ; Actual as of5 /31/04 2004 -05 - 2,165,000 2,165,000 76,295 842,528 - TOTAL REVENUE $ 2,165,000 I $ 2,241,295 $ 842,528 EXPENDITURES Administration Debt & Interfund Transfers Interfund Transfer Subtotal Operating PROJECTS: East Housing / 39 Units East Housing / 52 Units Subtotal Projects - 855,822 855,822 - - $ 855,822 ; $ 855,822 $ - - 800,000 - 542,945 500,000 257,055 $ 800,000 ; 1 542,945 $ 757,055 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,655,822 1 $ 1,398,767 $ 757,055 i REVENUE LESS EXPENDITURES $ 509,178 1 $ 842,528 $ 85,473 FY 2003 -04: Actual fund balance brought forward based on audited financials as of 6/30/03 FY 2004 -05: Estimated Fund Balance brought forward based on actual spending as of 5/31/04 ATTACHMENT 5 -H MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY- -JUNE 10, 2004- -6:00 P.M. Acting Mayor Daysog convened the Special Meeting at 6:31 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. [Note: Mayor Johnson arrived at 7:00 p.m.] Absent: None. (04 -278) Study Session to consider the City's Two -year Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2004 -06. The City Manager provided a packet of information in response to requests made by Councilmembers at previous budget sessions. Acting Mayor Daysog requested staff to review the cost of closing City Hall one day per month; stated that he e- mailed his calculations to the Council. The Public Works Director continued his Power Point presentation on the Public Works Department budget. Councilmember Matarrese stated an additional $280,000 can be saved by not filling positions; requested staff to keep track of said money, which can be used for other purposes. Mayor Johnson requested staff to provide information on the number of telephone lines that could be charged the proposed 911 fee. Councilmember Kerr stated cutting the $1 million in support to the School District should be considered; urged enforcement of State laws at the Harbor Isle Apartments and Alameda Point Collaborative. Vice Mayor Daysog noted that in 1996, it was proposed that a night club pay for police calls; requested staff to review whether the Harbor Isle Apartments could be faced with the same pressure. Mayor Johnson stated police service costs should be put on the responsibility of the owner of the Harbor Isle Apartments; requested staff to review whether an ordinance could be created to require security at the complex to abate the nuisance; stated the residents of Alameda should not have to pay for the task force created to handle the problems at the apartments; further stated Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 10, 2004 the Council does not want the City to have to continue paying for the high number of calls anymore; requested staff to find a way to stop spending City resources on the Harbor Isle Apartments. Councilmember Kerr noted the same direction should be applied to the Alameda Point Collaborative. The Council questioned the assumptions built into the CalPERS fresh start scenario. Councilmember Matarrese requested the costs be recalculated using a worst -case scenario of a 5% return. Mayor Johnson requested staff to determine how 5% cuts could be made without impacting service levels. In response to Vice Mayor Daysog's comments regarding closing City Hall for one day per month, the City Attorney stated that she would provide a history of the legal issues; noted that when the City closed City Hall on Fridays, the unions sued the City. Following Council comments on the Alameda Power and Telecom (AP &T) transfer, the City Attorney stated Alameda City Charter Section 12- 6 is subject to multiple interpretations; that she would provide a memo on the matter. Mayor Johnson requested staff to review whether AP &T's public use money could be spent on solar power for the new library. The City Attorney stated that Council is directing legal staff to work with AP &T in order to determine the particular parameters of the transfer and to transmit a request to the Public Utilities Board to be expansive in its interpretations. Vice Mayor Daysog requested staff to review the cost of providing 5 more part -time park directors and to review the option of closing City Hall one day per month; stated a scenario should be presented that does not require draw down on the General Fund reserve. Mayor Johnson stated that revenue generation should include the 911 fee and CalPERS fresh start; the City Manager should work with departments to find other money in the budget; the fire truck is needed and should not be cut; police officers should not be taken off the street. Vice Mayor Daysog stated Council needs to understand the Alameda City Employee Association's interest, which should be included in analysis. Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 10, 2004 Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:31 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 June 10, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -JUNE 15, 2004- -7:28 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:09 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Agenda Item (04- ) Recommendation to approve a Finding that repair of the Harbor Bay Terminal Facility constitutes a great necessity or emergency that requires immediate action without bid and authorize the City Manager to enter into such Agreement(s). Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the Harbor Bay Ferry service was started by Harbor Bay. The Ferry Services Manager responded that the service was built with public money provided by the City; the Contract was administered by Doric Development. Councilmember Kerr stated that the service was built before the City was involved with the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry. The Ferry Services Manager stated that the service was built in 1991; funding came from public sources. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether sources were from Transportation Improvement Funds, to which the City Manager responded that staff would conduct research and provide an answer to Council. Councilmember Kerr inquired into the funding sources for the current repair. The Ferry Services Manager responded that the City applied for the Regional Measure 1 2% Capital Projects Fund; there is money allocated in 2003 -04 for projects which have not been completed; there is an application for approximately $400,000 in projects for 2004 -05; the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is working with Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2004 1 the City on reallocation for the Harbor Bay emergency. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the funding apply to the Harbor Bay service, to which the Manager responded funding is for Harbor Bay and services. On the call for the question, the motion carried by vote - 5. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson Special Meeting at 8:36 p.m. would normally Ferry Services Alameda /Oakland unanimous voice adjourned the Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council June 15, 2004 2 UNAPPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY - - - JULY 1, 2004 - - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:43 p.m. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call: Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, Commissioner Torrey and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 6. Absent: None. Agenda Item (04- ) Recommendation to allocate HOME Funds for Short -Term Rental Assistance Program and authorize the City Manager /Executive Director to negotiate and execute related agreements. Mayor /Chair Johnson requested the Housing Authority Executive Director to provide a brief explanation of the Section 8 Program; stated the public is being misdirected; energy could be spent more effectively; that she wants to provide an opportunity to educate the public. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated that the Section 8 Program is a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded federal government program initiated in 1974; Program is for cities and communities throughout the country; the Section 8 Program is approximately 50% ($30 billion) of the IUD budget; Program provides low income families with housing subsidies; families rent a unit on the open market from a private landlord; a housing authority enters into a contract with the landlord to pay the difference between the landlord's established contract rent and 30% of the tenant's income; in Alameda, the housing subsidy is approximately $1000 per month, per family; there are approximately 1,625 families on the Section 8 Program; in January 2004 HUD changed funding of the Program; prior to January, funding was on a per -unit basis, regardless of the cost; HUD and Congress are now trying to put a cap on the cost; HUD established that costs would be frozen for the average cost from May, June and July of 2003; an adjustment factor was applied; the City was notified in early May that HUD's June housing subsidy payments would be cut by more than 50 %; the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners advised spending down reserves in order to make the June 1 payment; the Housing Authority no longer Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners July 1, 2004 1 has any reserves; in May, the Housing Authority was advised of available funding for July and subsequent months of the fiscal year; there was an approximate $250,000 shortfall for July; recommendation was made to terminate some families from the Section 8 Program. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired why the Housing Authority was short 250 vouchers. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded that HUD's funding formula provided approximately $1.5 million in funding per month; over $1.7 million per month is needed; staff calculated that 250 families would need to be terminated; 238 families were actually terminated. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether monthly funding would provide for approximately 1400 vouchers, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the affirmative. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated that termination notices were issued on June 4; staff has been successful in reducing approximately 100 rents through a reasonable rent test; budgeting process provided extra money; approximately 50 families have been absorbed into other housing authority programs; landlords have voluntarily reduced rents; termination notices have been recinded for 105 families; about 120 families may need to be terminated from the Program. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the original 238 families have been reduced to 120, to which the Housing Authority Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog stated that the Housing Authority and Council need time to review other strategies, such as rent increases, to allow the 120 families to remain in Alameda. Councilmember /Commissioner Kerr stated that Section 8 subsidies come from the federal government; the federal government cut the funding; the City did not cut anything; the Housing Authority is a pass- through organization for the federal funding; encouraged people to go to federal representatives who have the power to do something about the situation; that she was disgusted that HUD reinitiated cash flow to several cities other than Alameda. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that the City is still working on the issue; concurred with Councilmember Kerr; stated representatives are sympathetic to the cause; constituents should make phone calls Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners July 1, 2004 2 and send letters; Council has expressed concern to the representatives. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the City has a calculation for rent increase, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the negative; the payment standard can be anywhere between 90% to 11O% of the fair market rent; payment standard was just lowered to 90% of the fair market rent, allowing payment of a smaller subsidy to the landlord; the tenant is still required to pay only 30% of their income for rent; tenant could voluntarily pay more out of pocket; rent increase would be different for each tenant based upon income; City's hands are tied because of federal law; an act of Congress is needed to change formula. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the $250,000 per month discrepancy results in a difference of $155 per month, per unit, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded the difference is approximately $132 per month, per unit; he spoke to a HUD representative who indicated calculations may not be available for a couple of weeks; the Housing Authority calculates additional funding to be approximately $90,000; through landlord rent reductions, the gap could be closed for the fiscal year. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether federal representatives' telephone numbers and addresses are publicly available; to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded that information is available at the Housing Authority office and on the web site. Mayor /Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting. Speakers: Mai Lan Thi Do, Alameda; Hoa Duong, Alameda; B. Brooks, Campaign for Renters Rights; Lucinda Rosmon, Campaign for Renters Rights; Nguyet Ie, Alameda; Jeremy Prickett, Campaign for Renters Rights; Annie Kane, Alameda; Hong; Richard Melyn, Campaign for Renters Rights; Raquel Kuronen, Law Center for Families; Meka Acrey, Alameda; Ruben Tilos, Alameda; John Reimann. Mayor /Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the meeting. Councilmember /Commissioner Kerr moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog stated that focus needs to be on buying time; that he is not convinced that one month Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners July 1, 2004 3 of HOME funds adequately exhausts all potential solutions; more than one month is needed to help families find adequate housing; $130,000 is not enough; that he will support recommendation but the City needs to address a three -month timeframe; there might be other solutions such as utility credits; there are some limited funds that might buy more time to find a good solution. Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor /Commission Daysog; stated there is a tremendous impact when the Program moves from a voucher system to a block grant system; planning for that eventuality may lead to a solution; block grant systems reduce the amount of subsidies; City will continue to work until there is a solution; inquired whether approval of the recommendation bought time for the remaining 138 families, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded that acceptance would buy time for the remaining 120 families for the month of July. Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether rent reasonableness has been applied on 100 units, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded it has been applied to over 100 units; staff needs to continue working for the remaining units. Mayor /Chair Johnson stated it is important to go through the procedure as soon as possible. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog stated that the City owes low income Section 8 tenants more time; that the Housing Authority knew about the over leasing problem months ago; the problem worsened in May when the over leasing was compounded with the budget change; could have prepared families earlier; exhausting all solutions takes time. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated that the over leasing issue was brought to the Board of Commissioners in February; the City will try to get funds back; a fee cannot be charged to tenants; tenants paying extra is a good concept; the Authority is working with the Red Cross to set up a fund for displaced Section 8 tenants; landlords and tenants could make tax deductible contributions to the fund through the Red Cross. Commissioner Torrey thanked the landlords and the tenants who relinquished rights to the Section 8 Program; concurred with Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog regarding the need for more time. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Daysog requested that the motion include that options be provided by the third week of July. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners July 1, 2004 4 Mayor /Chair Johnson stated options could be provided at the next meeting. The Housing Authority Executive Director stated that he would attend the July 6 and July 20 Council meetings. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 6. There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the. Special Joint Meeting at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners July 1, 2004 5 UNAPPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL THURSDAY - - - JULY 1, 2004 - - - 7:31 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 9:00 p.m. Roll Call: Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. (04- ) Study Session to consider the City's Two -year Financial Plan and Capital Improvement Projects for Fiscal Year 2004 -06. Alan Elnick, Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA), stated that ACEA remains without a contract; that he met with City representatives on June 8 and was disappointed no suggestion for direction was taken; ACEA attempted to offer some direction; the City acts in an unlawful manner by not making efforts to come to some type of agreement; City employees have acted in decorum in light of adversity; the City Manager's 5% budget reduction only eliminates positions of ACEA employees; Council has recommended that the Equipment Operator be retained for use by the Parks Department; ACEA recommends offering the position to the Golf Department or offer the position back to the Parks Department; the City Manager intends to propose a 10% reduction scenario which would include eliminating a full time Maintenance Worker II position; ACEA recommends reviewing the Human Resources Department; there was a position created to help Alameda Power and Telecom in recruitment processing; staffing needs are no longer needed; the position is no longer necessary; there should be some leveling in the management structure. David McGraw, COPPS Unit, urged that the COPPS Unit not be cut. Betty Cosmos, Volunteers in Policing, provided the Council with an overview of the Crime Analysis Division job functions. The City Manager provided a packet of information in response to questions made by Council at previous budget sessions; stated that the original set of recommendations have been modified to include deeper cuts in a number of departments; per Council's previous direction, three police officers and a telephone operator have been restored; two new dispatchers have been added; 9 firefighter positions have been restored; the 911 public safety access fee has been reduced to $2.00; the CalPERS "fresh start" is included for public safety sworn personnel to generate additional cash flow. Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 1, 2004 Councilmember Matarrese requested Council to determine what the reserve threshold should be. Councilmember Kerr stated that reserves should be used as little as possible; requested staff to review having a sliding scale on the first land /cell phone line; that cutting the $1 million in School District support should be considered; inquired whether Animal Control would be contracted out. The City Manager responded that a report addressing Animal Catrol options would be presented to Council in six months. Vice Mayor Daysog requested the possibility of having more park directors be explored. Mayor Johnson inquired how the volunteers would be affected by the cuts, to which the Police Chief responded that a review of COPPS Unit recommendations would be provided to Council. Mayor Johnson requested staff to review ways to not have the City Manager and City Attorney offices closed one day per week. Councilmember Matarrese stated Council direction should not include cuts in points of service; requested that 5% in maintenance and park supervision cuts be held in abeyance for six months and then re- evaluated. Following Council comments on funding for recreation leaders at all 10 City parks, Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether funding would be for one leader at each park for the two -year fiscal budget, to which the Mayor responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Daysog requested staff to provide a spreadsheet outlining trends and City reserves, to which the City Manager responded that a previously submitted spreadsheet would be updated and presented to Council. The City Manager suggested that Council approve direction given and that adoption of the budget be placed on the July 20 City Council agenda along with the Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment budgets. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she advocates applying the $25,000 paid in Police overtime staffing of School District sporting events and dances to Park and Recreation programs. The Police Chief stated that the schools' Superintendent is endeavoring to reimburse the Police Department for the expense; Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 1, 2004 that he would provide Council with an update. Mayor Johnson requested staff to provide a continual overall review of capital improvements, special funding balances and redevelopment projects. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of direction to proceed forward with the adoption of the budget for Fiscal Year 2004 -06, to include authorization of funds for recreation leaders and maintenance at all ten parks and deleting the $1 million in support to the School District. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there should be further discussion on the 911 fee, to which the City Attorney responded that the fee is for direction only. Councilmember Matarrese stated that if the fee is not approved, some public safety services would be lost. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that his motion was based upon the 911 fee being linked as a source of revenue that pays for public safety. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 10:45 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 July 1, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -JULY 6, 2004- -5:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 5:40 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent: None. The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the special meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding the property located at 2322 and 2329 Lincoln Avenue, the City will no longer pursue efforts to acquire the property. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 6:25 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 July 6, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY- -JULY 6, 2004- -6:15 P.M. Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the special council meeting 6:25 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers /Board Members Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese, and Mayor /Chair Johnson - 4. Absent: Vice Mayor /Board Member Daysog - 1. The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of case: Alameda Unified School District v. City of Alameda. (04- ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: Alameda Point, 2200 Central Avenue and Encinal Terminals; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Alameda Unified School District; Under Negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, Mayor /Chair Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, Legal Counsel provided a status briefing; and regarding Conference with Real Property Negotiators, the Council /Authority obtained a briefing and instructions were given to Real Property Negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 7:00 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 July 6, 2004 UNAPPROVED MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - JULY 6, 2004 - - - 7:15 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:05 p.m. Roll Call Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. Agenda Item (04- )Request from Alameda Unified School District that the City Council place a ballot measure for voter consideration on the November 2, 2004 Election which would amend the City Charter by deleting Article XI and references to the Alameda Unified School District. The City Clerk stated that Council could place the ballot measure on the November 2, 2004 Election as late as August 6; suggested resolution be placed on the July 20 City Council agenda in order to allow for preparation of ballot arguments. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the School District forwarded sample language for changing the charter, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the drafted language would need to go back to the School Board, to which the City Attorney responded it is not legally required; that the School District would most likely appreciate input. Mayor Johnson stated that the language currently provided is inadequate to address charter issues; the City Attorney has offered to help the District draft the language and go through procedural issues. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the School District would hopefully formalize their desire to work with the City Attorney in drafting the language; that a special School District meeting would need to be held. The President of the School Board concurred with Vice Mayor Daysog; stated that the District is up to the challenge. Councilmember Matarrese moved acceptance of the request and Alameda City Council Special Meeting July 6, 2004 1 directed the City Attorney to work with the School District on drafting language and reviewing procedural steps. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Adjournment There being no further business, the Special Meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Alameda City Council Special Meeting July 6, 2004 2 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - JULY 6, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:15 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES (04- ) Mayor Johnson announced that the resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Public Use (Library and Public Parking) [paragraph no. 04- ] was removed from the agenda. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (04- ) Proclamation announcing July as the Recreation and Parks month. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Jay Ingram, Chair of the Recreation and Park Commission. (04- ) Presentation by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) of a Historic Preservation Award to the City of Alameda for the Structural Retrofit of the Carnegie Building. Janelle Spatz, President of AAPS and Christopher Buckley, AAPS presented a Historic Preservation Award to the Council. (04- ) Presentation by Bay Area Water Transit Authority (BAWTA). Steve Castleberry, Chief Executive Officer of BAWTA gave a brief Power Point presentation on ferry services. (04- ) New Main Library Project update. The Library Project Manager gave a brief presentation. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 1 [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *04- ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings held on June 10, 2004 and the Special and Regular City Council Meeting held on June 15, 2004. Approved. ( *04- ) Recommendation to accept the work of Linear Options, Inc. for the Traffic Striping Project, No. P.W. 12 -03 -19 and authorize the City Manager to extend the Agreement with Linear Options, Inc., for an additional year. Accepted. ( *04- ) Recommendation to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Fremont to provide plan review services to the City of Alameda. Accepted. ( *04- ) Resolution No. 13737, "Calling for a General Municipal Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide General Election, to be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 and Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to Permit the County Clerk /Registrar of Voters to Render Specified Services to the City Relating to the Conduct of Said Election." Adopted. ( *04- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsections 2 -8.2 (Membership; Term of Office; Removal) and 2 -8.3 (Qualifications; Quorum; Voting) of Section 2 -8 (Transportation) of Chapter II (Administration) to Reduce the Size of the Transportation Commission from Nine to Seven Members; Allow for Staggered Terms and to Reduce the Size of the Quorum from Five to Four Members. Introduced. ( *04- ) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan Amendment MPA04- 0002 - Bayport Stormwater Improvement Project - Amendment to the Catellus Master Plan and Catellus Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan to Allow for a Stormwater Treatment and Detention Pond, Pump Station and Force Main along the Western Edge of the Proposed Business Park and a Stormwater Outfall into the Estuary at the Former FISC site, North of Tinker Avenue, Tract 7179. Introduced. ( *04- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $ 3,948,916.17. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (04- ) Resolution No. 13738, "Reappointing Leslie Krongold as a Member of the City Library Board." Adopted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 2 Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms. Krongold with a certificate of reappointment. (04- ) Resolution No. 13439, "Reappointing Patrick Lynch as a Member of the City Planning Board." Adopted. Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Resolution No. 13470, "Reappointing Robert A. Bonta as a Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr. Bonta with a certificate of reappointment. (04- ) Resolution No. 13741, "Reappointing Jim C. Franz as a Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board." Adopted. Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr. Franz with a certificate of reappointment. (04- ) Resolution No. 13742, "Reappointing Karin Lucas as a Member of the City Public Utilities Board." Adopted. Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms. Lucas with a certificate of reappointment. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 3 (04- ) Recommendation to nominate Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee representatives. Continued to July 20, 2004. (04- ) Recommendation to consider a City recognition honoring former Acting Mayor, Al DeWitt. The Recreation and Park Director stated that the Council initially discussed how to appropriately recognize former Councilmember Al DeWitt last year; a letter was received from Mosetta Rose London requesting that the Council consider renaming the Alameda Point Officer's Club in honor of former Councilmember DeWitt; the letter indicated that the club has sentimental value for the family; the Recreation and Park Commission considered the request on June 10; the Commission unanimously recommends that the City Council consider renaming the Officer's Club in honor of former Councilmember DeWitt; the City Manager recommends Commission's recommendation be considered as well as any other Council suggestions. Mosetta Rose London, Alameda stated that Mr. DeWitt was a great human being; that the club holds sentimental value for his widow. Vice Mayor Daysog stated Councilmember, Vice Mayor and Acting Mayor DeWitt stepped forward twice to serve Alameda at a trying time in its history; he did so with dignity and great courage; the City should express gratitude and thanks and recognize him in a way that is befitting; the Council should rename the Club in his honor; Mr. DeWitt stepped up to calm things down in the 1960's when there were difficult times regarding fair housing. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that Al DeWitt had an officer's bearing to the very end; there should be a fitting marker and monument dedicated to him; requested that a plan for recognition be forwarded to the Council prior to implementation. The City Manager stated a plan would be presented to Council. Councilmember Gilmore stated that Al DeWitt was an officer and a gentleman; that she does not recall a single instance where someone was able to ruffle him; he was always calm, cool, collected and unfailingly polite; he was passionate about his beliefs; that she will always honor and admire him. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 Mayor Johnson stated that Mr. DeWitt was a role model and hero for the community; she is please to recognize him. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Public Hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 21 -1 (Definitions) of Article I (Definitions) and Subsection 21 -20.4 (Charges for Service) of Section 21 -20 (Franchise Agreements) of Article III (Franchise Agreements); and Adding a New Subsection 21- 2.7 (Integrated Waste Collection Required) to Section 21 -2 (Collection and Removal) of Article II (General Regulations) of Chapter XXI (Solid Waste and Recycling). Introduced; and (04- A) Resolution No. 13743, "Establishing Integrated Waste (Solid Waste, Recycling and Organics) Collection Ceiling Rates and Fees for Rate Period 3 (July 2004 to June 2005)." Adopted. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing. Opponent: Bernard Chalip, Alameda. Proponent: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association. In response to Mr. Chalip's comments, Mayor Johnson requested the City Attorney to address the legality of the action. The City Attorney stated the action is amendment of the existing Franchise Agreement with a waste hauler for garbage and recycling; the contractual obligation was entered into as part of a public request for proposals; the amendment addresses requests for rate changes; the charge is a fee for garbage hauling service and is not considered a tax. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the City would no longer have control over costs; the CPI rating for the Bay Area during the last twenty years has averaged 4.9%, with 4.6% as the median; on average, a 5% increase can be expected, which is of concern; when the City works with a franchisee, predictability, quality service and a fair price are expected; that he understands ACI's frustration due to misinformation being provided during the bid process; however, ACI has been in the business for many years; that he is concerned about forcing residents to pay more to offset staff's or ACI's mistakes; encouraged finding a better solution; stated expecting a 5% Regular Meeting 5 Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 increases every year is not fair. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the staff recommendation, including Option 2 [elimination of annual fall clean -up, implementation of residential rerouting and an earlier start time, prohibition of new ten - gallon solid waste customers, and elimination of compost giveback]. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated Alameda is one of the most densely populated cities in the Bay Area; having trash picked up every week is a public health issue; the City has to provide a safe environment and must have'contractors meet said goal; the rates are not being raised over 2001 rates; the issue could be reopened if the increases are untenable, such as for rate period 4; inquired whether the rates are set for rate period 3, not the life of the Contract. The Public Works Director responded adoption is for rates 4 and 5; the Franchise Agreement already guarantees ACI cost -of- living adjustments; ACI would have to agree to amend the Franchise Agreement to eliminate cost -of- living adjustments; ACI has agreed to limit the adjustment to 5%. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the [5%] cap is the new addition to the provision, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1. (04- ) Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to amend the FY 2004 -05 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan and authorize the City Manager to execute related documents and agreements; (04- A) Resolution No. 13744, "Authorizing Submission of a Section 108 Loan Guarantee Application to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development." Adopted. The Development Services Director stated the program acts upon the loan guarantee provision of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and combines funding with Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI), which is a grant component of the application that makes the application competitive; 60 days ago HUD put out a notice of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 6 funding availability for the program and indicated it would be the last round for BEDI, which is not recommended for funding next year; it could be the last round for Section 108 funding as well; Council is being asked to consider using the funding as an alternative for financing for the downtown parking structure and theater project. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the funding would be used in place of tax increment. The Development Services Director responded it is possible; the theater project has a smaller project and larger project, which would include the Long's property; $20 million has been bonded, both taxable and non taxable, that would be used for a combination of rehabilitation of the theater and construction of brand new, first -run theaters and a parking structure; there is a possibility that additional funding could be needed as contingency to accomplish the entire project; there also might be a much larger project that could be accomplished with additional funding; there is an opportunity to potentially substitute bond funds and /or be able to accomplish the larger project; the timing of the funding availability requires the City to act now to be competitive; if funding is received, the City can choose whether to accept some or all money. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a potential for bond money to be freed up and made available for more projects, to which the Development Service Director responded in the affirmative; stated BEDI funds, combined with Section 108, are achieving lower rates than the rates currently achieved on the bonds; funding used in the recommended method of a permanent interim status can be prepaid and used in a financing strategy that could make bond money available for other projects; since the City has to meet the application deadline, she would recommend moving forward and a financing plan could be presented when the project is presented to Council. Councilmember Matarrese stated the report mentions the Community Improvement Commission would identify an alternative debt - service repayment source; inquired what the source might be. The Development Services Director responded the source could be lease revenues from the project, parking revenues from the project, rental revenues from the retail spaces in the project, tax increment dollars, or non -block grant dollars; the idea is to absolve the City of its first line of repayment and funds and substitute some other form of income; a financing plan would show the City has the resources and the performa to support repayment. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 7 Vice Mayor Daysog stated when the bonds were issued, $10.3 was set aside for the parking structure; at the time, a clear report costing out the project was not provided; inquired whether the parking structure is still estimated to cost $10.3 million; inquired whether eleven underground storage tanks would effect the costing of the project. The Development Services Director responded the tanks are on the Video Maniacs site and would add to the cost of the project; if there is funding in the State's underground storage tank program, the private property owner should have the tanks removed before transferring the property to the City. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether staff knows how much tank removal would cost, to which the Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated staff has an estimate; the cost is marginal in the scheme of the project; the parking structure cost of $7 or $10 million, depending on the number of spaces, could be achieved; Council will be able to make decisions about how to proceed with the project; tank removal is not the largest ticket item for the project. Vice Mayor Daysog stated $10.3 million in bonds were issued for the parking structure; the bonds came in two series; inquired whether there are any rules about using the bonds for the purpose indicated at the time of issuance; now, only $3 million would be used from bonds for the parking structure, rather than using $10.3 million; inquired whether there are rules for the remaining $7 million originally intended for the parking structure. The Development Services Director responded the City has significant flexibility in the financing rules as long as money is used for eligible projects; there is a division of bonds funding the parking structure; one is taxable, which anticipated the private activity, and the other is tax - exempt issuance, which anticipates using a portion of the parking for public purposes; as long as the bond money is used for public purposes, private purposes, and economic development projects disclosed in the boundaries of how the money can be used, there is flexibility. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the Council needs to have clear reporting on how the projects are costed out, such as, costs for labor, material and remediation; the Council has not received any of the due diligence reporting which is generally received prior to issuing bonds; now, $7 million is being sought; a doubting citizen might question whether the additional $7 million is to cover cost overruns or unexpected costs. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 8 The City Manager stated a number of projects were identified in the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP), which formed the basis for issuing the tax allocation bonds; there is flexibility to decide how funds will be applied to each project; staff is looking at the $7 million as another opportunity to further leverage funds; there are more projects than the City has funds to complete; staff is looking for opportunities to acquire additional funds to complete projects for the community; if the additional funds are used for the project, $7 million could be freed up and the Council would decide how to apply said money. Vice Mayor Daysog stated Council has the responsibility to be accountable to residents; in order to be accountable, Council needs to know what projects cost; Council has not received a due diligence report; the EDPS was a vision statement; staff must go beyond the vision statement and come up with actual plans and costs to allow Council to track how the money is being spent. The City Manager stated staff completes the due diligence on a project -by- project basis; each project is brought to Council for approval before proceeding; there is a stream of accountability for each project as it relates to the available funding sources; substantial studies are not completed without a source of revenue. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether professionals have completed due diligence reporting on the parking structure and the theater and whether said information could be shared with Council. The Development Services Director stated staff has reviewed the configuration due to Long's interests changing; for the theater project, staff has very specific costs and is in the process of value engineering the costs; appraisal work and other estimating has also been completed; for the parking structure, there are two sets of costs which are as good as can be completed without designing the project. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether said information could be provided to Council. The Development Services Director stated staff is planning to present the information in August; redesign of the theater has caused some influx in cost; typically, requests would be brought to Council in a different order; the project would be more pinned down, based on bond financing and staff would ask Council to review a potentially better financing plan; the funding opportunity is going away and is competitive; staff is not sure the City will be awarded the funding. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 9 Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he agrees the product and cost should be known before going after money. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could decline the money, to which the City Manager and Development Services Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated project costs cannot always be nailed down; the final decision has not been made on the options for the parking structure. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired why the City would get involved with funding if the cost is not known. The Development Services Director responded the money could be substituted out [with bond money]; the rates being achieved cannot be beat in the market. Councilmember Matarrese stated the action is akin to being pre - qualified for real estate transactions; the ability to finance is sometimes needed prior to purchasing the property; the funding can always be declined; the City should go after the money, especially since the fund will be drying up. Councilmember Kerr stated that she would vote for the staff recommendation if the motion specifically included that the funding be brought back to Council to decide whether to accept or decline the funds, not that the funds be automatically accepted on a staff level; redevelopment funds are under attack in Sacramento; the City has to be prepared for a certain amount of uncertainty in redevelopment funds; if the funds are received, the matter should be placed on a City Council agenda. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Kerr was making a motion. Councilmember Kerr responded that she would make said motion [moved approval of the staff recommendation with the requirement that the funding be placed on a Council agenda to decide whether to accept or decline the funds, rather than funds being automatically accepted on a staff level]. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1. Councilmember Kerr stated that she respects Vice Mayor Daysog's comments; Council needs to take another look at the issue. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 10 Vice Mayor Daysog stated it is a matter of principle; the Council needs to know the costs; contamination issues arose in the report and were not in previous reports, which shows costs are not being tracked and are not transparent to the Council. (04- ) Recommendation to award Contract for operation of Alameda /Oakland Ferry Services to Blue & Gold Fleet, authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute the Agreement for Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and allocate $548,000 in Measure B funds for Alameda /Oakland Ferry service operations; award Contract for operation of Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Service, authorize the City Manager to execute the sixth amended and restated Operating Agreement for the East -end ferry service and allocate $166,000 in Measure B funds and $186,000 in Transportation Improvement Funds for Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry operations; and authorize the City Manager to execute the Ferry Service Agreement between the City of Alameda and Port of Oakland. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Kerr stated that she is disappointed that the two ferry services could not be combined, but she is pleased that funding is available to continue the ferry services; that she would not want the City to rush into transferring the ferry service to the Bay Area Water Transit Authority because the City would have to compete for available funds with other more powerful cities in the Bay Area. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04- ) Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Public Use (Library and Public Parking); Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for Order of Possession; Finding and Determining that All Requirements Have Been Met for Consideration of Adoption of Resolution; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et seq.; Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (2320 -2322 Lincoln Avenue, Alameda). Not adopted. * * * Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:33 p.m. and reconvened the regular meeting at 9:47 p.m. * * * (04- ) Public hearing to consider appeals of the Planning Board Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 11 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. 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; and (04- A) Resolution No. 13745, "Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Board's Approval of a Use Permit UP04 -0019 for the Conversion of an Existing Industrial Building to Work /Live Studios at 2515 Blanding Avenue." Adopted. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Opponents (Opposed to appeal): Flavia Krasilchic, Alameda; Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Makes Economic Sense (HOMES); Moira Fossum, Alameda; Paul Fossum, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda; Stuart Flashman, Attorney for Janet Koike; Betsy Mathieson, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Richard Neveln, Alameda; and Janet Koike, Applicant. Proponents (In favor of appeal): Ed Murphy, Appellant; Pat Bail, Appellant; and Jon Janes, Allied Engineering and Production. Neutral: Jeff Cambra, Alameda. Following Mr. Janes comments, the City Attorney noted that the Applicant's attorney agreed that as a condition of the project all leases would notify tenants of noise issues. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing. Mayor Johnson requested that the City Attorney explain why the project complies with Measure A. The City Attorney stated the issue has been addressed in the staff report and also in adoption of the work /live ordinance; the answer is that Measure A, Charter Article 26, only regulates dwelling units; a work /live unit is not considered to be a residential dwelling unit by the State legislature and City Council; the units are considered commercial in nature; the State requires that the zoning applied to the unit is commercial and cannot be residential; said premise was used for the adoption of the work /live ordinance. Mayor Johnson stated a comment was made that the ordinance would apply to very few buildings in the northern waterfront; inquired whether staff knew how many buildings would be eligible for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 12 work /live consideration. The City Attorney responded the ordinance was adopted six years ago and the project being considered was the first application received; there might be two other possible applications. The Supervising Planner responded the City has one additional application for the Del Monte building, which includes a work /live component; staff had an inquiry for the building at the corner of Oak Street and Blanding Avenue, although the building might not be able to be converted due to lack of maintenance; relatively few buildings would meet the requirements under the work /live ordinance, such as parking, land for each unit, and developing industrial units; there have been very few applications or inquiries; the project is the first application which has been brought forward since the ordinance was adopted in 1998; there is only one other active application. Vice Mayor Daysog read Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30 -51.3 (c); stated the section does not allow anything [development] above two units; questioned whether anything [development] three units or above would contradict the Code section; stated the work /live ordinance created a new Code section; inquired whether there are two contradictory ordinances. The City Attorney responded the question goes back to the definition of dwelling unit; the State legislature determined that work /live units are commercial, not residential; the interpretation was adopted by the Council in 1998, is the City's current interpretation of dwelling units, and is the law on the books. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether Alameda could choose not to accept the State definition as a Charter City; inquired whether the definition was accepted by virtue of the November 1998 ordinance. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated in order to change the City's interpretation, the Council would have to amend the work /live ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese stated that a 1973 ordinance adopting AMC Section 30 -51.1 defined a dwelling unit as a building or portion thereof designed exclusively for residential occupancy; inquired whether the units are not considered dwelling units based upon the ordinance adopted in 1973. The City Attorney responded the City adopted the definition in 1973 and also in 1998. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 13 Vice Mayor Daysog stated the Code Section states dwelling units shall mean a building or portion thereof; in the case of work /live, "a portion thereof" could mean the dwelling unit within the work /live unit is a dwelling unit because it is a portion thereof; a dwelling unit does not have to be completely residential, but can be a building with a portion thereof [used for residential]. Councilmember Kerr stated that she voted for the 1998 ordinance; the Charter does not state two dwelling units, it states multiple dwelling units; the Charter itself does not restrict a building to two units; the Council quickly made up for the deficiency in the Charter language with an ordinance [in 1973]; if someone thinks work /live units are dwelling units, then there could be a conflict between the 1973 ordinance and the 1998 ordinance; there have been comments that the work /live ordinance permits a higher density than Measure A; in 1998, she added a requirement for a 2,000 square -foot lot area per work /live unit; work /live units lessens commute; that she voted for the ordinance for the same reason she supports Measure A, which is preservation; recently, she has been concerned about the trend in the City; people supporting the project have strong, personal political agendas to which they are entitled; however, they are leading the City in the wrong direction; one high- density housing advocate continually says the 2,000 square - foot requirement in the work /live ordinance should be removed; there are plans and activism to make the ordinance high- density; that she is concerned about the over 200 work /live units planned for the Del Monte building, which is overkill; putting work /live units into the corrugated, falling down mess at the corner of Oak Street and Clement Avenue would be abuse of the work /live ordinance; the ordinance has not stood the test of time and seems vulnerable to abuse; that she supported the ordinance for the preservation of industrial buildings in the northern waterfront; unfortunately, a developer is talking about getting rid of the western limitation of Sherman Street and moving the boundary west of Webster Street, which was not the intent of those who supported and helped write the ordinance in 1998. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the City Attorney provided information on the history of Measure A; prior to the 1973 election, the supporters understood that it would not apply to duplexes, which was in the literature they distributed; a memo from the City Manager at the time indicated that Measure A would allow duplexes, but nothing more; the ordinance that followed two months after the passage of Measure A defining multiple dwelling units did not establish definitions in vacuum; Measure A was not just about preservation of Victorians, it also addressed density issues, such as traffic and population growth management; said issues are contained in the literature. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 14 Councilmember Gilmore stated Councilmember Kerr's concerns are well taken; the ordinance should not be required to do more than intended; if a developer wants to move the boundary in the ordinance, the decision rests with the Planning Board and City Council; other buildings that could fall under the purview of the ordinance, such as the building at Oak Street and Blanding Avenue, would have many hurdles to overcome in order to be deemed sufficient; the ordinance is for revitalization of existing structures and preservation of historic buildings; people want to stretch every ordinance to the limit; the Council and Planning Board are the watchdogs; rather than the ordinance failing, the problem might be the way some people seek to have it applied. Councilmember Kerr stated all ordinances are fragile and can be changed; that she supported the ordinance thinking of buildings in the northern waterfront; the ordinance was meant to save structures and enhance the historic character of the City; that she was over optimistic or trusting when she voted for the ordinance. Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance has been in place since 1998 and the challenge [lawsuit] was dismissed; inquired what the City's position would be if the project was not approved. The City Attorney responded the existing definition and interpretation of the City Council is embodied in the ordinance; the Applicant applied in good faith upon the definition that a [work /live] unit was not a residential structure; for future projects, the City Council could seek to amend the ordinance and change the definition to have work /live units considered residential in nature and within the scope of Measure A; however, presently, the Council is bound to the interpretation of the previous Council as embodied in valid legislation; the City will be sued either way; the Applicant's attorney has indicated that interpreting Measure A is not the question before Council; the current definition of a dwelling unit is set forth in the work /live ordinance; the current interpretation of the City is that the units are considered commercial in nature. Mayor Johnson stated the application for the project was made with the ordinance in place; the Applicant acted in good faith under the current ordinances; the [1998] lawsuit was dismissed; the ordinance was not challenged when it was adopted in 1998; that she is concerned about historic preservation of the northern waterfront; if something economically viable is not permitted, the buildings might as well be demolished to entice other types of development; that she would not want to see bulldozers and new development; something will occur in the area; Council should choose what it Regular Meeting 15 Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 would like to see; if there are inconsistencies, the Charter would trump the ordinance; there is not an easy answer; going along with the ordinance or rejecting the project based on Measure A does not solve the problem of what will happen with the historic structures in the northern waterfront area; a 1991 measure was placed on the ballot regarding the red brick building, which failed and resulted in demolition; there might not be a choice on the current project; the ordinance was in place and the City will be sued if the project is denied; in the interest of historic preservation, the Council should consider putting a measure on the ballot, limited to the subject of the work /live ordinance. Councilmember Matarrese requested clarification about what should be placed on the ballot. Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should be placed on the ballot; some adjustments could be made to the language to have the ordinance refined; the votets could decide what should be done with the northern waterfront; there is no easy solution. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he would want to hear community input on the Mayor's suggestion. Councilmember Gilmore inquired, as a matter of statutory construction, how to resolve two conflicting ordinances. The City Attorney responded there are a number of areas of statutory construction; the specific trumps the general; the more recent is sometimes taken into account because the legislative body is considered to have knowledge of that [prior ordinance]; basically, the law would strain to make the ordinances be deemed compatible in the interests of justice. Councilmember Gilmore stated Councilmember Kerr was clear that Measure A, the Charter Amendment, was not specific in the number of dwelling units; the clarifying language addressing duplexes came later in an ordinance. The City Attorney concurred; stated the Charter has general language; the Council has to interpret the general words of the Charter. Councilmember Gilmore stated the issue is the conflict between two ordinances; the Charter Amendment [Measure A, 1973] was not specific. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the people who promoted the Charter Amendment were clear as to what they meant by multiple dwelling Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 16 units. The City Attorney stated the work /live ordinance was adopted in conjunction with Health and Safety Code Section 17958.11, which was adopted by the State legislatures and authorized cities to permit conversion of commercial and industrial buildings to work /live quarters; the legislature indicated that these [units] are commercial in nature and that residential zoning cannot apply; the legislative determination that it [work /live unit] was commercial was considered in 1998 and the Council adopted and approved the legislative determination; the current Council is subject to the ordinance's interpretation; Council could change the ordinance or put it on the ballot; there are numerous options for future action; the particular interpretation can be changed. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the project would be held in abeyance. The City Attorney responded the position communicated by the Applicant's attorney is that there is a valid, binding ordinance adopted in 1998, which defined work /live units not to be residential; therefore, not dwelling units and not within Measure A; that is the current interpretation as embodied in the legislation; however, if Council is inclined not to support that [interpretation], there are some findings that the Planning Department can present for consideration that address specifics of the projects, for example, the location is not compatible and Council could address other issues. Mayor Johnson stated avoiding litigation would be nice; inquired whether Council could make a decision on the project and put a moratorium on the ordinance and demolition of structures in the northern waterfront area until the Council has an opportunity to consider what should be done about historic preservation in the northern waterfront area. The City Attorney stated staff would need to review whether the moratorium would apply to the completed application for the Del Monte building, which includes 60 work /live units; staff would determine whether the [Del Monte] Applicant has a vested right to proceed based on the completed application. Mayor Johnson stated a moratorium could be put in place and who it applies to could be determined later. The City Attorney stated the ordinance could be rescinded; that she would have to research the state of the Del Monte application; the only possible exception to the moratorium would be the Del Monte Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 17 application; any future projects in the City would be subject to the moratorium. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the Del Monte application was completed. The Supervising Planner responded the application is complete; stated the only outstanding issue is the location of the Clement Avenue extension; Planning and Public Works have been working on said issue. Councilmember Kerr outlined changes in the Del Monte project; stated that she has been following changes, which have been going on for many years. The Supervising Planner stated the actual application was for approximately 100,000 square feet of retail space, 60 work /live studios, an interior two -story garage, and some very small retail spaces along the northern and southern edge of the east side of the building. Mayor Johnson stated the moratorium does not need to be decided tonight. Councilmember Matarrese stated tonight the Council is addressing an appeal of the Planning Board's decision on a specific project; the Applicant has followed the existing ordinance and has gone through the Planning Board process; the ordinances have been in place for over 6 and 30 years and have not been successfully challenged. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of upholding the Planning Board's decision [adoption of Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Board's Approval of a Use Permit UP04 -0019 for the Conversion of an Existing Industrial Building to Work /Live Studios at 2515 Blanding Avenue]. Councilmember Matarrese stated the project meets all the intents of Measure A; it preserves a building and has a potential for reducing traffic, based on the previous use of the building; that he would hesitate to call the building historic; the issue is commercial; an abandoned, close to blighted commercial space is being put back into commercial, productive use; the people occupying the space are joining the industrial base of Alameda, not building a community; the area is a commercial industrial zone, not residential; Allied Engineers is correct in ensuring that the occupants realize that they are conducting businesses and not dwelling, which was in the 1973 ordinance and was used to approve the 1998 ordinance; the project does not clog neighborhoods and is good for Alameda's tax Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 18 base. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Daysog stated that his concern about the work /live ordinance is that it gives ammunition to people who want to shoot up Measure A; if the project is approved, any discussion in the form of a community meeting is being precluded; the wiser course of action is to put the project on abeyance and have the discussion about how to proceed on the northern waterfront; approving the project ends the discussion. Mayor Johnson inquired how the Council could go forward either with a moratorium or with modifying or revoking the ordinance, along with a moratorium on demolition of buildings in the northern waterfront area; inquired whether the matter should be placed on an agenda or included in the motion. The City Attorney responded the motion could include direction to staff to bring back a moratorium. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmembers Matarrese and Gilmore would amend the motion to include a moratorium until there is further Council discussion. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the moratorium would apply to the project being considered. Mayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated the moratorium would be on future projects. Councilmember Matarrese stated the moratorium should not apply if to someone who has read the ordinance, put in an application and the application has been accepted. Mayor Johnson stated that she is not clear on said issue; Councilmember Kerr is correct in questioning whether the future project [Del Monte] is complete; there have been many changes over time; that she would not assume that adopting a moratorium would violate the [Del Monte] project. Councilmember Matarrese stated for the purpose of getting the current project approved he would amend the motion to add a moratorium for future projects. The City Attorney stated staff is taking direction to bring back appropriate, legislative action; a moratorium would not be put in place tonight. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 19 Mayor Johnson inquired whether the moratorium could return at the next meeting, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmembers Matarrese and Gilmore agreed to amend the motion. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she does not agree that approving the project tonight would have a chilling effect on discussion, rather it would be the opposite; regardless of the Council action tonight, people supporting Measure A are not going to back down and will be advocates for discussion; there will be a full - fledged discussion; that she would vote to approve the project because the Applicant completed due diligence; Alameda has a reputation for not being friendly to businesses; the matter is primarily a commercial concern; the environment will be work /live; the business owner successfully completed an application under the ordinance; it is appropriate for the City to have a serious discussion. Mayor Johnson stated that she has talked to Measure A supporters who worked to pass the measure and believe the work /live ordinance does not violate Measure A; there is not a consensus on the matter. Councilmember Kerr stated that she voted for both versions of Measure A and has always been a Measure A supporter; the conflict is between two ordinance; firmer boundaries should be imposed by Charter amendment or by imposing a moratorium; many people are viewing the project as the hole in the dike. Mayor Johnson stated there could be an ordinance that identified specific buildings. The City Attorney stated the criteria in the ordinance could be changed or strengthened, for example, to address maintenance issues or other commercial requirements. Mayor Johnson stated the historic structures in the northern waterfront area should be identified along with how buildings will be preserved. The City Attorney stated the Supervising Planner confirmed the building is on the historic study list and is considered a historic resource; the ordinance can be readily changed to incorporate any additional protections, criteria and directions that Council chooses. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Regular Meeting 20 Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and Kerr - 2. Councilmember Kerr stated preservation is a good goal, which would exclude certain buildings; that she would not support moving the boundary westward; that she would not want to preserve some of the old hangers. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (04- ) Bernard Chalip, Alameda, submitted a letter to Council and addressed problems he has had with his request to be exempted from the recycling program. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (04- ) Discussion regarding Susie Q's bar on Lincoln Avenue. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the City Manager officially contact Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) and ask for the revocation of Suzi Q's license; stated that their license was previously suspended; upon reinstatement, there was a major incident of violence involving the neighbors and patrons; the business should not be allowed to continue. Councilmember Kerr stated that taking action is important; there are a lot of residents in the area; the bar is making night time living untenable for the people who live in the C -1 district. Mayor Johnson stated that she has never received a complaint about the bar directly across the street from Suzi Q's; that she would support Councilmember Matarrese's request; inquired whether an ordinance could be established to give the City more leverage to take action; inquired whether the City had an adequate nuisance ordinance. The City Attorney responded that the City has nuisance ordinances that are embodied in specific code enforcement criteria; there is also an administrative citation process. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Suzi Q's could be shut down for code violation because permits were never obtained for the pool hall. The Chief Building Official responded that code enforcement action has been initiated; a letter is being sent to the property owner. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Police Chief's report states that if any problems continue after the 30 -day suspension, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 21 the owner would seek a permanent license revocation. The Police Chief stated that there have not been any incidents since the assault. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he received a call informing him that there were a number of calls made last night. The Police Chief stated many hours have been spent investigating the situation; the Police Department has been unable to uncover anything; Sergeant Joe Dwyer conducted a criminal investigation of the incident; the matter was referred to the District Attorney's office and the incident was determined to be a situation of mutual combat; no charges were filed; State law prohibits smoking inside an establishment; that people go outside to smoke and talk which may result in an increase in noise; that the Police Department will continue to give good service but will not harass. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was enough evidence to go back to ABC, to which the Police Chief responded that there is nothing right now. The Police Chief stated that in the past, similar situations have been resolved through mediation. Mayor Johnson suggested implementing mediation, to which the Police Chief responded that mediation was floated without success; that he would try again. The City Manager stated that the Police Department could request mediation in writing. Mayor Johnson requested staff to review other tools to deal with this type of situation. Councilmember Kerr stated that noise is one of the basic problems; that the City has noise ordinances in residential areas; suggested the ordinance include specific time restrictions for commercial areas. The Police Chief stated that putting ABC on written notice is a good idea. The City Manager stated that the mediation request and letter to ABC would be initiated. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether there would be a continuance of the code enforcement, to which the City Manager responded in the Regular Meeting 22 Alameda City Council July 6, 2004 affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the letter should highlight that there was a license suspension and after reinstatement, there was a major incident involving violence; ABC could tell the City what should be done. The City Manager stated that he would follow up on the matter. (04- ) Councilmember Kerr stated that fireworks were set off in the Windriver park on the Fourth of July; small children were in the area; inquired what could be done to enforce prohibiting illegal fireworks. The City Manager stated that he would follow up on the matter. Mayor Johnson stated that Oakland's campaign against illegal fireworks was unsuccessful. (04- ) Vice Mayor Daysog stated that Dr. Sam Doctor with Advancing California Emerging Technology, has voiced concern regarding the potential loss of federal funding. The City Manager stated that the City would try to address the matter by July 14. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 11:40 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 July 6, 2004 23 UNAPPROVED MINUTES MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY- -JULY 7, 2004- - 5:31 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 7:23 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1. The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (04- ) Public Employment; Title: City Manager Following the Closed Session, the special meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced the Council discussed the performance and qualifications of the City Manager. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the special meeting at 8:15 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 July 7, 2004 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: July 7, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James Flint City Manager Re: Quarterly Sales Tax Report For the Period Ending June 30, 2004 For Sales Transactions in the First Calendar Quarter of 2004 BACKGROUND This sales tax report and the accompanying charts relate to sales tax receipts for the period ending June 30, 2004 and are for sales transactions occurring January - March 2004 (first calendar quarter). DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Quarterly sales tax revenues decreased by 8.82% as compared to the quarter of the prior year after adjusting for one -time payments. Key declines came from office equipment, miscellaneous retail, leasing and miscellaneous vehicle sales. The three economic areas vital to the City's sales tax revenue are: transportation (31.17% of total), general retail (21.12 %) and food products (24.65 %). These three categories produced 76.94% of the City's sales tax revenue for the first calendar quarter. A comparison of the major business groups is as follows: Dedicated to EJccellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -B CC 7 -20 -04 2004 2003 Percent Change Economic Category Total Percent of Total Total Percent of. Total -1.46% Transportation $365,465 31.17% $371,073 28.84% 1.26% Food Products 289,187 24.65% 285,582 22.20% -3.58% General Retail 247,814 21.12% 257,011 19.97% - 32.49% Business to Business 216,483 18.45% 320,689 24.92% 4.25% Construction 47,299 4.03% 45.327 3.52% -3.51% Miscellaneous 6,765 0.58% 7,011 0.54'% -8.82% Total - Quarter $1,173,193 100.00% $ 1,286,693 100.00% Dedicated to EJccellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -B CC 7 -20 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 7, 2004 Page 2 of 3 A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the quarter just ended as compared to the same period in 2003 follows. On a quarterly basis, 23.99% of the 2004 citywide sales tax revenues were generated by the top 5 sales tax generators, and if we add the next block of 5, these 10 businesses generated 32.71% of the total quarterly sales tax revenues for the City. The top 100 sales tax generators contributed 73.44% of the total. The sales tax digest attached (see page 2) lists the top sales tax producers for the quarter. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Current Year Prior Year Percent Change Geographic Areas 1st Qtr 2004 Total Percent of Total 1st Qtr 2003 Total Percent of Total 0.99% Park - North of Lincoln $ 288,063 24.55% $ 285,250 22.17% 1.07% South Shore Center 240,447 20.50% 237,910 18.49% - 2.77% Park - South of Lincoln 122,832 10.47% 126,337 9.82% 7.68% Marina Village Business Park 94,025 8.01% 87,320 6.79% 4.46% Webster -North of Lincoln 68,942 5.88% 65,997 5.13% 0.69% Neighborhood Commercial Districts 57,095 4.87% 57,702 3.69% -2.67% Northern Waterfront 46,200 3.94% 47,465 5.32% 1.33% Harbor Bay Landing 50,572 4.31% 49,910 3.88% -0.62% Marina Village Shopping Center 35,499 3.03% 35,719 2.78% -23.11% Alameda Point 34,978 2.40% 36,670 2.85% 5.90% Harbor Bay Business Park 35,490 3.03% 33,512 2.60% - 77.93% Balance of City 35,662 3.04% 161,579 12.56% 3.96% Mariner Square 17,747 1.51% 17,071 1.33% 9.49% Webster — South of Lincoln 28,529 2.43% 26,057 2.03% 4.11% Fernside Center 10,990 0.94% 10,556 0.82% 49.5% Ballena 12,908 1.10% 8,634 0.67% 0.00% Heritage Bay - 0.00% - 0.00% -8.82% Total - Quarter $1,173,197 100.00% $ 1,286,689 100.00% On a quarterly basis, 23.99% of the 2004 citywide sales tax revenues were generated by the top 5 sales tax generators, and if we add the next block of 5, these 10 businesses generated 32.71% of the total quarterly sales tax revenues for the City. The top 100 sales tax generators contributed 73.44% of the total. The sales tax digest attached (see page 2) lists the top sales tax producers for the quarter. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 7, 2004 Page 3 of 3 An annual comparison by business class as compared to the same reporting period for 2003 is as follows: Percent Change Economic Segment 2004 Percent of Total 2003 Percent of Total 2003 2 -year Change -0.54% Transportation $ 1,532,859 30.64% $ 1,541,174 29.63% $1,619,937 -5.38% 6.23% Food Products 1,207,270 24.14% 1,136,487 21.85% 1,124,991 7.31% -2.31% General Retail 1,155,619 23.10% 1,182,984 22.74% 1,250,141 -7.56% - 23.54% Business to Business 847,234 16.94% 1,108,142 21.30% 1,088,439 - 22.16% 4.54% Construction 200,389 4.01% 191,695 3.69% 206,400 -2.91% 41.49% Miscellaneous 58,712 1.17% 41,496 0.80% 38,229 53.58% -3.84% TOTAL - QUARTER $ 5,002,083 100.00% $ 5,201,978 100.00% 5,328,137 -6.12% BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT Sales tax revenues amount to 10.0% of total general fund revenues. On an annual basis, revenues reflect a 3.84% decline over 4 quarters in 2003. The sales tax estimates for 2003 -04, projected a 3% increase over actual revenues in 2002 -03. The year -end report (which will be submitted in late August 2004) will reflect actual sales tax receipts for the fiscal 2003 -04 year. RECOMMENDATION None. This is provided for informational purposes only and requires no action from the City Council. JB /dl Attachment cc: Rob Ratto, PSBA G: \FINANCE \COUNCIL \072004 \SALESTAX. doc Respectfully submitted, James M. Flint City Manager elleAn t: oyer Chief Financial Officer Dedicated to E,(cellence, Committed to Service Citv of IN)te(k CO n0C'0d Reconciliation SBE Collections Analysis Local Collections Share of County Pool (2.71 %) Share of State Pool (.13 %) SBE Net Collections Less: Amount Due County 5.00% Less: Cost of Administration Net 102004 Receipts Net 1 Q2003 Receipts Actual Percentage Change City of Alameda Sales Tax Digest Summary SECOND Quarter Collection of FIRST Quarter Sales 02/14/2004 — 05/13/2004 Quarter 1, 2004 $1,325,475 144,327 2,165 1,471,967 (73,598) (11,528) 1,386,841 1,292,773 7.3% AIBIA MBIA MuniServices Company FIRST Quarter Economic Performance Analysis Local Collections Less: Payments for Previous Periods Preliminary 102004 Collections Projected 102004 Late Payments Projected 102004 Final Results Actual 102003 Results Projected Percentage Change Historical Cash Collections Analysis by Quarter O OS r. o. Z z $1,800 $1,600 $1,400 (in thousands of $) $90 $SO ' Zi� $70 . C $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $o • • • • • ■ • • • • co $50 rrr $40 $30 c $20 Q . . . . . ■ . . ■ . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4Q2001 • • ■ ■ • • ■ 11 1 1 71 1 1 1 1Q2002 2Q2002 3Q2002 4Q2002 1Q2003 2Q2003 3Q2003 4Q2003 ■ 1� 1Q2004 $10 $o Net Receipts i JState & County Pool Receipts --SBOE Ad min Fees Due --•— County Sharing Due Sales Tax and Gasoline Information $1,325,475 (204,156) 1,121,319 51,870 1,173,189 1,286,693 -8.8% The surging gasoline prices will pump an extra $18.5 million into local sales taxes this quarter. Gas prices were 28% higher in the first quarter of 2004 over the same quarter one year ago. Will price increases be offset by lowered demand? U.S. petroleum demand is expected to increase by 1.7% in 2004 and 2.0% in 2005 from growth in real disposable income, employment and consumer confidence — all this despite over 20% increases in fuel costs per mile. Prices are still historically low as adjusted in 2004 dollars for inflation. Real Gasoline Pump Price: Annual Average 1919 -2005 Source: Sales tax data; Energy Information Administration 400 300 200 100 0 Projections _l► I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N N CO c c co cr V1' iN[) LLU) U <O (0 (00 co r ti CO GOO OD 00 COO 0) 0)) 0)) co co, O) O) CO 0) CO 0) t3) t?) O) O) Q) O) 0) G) 0) CO CO 0) CO CO 0) 0) C) CO 03 0) 0) O O O O Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 1 City of Alameda Top 25 Sales /Use Tax Contributors The following are the City of Alameda's top sales /use tax contributors in alphabetical order for the most recent four quarters. The top 25 sales /use tax contributors generate 48.1% of the jurisdiction's total sales /use tax revenue. ALAMEDA ELECTRICAL ALBERTSON'S FOOD CENTERS ARCO AM /PM MINI MARTS CARGILL SALT CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS DATA 911 FUTURE COMPUTING SOLUTIONS GOOD CHEVROLET LONGS DRUG STORES MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS MERVYN'S DEPARTMENT STORE OFFICEMAX PAGANO'S ACE HARDWARE PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES PITNEY BOWES INC. RITE AID DRUG STORES RON GOODE TOYOTA ROSS STORES SAFEWAY STORES SVENDSEN'S BOAT WORKS TRADER JOE'S COMPANY UNION 76 SERVICE STATIONS WALGREENS DRUG STORE WIND RIVER SYSTEMS XTRA OIL COMPANY Historical Sales Tax Amounts Year End FIRST Quarter 2002 to Year End FIRST Quarter 2004 Economic Segment Analysis by Benchmark Year (in thousands of $) •1Q2004 • High • Low $1,000 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 ■ ■ ■ ■ • 1 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ $o , ?� ,'0 eo „, gyp` , �° �,�`' ° 40 � ' 4 ti$° k4F Economic Segment Analysis by Benchmark Year Which segments are up which are down V Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 2 (in thousands of $) ®1Q2003 • 1Q2004 $900 $800 $700 $600 $500 s. $ $200 $100 �¢S�a �C' r_, I I 1 �� °, 4�z> 4Q4 �9c+� c5�3 cQ 4 ' 1 ,:t- �'`s F 0 `b °. ,.4 �cS sc °` 3i ``a¢ v 1 gees °may PJ�o ' 1 S' °4 �Jy4` `1�. �`�� `- 4 3`� ,,, ,6 I c °` Which segments are up which are down V Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 2 City of Alameda Sales Tax Composition Key Economic Annual Changes Miscellaneous Closed Acct - Adjustmt Health & Government Business To Business Energy Sales Office Equipment Food Products Food Processing Eqp Food Markets Construction BIdg.Matls -Whsle BIdg.Matls- Retail % Chg $ (000) Chg 41.5 -23.5 6.2 4.5 0.000 11.000 -2.000 - 156.000 34.000 17.000 7.000 1.000 Quarterly Key Gains and Declines for FIRST Quarter 2004 Office Equipment Miscellaneous Retail Misc. Vehicle Sales Leasing Recreation Products Heavy Industry Florist/Nursery Chemical Products Auto Sales - Used BIdg.M atls -W hsle Food Processing Eqp Electronic Equipment Light Industry (in thousands of $) -121 (in thousands of $) -9 -6 ,533 f gi3O i, _l. -3 I -21 -21 1.532 -(= 7 jr -11 r^ sl 1,3411 ? -� 6-r; 0 __ 1 11 1 12 13 1,339';; . 10 - _..._ -- 1 1,620 .. 16 -- ,. 11 -$140 -$120 -$100 -$80 -$60 -$40 -$20 $0 $20 Annual Sales Tax by Business Category 1 Q2004 4Q2003 3Q2003 2Q2003 1Q2003 4Q2002 3Q2002 2Q2002 1Q2002 4Q2001 (in thousands of $) ,533 f gi3O i, _l. 1.532 -(= 7 jr r^ sl 1,3411 ? -� 6-r; __ 1 1 1,339';; . - _..._ -- 1 1,620 .. 16 -- ,. :•: j $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 •General Retail •Food Products El Transportation ®Construction ©Business To Business •Miscellaneous Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 3 City of Alameda FOURTH Quarter 2003 Final Results • $1,368,052 Local net cash collections • $75,383 Less pool amounts • $130,187 Less prior quarter payments • $113,529 Add late payments • $1,276,011 Local net economic collections after adjustments • DOWN BY 2.0% compared to FOURTH Quarter 2002 MMC Audit Results MMC performs an on -going audit for the City of Alameda. This quarter, the City received $91,544 in sales tax from MMC audit efforts, bringing the total sales tax revenue produced by MMC to $1,398,113. The net return to the City on MMC fees is currently 729.4%. (In thousands of 5) Per Capita by Business Segment $60 Auto Sales - New Restaurants Service Stations Food Markets Office Equipment Miscellaneous Retail Drug Stores Misc. Vehicle Sales Light Industry Department Stores Apparel Stores Auto Parts /Repair BIdg.Matls•W hsle ALL OTHERS xi rf Fl In HIIIHrmilliiilin Per Capita by Business Segment Benchmark Year Ending FIRST Quarter 2004 Five Year Economic Trend: Construction Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 4 Per Capita by Business Segment Auto Sales - New Restaurants Service Stations Food Markets Office Equipment Miscellaneous Retail Drug Stores Misc. Vehicle Sales Light Industry Department Stores Apparel Stores Auto Parts /Repair BIdg.Matls•W hsle ALL OTHERS $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 4 H z W U W U no wo W <W wz O� >-I E--1 X U� w U 0 a AUTO SALES - NEW H z g H c SERVICE STATIONS FOOD MARKETS OFFICE EQUIPMENT MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL DRUG STORES MISC. VEHICLE SALES LIGHT INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT STORES APPAREL STORES AUTO PARTS /REPAIR BLDG.MATLS -WHSLE BLDG.MATLS- RETAIL ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT FOOD PROCESSING EQP z w a BUSINESS SERVICES FURNITURE /APPLIANCE RECREATION PRODUCTS LIQUOR STORES ALL OTHERS HEALTH & GOVERNMENT HEAVY INDUSTRY FLORIST /NURSERY BENCHMARK YEAR ENDING FIRST QUARTER 2004 0 N r) r-■ 0 N 0 O 0c are 6604 (00 oc are c00 \ boo c are 0 o� 0 0c ar. 00 0c BY QUARTER AND BENCHMARK YEAR ENDING QUARTER W z n W a,o d - W c3 0 O N Q O O Ifg U O� H [-, O u i 0 � z 0 H � o ° W U cn W BENCHMARK YEAR ENDING FIRST QUARTER 2004 {{ #fl +Hfi 0 0 0 0 CO 69 '9 g 0 0 0 0 0 us 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 ss BENCHMARK YEAR ENDING QUARTER HIM 0 8 8 8 8 0 o s 0 0 0 8 00 O 0 0 po g o O 8 e 8 f 0 BENCHMARK YEAR ENDING QUARTER CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 1, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Accept the Work of SIMCO Construction, Inc., for Alameda Fire Station No. 3, Facade Repair and Apparatus Upgrade, No. P.W. 08 -03 -17 BACKGROUND On November 18, 2003, the City Council adopted plans and specifications, called for bids and authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute all agreements for award of the construction contract for Fire Station No. 3, Facade Repair and Apparatus Upgrade, No. P.W. 08- 03 -17. On January 6, 2004, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $118,500.00, including contingencies, to SIMCO Construction, Inc. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The project has been completed in accordance with the Plans and Specifications and is acceptable to the Public Works Department. Extra work orders were issued for modifications resulting from unforeseen conditions, code requirements, door modifications and building permit fee. The final project cost, including extra work orders, is $115,212.13. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT Funding for the project is budgeted under the fiscal year 2003 -2004 budget under CIP #03 -02. GlyorAlarneda .ubIi(Works Department Public Works Wmkrfor You! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Report #4 -C CC 7 -20 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 2 July 1, 2004 The City Manager recommends that City Council, by motion, accept the work of SIMCO Construction, Inc., for Fire Station No. 3, Facade Repair and Apparatus Upgrade, No. P.W. 08 -03- 17. Respect y submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By /John V. Wankum upervising Civil Engineer MTN /JV W: gc cc: Jim Christiansen, Fire Department Corey Merrick, Fire Department G :\PUBWORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \072004 \SIMCO, FS #3 ACCEPT.DOC Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GlyofAlarneda PubIicWorks Department Public Work IYoriafor You! CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 7, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Reject the Bid; Authorize a Second Call for Bids; and Adopt the Modified Plans and Specifications for Webster Street Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07 -02- 07 BACKGROUND On April 20, 2004, the City Council adopted plans and specifications and authorized a call for bids for the Webster Street Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07. The project consists of streetscape improvements including curb and sidewalk extensions for transit plazas, pedestrian amenity plazas and corner extensions for greater pedestrian safety. The project also provides new street lighting, landscaping, an irrigation system, street furniture, and installation of conduits for the future undergrounding of overhead utilities. Public Works staff worked with the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) to formulate a design that fits the neighboring community. To minimize traffic impacts, the original specifications limited construction between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. In addition, to minimize impacts to the business, the original specifications limited the work to three blocks at a time. On Tuesday, June 1, 2004, bids were opened for the project. The City received one bid from McGuire & Hester (M &H) in the amount of $2,498,840, approximately 65% over the Engineer's Estimate. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS To determine if the single bid should be accepted by City Council, the City Manager directed Public Works staff to do the following: • Contact other cities to understand their experience with recent bid openings and determine if their bids exceed the Engineer's Estimate and if they are receiving low bidder turnout. Staff has contacted cities in the area and found that none of the surveyed cities have received bids for street work since May 2004. An internet site was surveyed to determine recent statewide Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GlyofIlmeda p� D part Public Works !Ed, for You! Report #4 -D CC 7 -20 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 7, 2004 bid experiences. A total of seven projects that were bid since May 10, 2004 were surveyed. All seven were an average of 30 percent over the Engineer's Estimate ranging from 5 to 50 percent over the Estimate. The number of bidders was lower than most bid turnouts, ranging from one to five bidders. • Determine if the unit prices from M &H are reasonable based on bids received by other cities. The Engineer's Estimate for the project is comparable to bids received in the area prior to May 1, 2004. The M &H bid was competitive for irrigation installation. Most roadway items such as curb and gutter were approximately 30 percent higher than the estimate. The greatest discrepancy was to furnish and install items, such as benches, tree guards, trash receptacles, and similar items which were twice the Engineer's Estimate. • Contact M &H to understand why their bid was high. Staff discussed the bid with M &H who advised that there have been considerable recent price increases for concrete and steel items. They also indicated that they would have to sub - contract much of the work and did not receive competitive sub - contractor prices, especially for concrete work. M &H were also asked what changes, if any, to the plans could result in further cost savings and no suggestions were offered. • Contact other bidders who purchased plans and specifications to determine why they did not submit a bid. The general response from the respective bidders was that they are busy with their current projects and a new project such as Webster Street Renaissance did not fit their schedule in the summer season. Typically, contractors for street projects have sufficient work by late spring and summer to satisfy their workload requirements for the remainder of the year. The surveyed contractors indicated that they would be more likely to bid on the project towards the end of summer or early fall. Based on the above findings, staff recommends that City Council reject the bid of M &H and authorize a second call for bids for the project. The project would be advertised in late July with bids received in mid - September. The contractors also stated that the specified project work hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. were too restrictive. According to the City's traffic model work hours between 7:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. will not adversely affect traffic. They also recommended allowing construction work to occur on all five blocks of Webster Street at the same time on one side of the street. Staff has also identified possible cost savings by separate purchase of street benches and trash receptacles. City forces can coordinate the purchase and installation of these items without adversely affecting project progress. Staff is recommending adoption of the modifications mentioned above to the project plans and specifications, which are available for review at the City Clerk's Office. The WABA Board has been advised of these recommended changes and has indicated their support. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Gtyof tublicWorks Ueparhllent Public Wods Wod for Wm! Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE Page 3 July 7, 2004 The Webster Street Renaissance Project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Section 15301. Extending the work hours and the construction limits does not impact the current CEQA findings for the project. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT The project is budgeted as CIP # 00 -15 with funds available from the Transportation for Livable Community Grant, Redevelopment Funds, and funds from Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) to provide conduits for undergrounding electrical facilities within the project area. Rejection of the bid and authorization of a second bid with the revisions as described above should result in considerable cost savings. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, reject the bid; authorize a second call for bids; and adopt the modified plans and specifications for Webster Street Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07. MTN:JVW:gc Res. - tfully submitted atthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: john V. Wankum Supervising Civil Engineer G: \PUB WORKS\PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004 \072004 \Websterrejectbids.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service atvofNaneda ppblicWorks eparlment Public Worts rlfui for r CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 14, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Year 2004 -05, and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal Year BACKGROUND The City Council was presented with the 2 -year financial plan for 2004 -06 in May 2004. Transmitted herewith are the recommended appropriations for the 2004 -05 fiscal year. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Appropriations: The total City of Alameda proposed budget is $252,710,880 (all City funds). All Funds 2003 -04 2004 -05 2005 -06 General Fund $ 64,292,313 $ 69,067,768 $ 70,704,858 Enterprise Fund 67,526,013 88,452,202 73,395,436 Special Revenue Fund 70,550,361 52,468,994 53,547,259 Debt Service Fund 14,107,105 14,315,176 13,784,831 Capital Projects Fund 33,550,186 11,468,814 9,341,911 Fiduciary Funds 25,791,927 20,415,474 20,992,059 Internal Service Funds 9,287,374 10,225,434 10,866,753 Total $285,105,279 $266,413,862 $252,633,107 The General Fund ($69,067,768) makes up 25.92% of the budget and it is 7.43% greater than the 2003 -04 budget ($64,292,313). The proposed appropriations include salary increases for the public safety bargaining groups for which contracts have already been approved by the City Council. There are two new civilian Fire Inspector positions recommended and funded by program revenues to meet project demands and enhance customer service. In addition, two new Report #4 -E CC 7 -20 -04 Dedicated to EceOEence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 14, 2004 Page 2 police dispatcher positions are recommended to improve coverage of the police dispatch center. Recommended New Positions Position 2 Fire Inspectors (non - public safety) 2 Police Dispatchers General Revenues Funding Source User Fees (Inspection Fees) General Fund General Fund revenue is projected to grow by 8.54% over 2003 -04 fiscal year revenues. Because of the various formula used by the State to distribute subventions, certain revenue sources appear to have significant increases or decreases. For example, our property tax share appears to be increasing by 21.3 %. This is because the State has taken all but $551,381 of our vehicle license fee and in return will reduce our ERAF shift by $2,871,687. Other local taxes show a 12.12% increase. This revenue category includes the projected revenue for the Emergency Access fee at the $2.00 rate as well as the increase in Planning and Building fees. Due to interest rate increases, we project a moderate increase on the investment income for the year. Income from fines and forfeitures are also estimated to grow by 25% according to departmental estimates. Appropriations The underlying assumption is that only those ongoing programs and costs, which can be realistically paid by ongoing revenues, will be approved. General Fund increases for 2004 -05 include: a) PERS increase: Miscellaneous 1,801,729 Police 1,704,052 Fire 1,545,430 Less Fresh Start (1,041,520) $4,009,691 Dedicated to E celtence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers b) Salary increases: Police 289,941 Fire 291,737 c) Capital Outlay 342,369 d) Health Care estimated increase 550,000 e) Loss of half -year ALS County reimbursement 265,000 f) Plan 1079 and 1082 increase 250,000 The balance of our assumptions for General Fund programs include: July 14, 2004 Page 3 ➢ The City will pursue the fresh start re- amortization of the Public Safety unfunded liability thereby reducing pension costs as follows: 2004 -05 $1,041,520 2005 -06 828,176 ➢ The 5% across the board cuts are modified to add back the costs for: 3 Police officers 1 Telephone operator 9 Firefighters These positions were originally part of the 5% across the board cuts. ➢ Only cost of living adjustments contained in signed memorandums of understanding (MOU) have been included in the budget. BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT The financial plan will be balanced by: a) Reducing selected departmental recommended appropriations by 10% with adjustments as directed by the Council. b) Continuing to implement the "selective" hiring freeze. c) Implementing a fresh start re- amortization of the Public Safety unfunded liability. d) Implementing an Emergency Access Fee and establishing a separate fund for same. e) Implementing Planning & Building fee increases. f) Increasing the Payment -in- Lieu -of Taxes (PILOT) percentage. g) Drawing from reserves. Dedicated to ExceOEence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 14, 2004 Page 4 The Master Fee Resolution follows this report and its implementation is necessary to achieve the revenue targets. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends the City Council, by resolution, approve and adopt the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Year 2004 -05, and appropriate certain moneys for the expenditures provided in said fiscal year. JB /dI Attachments: Budget Profile Exhibit A G: \FINANCE \COUNCIL \070604 \BUDGET0406.CC.doc Respectfully submitted, eAnn Boy ief Financial' Officer Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2004 -06, AND APPROPRIATING CERTAIN MONEYS FOR THE EXPENDITURES PROVIDED IN FISCAL YEAR 2004 -05 WHEREAS, there has been submitted to and filed with this Council at this meeting, a budget representing a financial plan for conducting the affairs of the City of Alameda for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2004 and ending June 30, 2005 attached hereto as Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the two year spending plan. �- NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF W ALAMEDA that said budget as submitted to this Council at this meeting, and each and every part thereof, be, and the same is hereby approved and adopted as the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Budget for the City of Alameda for the fiscal years 2004 -05, and that the expenditure of the various sums of money therein provided to be spent for salaries and wages, maintenance and operation, capital outlay and capital improvements by each department therein listed in detail are . hereby approved and authorized in total by the above object classification, as the appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005. Resolution #4 -E CC 7 -20 -04 1 1 'BUDGET PROFILE - 2004 -05 'General Fund 'Enterprise Fund Alameda Power & Telecom $ 78,043,367 Ferry Services 2,616,161 Golf 4,996,254 Sewer Enterprise 2,796,420 'Special Revenue Fund Abandoned Vehicle Program $ 83,942 Affordable Housing Fund 244,481 Asset Seizure Funds 5,000 Athletic Trust Fund 1,393,961 CDBG 598,780 Commercial Revitalization 207,635 Curbside Recycling 19,358 Dwelling Unit Tax 67,000 Equipment Replacement Fund 673,309 Fisc Lease Revenue Fund 3,193,771 Garbage Surcharge 44,580 Gas Tax 1,872,149 Home Funds 327,600 Housing Developments 20,000 Housing in Lieu 350,000 Housing Authority 27,290,005 Human Services (SSHRB) 24,200 Library 2,481,646 Low and Moderate Income Housing: WECIP 784,266 BWIP 1,041,238 APIP 108,560 Measure B 2,497,000 Parking Meter Fund 160,628 Rehabilitation Repayment 185,000 Redevelopment: BWIP 2,529,404 WECIP 4,203,569 APIP 873,193 Senior Citizens Transportation 130,242 Tidelands Trust 75,819 Traffic Safety Fund 250,000 Waste Management/Recycling 732,658 'Debt Service Funds EXHIBIT A $69,067,768 25.92% $88,452,202 33.20% $52,468,994 19.69% $14,315,176 5.37% 1 'BUDGET PROFILE - 2004 -05 Capital Projects Funds CFD #1 1,125,710 CFD #2 178,905 Construction Improvement Fund 718,000 Island City Maintenance District 1,026,200 Police /Fire Impact Fees 35,000 Transportation Improvement Fund 186,000 Urban Runoff 1,341,999 Capital Improvements 6,857,000 *Excludes unfunded projects 'Fiduciary Funds Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment 14,715,474 Pension Plan #1079 5,000,000 Pension Plan #1082 700,000 'Internal Service Funds Dental Trust 560,000 Central Garage 14,250 Central Stores 700,000 Housing Authority Reimbursables 2,650,000 Risk Management 2,062,476 Technology Service Fund 496,891 Unemployment 31,000 Workers Compensation Trust 3,710,817 'Total All Funds EXHIBIT A $11,468,814 4.30% $20,415,474 7.66% $10,225,434 3.84% $266,413,862 100.00% Appropriations I [BUDGET PROFILE - 2004 -05 (FUNDS Percent of Total General Fund Enterprise Funds Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Capital Projects Funds Fiduciary Funds Internal Service Funds 25.92% . 33.20% 19.69% 5.37% 4.30% 7.66% 3.84% $69,067,768 88,452,202 52,468,994 14,315,176 11,468,814 20,415,474 10,225,434 100.00% $266,413,862 City of Alameda 2004 -05 • General Fund • Enterprise Funds OSpecial Revenue Funds ® Debt Service Funds • Capital Projects Funds ® Fiduciary Funds • Internal Service Funds EXHIBIT A 1 'BUDGET PROFILE - 2005 -06 'General Fund Enterprise Fund Alameda Power & Telecom $ 63,174,000 Ferry Services 2,444,013 Golf 5,017,445 Sewer Enterprise 2,759,978 'Special Revenue Fund Abandoned Vehicle Program $ 87,358 Affordable Housing Fund 255,756 Asset Seizure Funds 5,000 Athletic Trust Fund 1,407,526 CDBG 1,038,927 Commercial Revitalization 208,829 Curbside Recycling 20,236 Dwelling Unit Tax 173,000 Equipment Replacement Fund 447,429 Fisc Lease Revenue Fund 3,299,236 Garbage Surcharge 46,810 Gas Tax 1,811,149 Home Funds 324,324 Housing Developments 20,000 Housing in Lieu 350,000 Housing Authority 27,374,949 Human Services (SSHRB) 24,200 Library 2,543,687 Low and Moderate Income Housing: WECIP 823,767 BW I P 1,023,385 APIP 113,760 Measure B 2,517,242 Parking Meter Fund 116,195 Rehabilitation Repayment 185,000 Redevelopment: BW I P 2,853,970 WECIP 4,406,933 APIP 875,248 Senior Citizens Transportation 130,242 Tidelands Trust 79,610 Traffic Safety Fund 250,000 EXHIBIT A $70,704,858 27.99% $73,395,436 29.05% $53,547,259 21.20% 1 1 (BUDGET PROFILE - 2005 -06 `Debt Service Funds !Capital Projects Funds CFD #1 1,125,710 CFD #2 178,905 Construction Improvement Fund 438,000 Island City Maintenance District 1,026,200 Police /Fire Impact Fees 35,000 Transportation Improvement Fund 186,000 Capital Improvement Fund 6,352,096 *Excludes unfunded projects 'Fiduciary Funds Alameda Reuse & Redevelopment Pension Plan #1079 Pension Plan #1082 'Internal Service Funds 14,892,059 5,400,000 700,000 Dental Trust 610,000 Central Garage 7,500 Central Stores 700,000 Housing Authority Reimbursables 2,650,000 Risk Management 2,202,573 Technology Service Fund 699,891 Unemployment 31,000 Workers Compensation Trust 3,965,789 !Total All Funds EXHIBIT A $13,784,831 5.46% $9,341,911 3.70% $20,992,059 8.31% $10,866,753 4.30% $252,633,107 100.00% BUDGET PROFILE - 2005 -06 I Appropriations I FUNDS Percent of Total General Fund Enterprise Funds Special Revenue Funds Debt Service Funds Capital Projects Funds Fiduciary Funds Internal Service Funds 27.99% 29.05% 21.20% 5.46% 3.70% 8.31% 4.30% $70,704,858 73,395,436 53,547,259 13,784,831 9,341,911 20,992,059 10,866,753 100.00% $252,633,107 City of Alameda 2005 -06 4% ■ General Fund • Enterprise Funds OSpecial Revenue Funds II Debt Service Funds • Capital Projects Funds ® Fiduciary Funds • Internal Service Funds EXHIBIT A 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: July 7, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: James M. Flint City Manager RE: Resolutions to amend the Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to revise and streamline the Planning & Building Department Fee Schedule and implement a Community Planning Fee to partially fund ongoing maintenance and updates to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND In order to reduce the Planning and Building Department's reliance on General Fund support, the Planning and Building Department Cost Recovery Team has been examining ways to decrease expenses incurred by the General Fund while recovering more of the actual costs for services offered by the Department. The Department budget is divided into four cost/revenue centers: Development Review (4110), Policy Environmental (4120), Building Services Division (4520), and Code Enforcement (4540). Currently, only the Building Services Division generates sufficient revenues to offset its operating costs. The remaining divisions generate revenue to cover between 0% and 70% of their operating expenses. No excess revenue is currently generated to fund ongoing plan updates, ordinary updates and other long- term planning activities. Funds for these activities are now obtained from the General Fund and other outside sources, as available. Over the past 5 years, Division 4110- Development Review has collected revenue equal to 40% of the division's costs. This level of cost recovery has resulted in a $1,755,000 expense to the General Fund over the past 5 years. This fiscal year, the Planning and Building Department has been charged with increasing the level of cost recovery in each division to move toward an eventual goal of 100% cost recovery. Achieving 100% cost recovery will ensure that the Department' s cost to the General Fund will be eliminated, necessary Department services will not be affected by the future reductions in General Fund support and funds can be gradually accumulated to support required updates to city planning documents. In order to achieve these cost recovery goals, changes to the fee schedule and implementation of a new Community Planning Fee are proposed. The proposed amendment to the fee schedule will simplify and streamline fee collection and convert most activities to time and materials billing to ensure that all actual processing costs are recouped by the city. Report #4 -E CC Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 7 -20 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 7, 2004 Page 2 This should significantly improve the Development Review Division's cost recovery ratio. The proposed new Community Planning Fee would allow the city to recover a portion of the costs necessary to update and maintain the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Many local communities have implemented similar fees pursuant to state law that allows communities to assess a fee for this purpose. The authorization for and basis of the proposed fee are discussed below. DISCUSSION Authority to Assess Fees State law authorizes local governments to charge fees for services based on the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. The procedures and guidelines for establishing or increasing development related service fees are set forth in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code sections 66000, et seq.). The Mitigation Fee Act was recently amended by AB 2936, effective January 1, 2003, which clarifies existing law by providing that service fees may "include costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and determinations." Community Planning Fee Planning and Building Department staff analyzed the costs for maintenance and comprehensive updates of the General Plan and for ensuring that the Zoning Ordinance reflects the requirements of State law and is consistent with the General Plan. The intent of this analysis was to identify and develop a reasonable estimate for the costs to maintain these essential planning documents. There are three primary beneficiaries of the City having an updated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance: the community -at- large, the existing property owners, and new development. Alameda's General Plan is the official policy document regarding the future character and quality of development within the City and serves as a guide to this development. The community -at -large benefits from an updated General Plan as it provides the foundation for a well - planned community, and includes planning for transportation, parks and open space, land use, housing, health and safety, community design, shoreline access, and community facilities. The community -at -large presently helps contribute to the maintenance of the General Plan through taxes deposited into the General Fund. Existing property owners receive tangible financial benefits from an updated General Plan. Property owners see an increase in their property values because the City of Alameda is a well - planned city with roads and infrastructure that are adequate to the needs placed on them, 'with parks and open space that contribute to a high quality of life, and with the services and facilities necessary to address community needs. If the City did not maintain the planning efforts necessary to ensure these benefits quality of life in the City could decline with accompanying impacts on existing property values. In addition, the City's authority to grant any type of development permit could be challenged if the General Plan is found to be inadequate. The value that existing property owners gain from the potential to add Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 7, 2004 Page 3 improvements to their existing homes and businesses could be lost if the General Plan is not adequately maintained. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance is the essential regulatory tool by which the General Plan is implemented. Without an adequate zoning ordinance in conformance with State law, the benefits of the General Plan would also not be realized. New development obtains the most direct benefit from the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Developers seeking to locate a new development in Alameda make a profit by taking advantage of the high property values in Alameda, values that are due in part to the quality of the community. One of the primary goals of the General Plan is to guide future development and ensure that the City's facilities are adequate to the task of accommodating expected new development. Therefore, a larger share of the effort associated with maintaining a General Plan has to do with planning for future development. As noted above, absence of an adequate General Plan and Zoning Ordinance can lead to the loss of authority to allow for new development. This could significantly delay or prevent proponents from going forward with their projects, causing delay costs and lost opportunities. Currently, property owners and project proponents benefit from the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance without directly paying for it because the community -at -large through the General Fund covers all of the costs of updating and maintaining the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Implementation of a Community Planning Fee on all permits issued by the Permit Center would provide a new funding mechanism for property owners and developers to share in the cost of maintaining and updating the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. It is difficult to place an exact monetary value on the benefits mentioned above. Because property owners and project proponents receive direct benefits through enhanced property values, new development and the ability to improve property, it is estimated that property owners and new development receive far more than 50% of the benefits. The Community Planning Fee, as proposed is estimated to provide for approximately 70% of the cost of maintaining and implementing the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The proposed fee would be calculated as a percentage of project valuation. Planning and Building Department staff has estimated permit valuations will average $100,000,000 annually for the next five to ten years. In addition, the cost of funding three planning positions dedicated to these activities totals approximately $357,287.00. Cost of maintaining and updating the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance In developing the Community Planning Fee proposal, Planning and Building staff evaluated the current costs of maintaining and updating the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The primary components of these costs are comprehensive General Plan updates, routine General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, and associated map changes. Recently, the City of Alameda spent a considerable amount of funds on the Northern Waterfront Plan, ($400,000) the Housing Element ($100,000) and the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment ($200,000). Cities typically perform comprehensive General Plan updates every 10 years, depending on the time horizon outlined in the General Plan. In between comprehensive updates, city staff must often perform smaller updates or minor amendments and update land use maps in order to ensure the relevance of the policies and regulations. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 7, 2004 Page 4 Sometimes, minor General Plan update work is required to accommodate a specific development, however, the developer pays for those specific requests. Additionally, the Housing Element of the General Plan is required by State Law to be updated every 5 years. The City of Alameda last comprehensively updated its General Plan in 1991. Each update to the General Plan creates a significant cost burden for the City. It is estimated that the next comprehensive update to Alameda's General Plan will cost approximately $1 million, including staff and consultant work and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Additionally, Planning staff spends, on average, $35,000 per year on routine General Plan & Zoning Ordinance text and map amendments. This General Plan work includes General Plan interpretation, City- initiated General Plan Amendments, review of the General Plan, and preparation of annual reports. Currently, the City of Alameda General Fund covers all of the costs of General Plan updates and Zoning Ordinance maintenance. Based on the cost figures above, the annual General Plan/Zoning Ordinance maintenance costs are approximately $35,000. Assuming a ten -year General Plan life and an update cost of $1 million, the comprehensive update adds an additional $100,000 to the cost per year, resulting in an annual unfunded update and maintenance cost of approximately $135,000. Combining these costs results in an estimated annual cost of $492,286.80. Effect on the Cost of Permits Types and valuations for permits have a broad range in Alameda. To illustrate the effect of the proposed Community Planning Fee on the price of permits, the Planning and Building Department found that the average permit issued is for work valued at approximately $50,000. The Table below illustrates the potential increase to the cost of an average permit depending upon the Community Planning Fee recovery cost chosen. Community Planning Fee Options Approximate Goal Cost Recovery Level Increase in Average Permit Fee Projected Annual Revenue Generated 0.4% (1) 100% $200.00 $400,000 0.3% (1) 75% $150.00 $300,000 0.2% (1) 50% $100.00 $200,000 (1) Expressed as a percentage of project valuations assuming 100 million dollar per year valuation for all permits issued. Research in Other Local Agencies Other local agencies throughout the state have also been challenged with the issue of cost recovery for General Plan/Zoning Ordinance updates and maintenance. Below is a table that summarizes the fees imposed in other communities for this type of effort. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 7, 2004 Page 5 Agency Amount of Fee Imposed Permit Types on which Fee is Imposed City of Belmont 15% of project value (to cover comprehensive update costs only) All building permits Town of Tiburon 10% of building permit fee (to cover comprehensive and annual maintenance /update costs) All building permits City of Riverside 10% of building permit fee (to cover comprehensive and annual maintenance /update costs) All development applications (entitlement applications and building permits) City of San Rafael 15% of building permit fee (to cover comprehensive update costs only) All building permits City of Fremont 15% of the building permit fee (to cover comprehensive and annual updates) All building permits City of Daly City 0.5% of project valuation All building permits CITY OF ALAMEDA (Proposed) 0.3% of the project valuation for each permit (to cover comprehensive and annual maintenance /update costs) All Permits issued by the Permit Center Development Review Fee Schedule Streamlining In order to improve the efficiency of the fee schedule, the Planning and Building Department staff reviewed all services provided and fees charged by the Development Review Division. The review of fees charged revealed a complex set of fees for services That, in some cases, has little correlation to the amount of staff time required to provide these services. The current master fee schedule lists over 80 separate fee categories for development review activities. Eleven (11) different fee categories exist just for Major Design Review applications. The proposed schedule would reduce the overall number of fee categories to 60 including reducing the fee categories for Major Design Review from 11 to 6 categories. In order to ensure that the actual costs of processing applications are recovered by the city, the fee schedule is proposed to be revised to reflect the actual average costs of processing each type of activity. Under the proposed fee schedule each development review activity would be assessed a base fee to cover initial application intake and review costs. Additionally, a deposit of $250 to $2,500 would be collected at the time of application submittal on all but over - the - counter activities. The majority of all development applications processed by the Department (Design Review, Use Permits, Variances, etc.) would require either a $250.00 or $750 deposit. The current schedule can require a deposit of up to $1,500 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 7, 2004 Page 6 for these application lines. Actual staff time and expenses, including the base fee, will be charged against the deposit. All funds remaining at the end of the review process will be returned to the applicant. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FISCAL IMPACT If the proposed fee schedule amendment is authorized, it is expected to provide an increase in the Development Review Division's 5 -year cost recovery average from 40% to 70 % +. This can amount to an annual savings to the General Fund of $150,000, or more than $1.5 million over the next 10 years. Reducing the complexity of the fee schedule would also align with two of the City's strategic initiatives: to provide improved customer service and promote employee productivity and well- being. If the Community Planning fee recovery is implemented, a substantial portion of the cost of updating and monitoring the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance can be shifted from the General Fund. This could result in a savings of $2 million to the General Fund over the next ten years. Unused deposit funds will be returned to project proponent within 30 days of permit issuance. MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -26 is affected by this staff report. The Master Fee Resolution No. 12191, referenced in Section 30 -26 would be amended. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is statutorically exempt per CEQA Section 15273 — Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolutions to Amend the Planning and Building portion of Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to streamline the fee schedule and implement a Community Planning Fee at the 0.3% rate to achieve approximately 75% cost recovery for general plan and zoning updates and related activities. By: Respectfully Submitted, Gregory Fuz Planning and Building Director Vivian L. Day Building Services Manager Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers GF:vld July 7, 2004 Page 7 Attachments: A. Current Master Fee Sheets for the Planning Division B. Proposed Master Fee Sheets for the Planning Division J:\Planbldg.adm \Correspondence \Community Planning and Revised Fee Staff Report 10- 7- CC.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service ATTACHMENT A DEPOSIT 1 o 0000 CO Ea 22 06 + o CO EF? co + I— o0 LO0 .- E9. 2 CO <A 2 ces + +T &M S300d +T &M $1504 1000 1 )L0nti Ef} 222 06 + + to 06 + 69. 06 + 0 nor) ,- 69 2 06 + 000 LC) 69 222 06 + 693 06 + E9 06 + 00 00 CO Ef3 22 06 + LC) •-• H-} 06 $1,347 I- M 69 co co 69 N- M 69 N- p') — 69 CO co 69 CD co E9 CO CO 69 CO CD d9 0 CO CO E9- $3381 f,- M 67, $338 'Staff time shall be charged at 200% of the highest hourly rate per position. D ZONING APPLICATIONS Amendment to the General Plan Diagram or Text of Chapter 30 "Development Regulations" of the Alameda Municipal Code — PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT Extension of Development Plan not yet vested evelopment Agreement 1 Master Plan /Development Plan: Master Plan Master Plan Amendment Development Plan Development Plan Amendment — Planned Development: C CD E O > a) Q C C CO �1 Final Development Plan — I Development Agreement: IDevelopment Agreement — 'Amendments: 1 Rezoning to add a P All other rezonings — :velopmei iii) C .0 N )I 1 I a. major L C E �I I N N a) co) f9 0_ 0 O N ATTACHMENT A DEPOSIT 1 o I- 120% of fee for each 1T & M $750 1 o I- 1T & M $750 20% of fee Der each o I— ea T &M $750 1 + T & M $7501 r T &M T &M T &M T &M ea I— T &M co co ER co co V> $3381 $3381 _o Et} o Ea $136 Co 69- $1041 M_ E9 'INUED 'Charge for each additional variance after the first one within the same application Charge for each additional use permit after the first one within the same 'application for those for which a flat fee is charged lit which has not been vested Major (New single family house dwelling unit, addition /expansion New assessory structure, or decks) (For applications which include a combination of types of permits, (a) thru (e), the highest fee shall be charged, plus .20 times the fee for each of the other design review permits) — —, which has not been vested _ U 1 'Renewal of a Use Permit ice, industrial, etc, 1 Over the Counter Permits c 7°- ( CD VARIANCE: —1 CC C- I W ' Use Permit W > 0 ' �I (retail, 0 !Special Services Project with PD over) c C Ch . M N d 01 0_ ATTACHMENT A DEPOSIT T &M T &M 00 00 0o N. 6F? 2 06ots + d9 2 + 00000 10010101 r`10tiN- e%. 2 05 + EA. 2 Do + E 222 r— E/} +T & M $7501 1 00 1 00 Li') ...- ER 06 + LO 69 2 T &M $7501 ■ 1 0 0 in r ER 2 0 10 N.• to- atf + .«. N 0 0 U C O 0 o o N 1 $342 O 6g $338 $541 co Er} $338 $3381 $5411 $3381 $1361 _M ER N. N En- r. Ee W 2 m a) Categorical Exemption (included $25 Alameda County Clerk fee) Initial Study Administrative Charge on outside preparation of Initial Study, Negative Declaration or EIR J Q W' W I— 0 z w 1- II 2 j 0 I— I IThe Planning & Building Director shall set a deposit schedule State Fish and Game Fee (collected by Alameda County Clerk from the City for the State) Final Design Review See other departments for additional SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS: PRELIMINARY PLAN Parcel Map (4 or fewer Tots) 'CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION _ 1 1 1 1 I 'CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 1 'LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT I ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Tentative Map (5 or i PARCEL MAP Residential Commercial Parcel Map Waiver Q w Q 1— Z w Residential Commercial C O C N W 1— Amendmer C O co O w 11 0 O N ATTACHMENT A DEPOSIT I In �' Ef} 05 I— 1T&M 1T &M flat flat c I— L 69- 2 H + O E9- otS H Olin H9 otS H Ef3 otS I— schedules, interest, and security. $25 $1,275 $875 $125 1 $125 co M tir CO ce (0 6.3 $338 M Ea- a. Payment of the development fees on an installment basis, subject to the applicant entering into an agreement fc b. Allow the payment of the fees to be deferred, subject to interest and adequate security, such as records against c. A fee reduction where the application is a resubmission and a finding is made that the staff work involved more than other comparable applications and warrants reduced fees because there is less staff work involved. f Additional inspections: There will be a T & M charge for additional inspections required fore all requirements are completed The Planning & Building Director shall seta deposit schedule ENFORCEMENT - See Permit Center activity investigative fee Request for payment of parking in lieu fee Performance Agreement to allow occupancy be — I he City Manager may approve the following: 1 Appeal to Planning Board Inspection for Occupancy Permits Residential - one inspection Commercial - one inspection — I & M = TIME AND MATERIALS C "C 0 C O Appeal to the City CI I Home Occupation Zoning Compliance Rebuild Letter Deed Restriction C C 1D ^w Q Ln N a) (0 0 ATTACHMENT A ATTACHMENT B DEPOSIT 0 U) 1%. 40 + 0 1e1 1� 69CO4R464f>tf}19. + 0 10 1- + 0 10 1` + 0 0 10 + 0 0 10 �+ 0 10 1%. + 0 o to + 0 0 10 te40 + 0 0 141 + +T &M $250 I 0 0 1[) • •1f1'1f> + 0 10 N + 0 0 10 40 + + + + +T &M +T &M 0 0 10 69. + 0 10 1- 49404010440te + 0 0 10 + 0 10 N + 0 10 1� + 0 0 10 + 0 10 C4 + FEE EEE EEE .E ._ .E Minimum Minimum Minimum EE EE ._ .E Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum E E ,_ Minimum 1 E E ,_ Minimum E E ,E E E ,E Minimum Minimum 1 Minimum Minimum EE EE ,_ ,c etermined by the cost allocation plan and is approximately $95.00 per hour t0 10 10 01 C) 10 C) C+) 01 1.5 01 in • C) in • a- e- a- a- M 10 C) in • (0 01 in • Planned Development, Planned Development Amendment, or Final Development Plan I Variance or Extension of variance which has not been vested tional variance after the first one within the same application yet vested 1 lots) or Tentative Map (5 or more lots) Iment to Master Plan 1 Development Plan Amendment or Extension evelopment Agreement Extension of Design Review not yet vested 1 1 Development Agreement Project with PD overlay - flat fee only IT & M = Time and Materials Rezoning(s) Renewal or Extension Special Services Finding pursuant to 3 Final Design Review SUBDIVISION APPLIC4 PRELIMINARY PLAN PARCEL MAP i Waiver or ITENTATIVE MAP W Z Q j DESIGN RE\ Major O c c 4? W Amendmer O `p N W DEPOSIT 0 In 1• EA. ad + 0 In N EA. oti + 0 'n N EA- ad + 0 In N ER cif + 0 in 1%. Eft *5 + 0 to x Ef} 0,5 ;- 25% of contract cost 1 0 o 1n Ea oef + o5 + +T &M T &M 0 o 10 Ei} 03 + +T &M +T &M 0 to N E0 ed + 0 Ie', N (4). od + 0 In N EA. ao + 0 0 In 69. 015 + of permit cost E E Minimum Minimum 7 E E In 1 Minimum in 6N9 $1,275 $875 7 E 7 E 7 E Minimum Minimum 3 E Minimum Minimum 3 E $3.40 1n co • • '- 0 r 0 M • r % because work is incomplete when the inspection is called for, with a minimum charge of one hour M In - u1 l- o m (included $25 Alameda County Clerk fee) on outside preparation of Initial Study, Negative Declaration or EIR Additional inspections: There will be a T & M charge for additional inspections required REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF PARKING -IN -LIEU FEE CHANGES IN HISTORICAL BUILDING STUDY LIST CLASSIFICATION ;EEMENT TO ALLOW OCCUPANCY BEFORE COMPLETION 1 Investigation Fees - work without permit 4 x permit fee lameda C Appeal to Planning Board or City Council ;CUPANCY PERMITS :E DETERMINATION DEMOLITION CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL - 1 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Mitigation Monitoring Z _0 H a a D 0 g O' 2' HISTORICAL SIGN DESIGNATION Records management fee per page IT & M = Time and Materials IInitial Study ve Declara Fee (Perm — Li' —1 w cL. Q Revised Fees 04-05 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING MASTER FEE RESOLUTION NO. 12191 TO REVISE FEES CHARGED FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ACTIVITIES TO INCREASE COST RECOVERY WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code and the California Government Code provide that the City Council shall set fees reasonable to recover cost of providing various services by resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at the August 27, 1991 Special City Council meeting, directed City Staff to amend the Alameda Municipal Code to reflect that City fees shall be set by City Council Resolution; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 12191 ( "Master Fee Resolution "), as amended codifies existing fees for various City services and permits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that the fees charged for development review activities be increased, as outlined in Attachment `B ", attached to the Staff report submitted to City Council on July 20, 2004, to provide 60% cost recovery for the Development Review Division of the Planning and Building Department. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Ordinance No. 1928, the City Fees are subject to administrative adjustments not greater than 5% annually over existing recovery levels. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees established by Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 which are inconsistent with the fees established by this Resolution are hereby repealed. Resolution #4 -E CC 7 -20 -04 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS; IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING MASTER FEE RESOLUTION NO. 12191 TO ADD A COMMUNITY PLANNING FEE EQUAL TO 0.3% OF THE PROJECT VALUATION TO ALL PERMIT ACTIVITIES PROCESSED BY PERMIT CENTER WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code and the California Government code provide that the City Council shall set fees reasonable to recover the cost of providing various services by resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at the August 27, 1991 Special City Council meeting, directed City staff to amend the.Alameda Municipal Code to reflect that City fees shall be set by City Council Resolution; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 12191 ( "Master Fee Resolution "), as amended codifies existing fees for various City services and permits; and WHEREAS, State law authorizes local governments to charge fees for services based on the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Fee will recover 75% of the costs of updating the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Fee will be based upon a percentage of the project valuation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that a fee amounting to 0.3% of the project valuation shall be added to all permit activities processed by the Permit Center. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to Ordinance No. 1928, the City fees are subject to administrative adjustments not greater than 5% annually over existing recovery levels. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees established by Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 which are inconsistent with the fees established by this Resolution are hereby repealed. Re: Resolution #4 -E CC 7 -20 -04 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , of 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 1, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Council members From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution to Vacate and Quitclaim an Existing Public Utility Easement (Alameda County Recorder Series #2003654531 November 3, 2003) within Lot 9, Parcel Map No. 4744 to First Marina Village, LLC (Requires Four Affirmative Votes) BACKGROUND On May 20, 1986, the Council, per Resolution No. 10912, accepted Parcel Map 4744 and associated Public Utility Easements (PUE). Parcel Map 4744 is located within the Alameda Marina Village Business Park. On October 28, 2003, Mayor Beverly Johnson, per Resolution No. 5328 (adopted May 15, 1956) authorizing the Mayor or Vice -Mayor to consent to acceptance of easements for purposes of recordation, accepted a PUE from First Marina Village LLC at the request of Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T). The easement was recorded on November 11, 2003, County of Alameda Recorder's Series #2003654531. Installation of AP &T equipment during construction required that the equipment be relocated outside of the easement area. First Marina Village LLC has requested that the City quitclaim this portion of the PUE. The easement is no longer required and can be vacated. DISCUSSION PEI Engineering of Vacaville prepared the easement plat and description for First Marina Village. AP &T and Public Works staff reviewed and approved the proposed legal description and plat (see Exhibit A). BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact to the City as a result of vacating the easement. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GryafAlameda uubIicWoiks Depart rent Public Wades Ha fir Yu! Report #4 -F CC 7 -20 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION July 1, 2004 Page 2 The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by resolution, order vacation of and quitclaim an existing Public Utility Easement (Alameda County Recorder Series #2003654531 November 3, 2003) within Lot 9, Parcel Map No. 4744 to First Marina Village LLC (requires four affirmative votes). MTN:BH:gc Exhibit A G:\PUB WORKS\PWADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \072004 \vacate.doc Respfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio, Public Works Director By: Barbara Hawkins Supervising Civil Engineer Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GivafAlameda PublicWorks apartment Public Work Workfor You! 230590EX1 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEING ALL OF THE EASEMENT GRANTED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2003 - 654531, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY SITUATE IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING PORTION OF LOT 9 AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 4744, FILED IN BOOK 161 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 81, ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 9, LYING ON A CURVE OF THE WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF MARINA VILLAGE PARKWAY AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 62 °29'44" WEST, 346.00 FEET FROM SAID POINT OF COMMENCEMENT, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE CURVE OF SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09°11'11" FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 55.48 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE AND RUNNING NORTHWESTERLY ALONG A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE NORTH 53 °18'33" WEST, 12.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 334.00 FEET AND BEING CONCENTRIC TO THE CURVE OF SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CONCENTRIC CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01 °43'00" FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 10.01 FEET; THENCE ALONG A RADIAL TO THE CURVE OF SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 51 °35'33" EAST, 12.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CURVE OF SAID WESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 01 °43'00" FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 10.37 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 122 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. THIS DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. THOMAS HkLIPPI, R.C.E. 32067 DATE LICENSE EXPIRATION DATE 12/31/04 EXHIBIT A LOT 9 (161 P.M. 81) PORTION OF PUE (161 P.M. 81) ABANDONDED PER QUITCLAIM DEED (2004 - 101918) / EXIST. P.U.E. (161 P.M. 81) EXISTING EASEMENT (2003- 654531) TO BE QUITCLAIMED O �c A'o. :� 01/ . / / SCALE, 1 „ : 10' D/ T / c ■ 4, 7�s& J\vo ki. AP-N# 74- 1334 -38 AL '. DN/ O D i P.O.B. 8 U Z P.O.C.Z PROJECT NAME /LOCATION: PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT DRAFTED BY: BLS CHECKED BY: TAP PROJECT NO.: 240240 DWG NAME:240240EX2 ISSUE DATE:05 /13/04 FE1 CIVIL EERING - LAND SURVEYNG 425 MERCHANT STREET VACAVILLE, CA 95688 P.O.BOX 6556 VACAVILLE, CA 95696 OFFICE (707) 451 -6556 FAX (707) 451 -6555 Recorded at Request of CITY Of ALAMEDA When Recorded Return to: Public Works Department Attn: Gail Carlson 950 W. Mall Square, Room 110 Alameda, Ca 94501 QUITCLAIM DEED For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are acknowledged, City of Alameda, a municipal corporation ( "City "), does hereby remise, release and favor quitclaim to First Marina Village, LLC, a California Limited Liability Partnership, al right, title and interest City has in that recorded Grant of Easement, which is described in Exhibit "A ", attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, and which was vacated per City Council Resolution No. on July 20, 2004, APN # 74- 1334 -38 James M Flint City Manager, City of Alameda Recommended for Approval: Matthew T Naclerio Public Works Director, City of Alameda Approved as to Form: Julie Harryman Deputy City Attorney Dated: Quitclaim Deed Please Record in Accordance with Government Code Section 27383 ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Alameda On before me, DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER personally appeared, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose names(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE (SEAL) G:\PUB W ORKS\P WADMIN \COUNCIL\2004 \072004 \vacatequitclaim.doc CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. ORDERING VACATION OF AN EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT ( ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDER SERIES No.2003654531, NOVEMBER 3, 2003) WITHIN LOT 9, PARCEL MAP 4744 AND RECORDATION OF QUITCLAIM DEED (FIRST MARINA VILLAGE, LLC) WHEREAS, subject Public Utility Easement was dedicated to the City of Alameda and filed in the Office of the County of Alameda Recorder on November 03, 2003, Series No. 2003654531; and WHEREAS, commercial development has resulted in the construction of new electrical distribution equipment located outside the easement that was dedicated for this use; _and WHEREAS, a plat and legal description of the easement to be vacated has been prepared. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby orders that said easement (Alameda County Recorder Series No.2003654531) within Lot 9, Parcel 4744 be vacated pursuant to the provisions of Division 9, Part 3, Chapter 4, (),,Article 1, Section 833 (c) of the Streets and Highways Code. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall cause certified copies of this resolution, attested under seal, to be recorded in the County Recorder's Office and from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, said easement as recorded on November 11, 2003, Alameda County Recorder Series #2003654531, no longer shall constitute easement. * * * * ** 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 July, 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIONS: 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 Resolution #4 -F CC 7 -20 -04 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum DATE: July 12, 2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: James M. Flint City Manager RE: Authority to Select Appointees to the Utility Joint Powers Authorities BACKGROUND On April 6, 2004, Council approved Resolution No. 13696, which acknowledged that the City is acting through the Council regarding membership in Utility Joint Powers Authorities and that Council selects appointees to the authorities on recommendation from the Public Utilities Board (Board). Since that time, there has been discussion whether the appointment should be delegated to the Board. The Board is requesting that Council delegate the appointment to the Northern California Power Agency and any other Utility Joint Power Agreements. Because the Board addresses detailed matters of Alameda Power & Telecom, as described in the Charter, delegation would be appropriate from a business standpoint. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACT It is anticipated that passage of the resolution will have no impact on the budget. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by resolution, delegate authority to the Public Utilities Board to select the appointee to the utility joint powers authorities. Respectfully submitted, By: Valerie O. Fong General Manager, Alameda Power & Telecom Donald W. Rushton Utility Planning Supervisor Report #4 -G CC 7 -20 -04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD TO SELECT THE APPOINTEE TO UTILITY JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES WHEREAS, Council passed Resolution No. 13696 on April 6, 2004, acknowledging that the City is acting through the Council regarding membership in utility joint powers authorities and that Council selects the appointees to the joint powers authorities on recommendation from the Public Utilities Board; and WHEREAS, the authority of the Public Utilities Board is described in Article XII of the City Charter; and WHEREAS, there is a business justification for Council to delegate the authority to select the appointee to the Public Utilities Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that authority to select the appointee to utility joint powers authorities is delegated to the Public Utilities Board. 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 Resolution #4 -G CC 7 -20 -04 July 15, 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 125738 - 126240 EFT 089 Void Checks: 122465 124782 125204 GRAND TOTAL Allowed in open session: Date: City Clerk Approved for payment: Date: Finance Director Council Warrants 07/20/04 Respectfully submitted, Pamela J. Sibley Amount 2,453,686.05 40,000.00 (250.00) (35.00) (63.00) 2,493,338.05 )csaa-.6 BILLS #4 -H 07/20/04 ' City of Alameda Memorandum Date: To: From: May 13, 2004 Honorable Mayor and Council Members James M. Flint, City Manager Re: Request for Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee Representatives Background: On May 21, 2003, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") for the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment ( "GPA "). Shortly thereafter, the City of Oakland, the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, and Asian Health Services filed notices with the City of Alameda indicating their intension to challenge the adequacy of the GPA EIR. After several months of discussions, the City of Oakland filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in December 2003. Chinatown Chamber of Commerce and Asian. Health Services filed their writ in January 2004. After several more months of negotiations, the City of Alameda, the City of Oakland, the Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, and Asian Health Services executed a four party settlement agreement on April 19, 2004. A copy of the Agreement is attached. The key terms of the agreement are summarized below: - Oakland agrees to drop its challenge to the GPA EIR, agrees to not challenge any future EIR for projects at Alameda Point or FISC, agrees to fund at least $462,000 for improvements in Chinatown, and agrees to participate in and help staff a new committee called the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee (OCAC). > The Chinatown Chamber of Commerce and Asian Health Services agree to drop their challenge to the GPA EIR, agree to not challenge any future EIR for a `phase 1 " project at Alameda Point (the first 1,100 new housing units and 100,000 square feet of new neighborhood commercial development), and participate in the OCAC. > Alameda agrees to prepare environmental documents for future developments at Alameda Point, conduct certain transportation feasibility studies, participate in and help staff the OCAC, fund up to $75,000 for technical consultants and staff in support of the OCAC's work, and provide $500,000 for improvements in Chinatown subject to specific conditions through future impact fees on the new, market rate housing constructed at Alameda Point. Discussion: Per the agreement, the OCAC will "serve as an advisory committee to the Alameda City Council and Planning Board and the Oakland City Council and Planning Commission for the purpose of providing ongoing communication and feedback on Oakland Chinatown issues related to the future development and environmental review (CEQA) process for projects within Alameda Point and Downtown Oakland." Report #5 -A 7, 4 / Report 7 -20 -04 e- Honorable Mayor and Page.2 Council Members May 13, 2004 The OCAC will be comprised of four representatives and one alternate representative from the Oakland Chinatown community, two representatives and one alternate selected by the Oakland City Council, and two representatives and one alternate representative selected by the Alameda City Council. The OCAC will meet as necessary until all project level CEQA documents for build -out of Alameda Point are completed or until the OCAC votes to dissolve itself. Meetings of the OCAC will be public and will alternate between locations in Oakland and Alameda. Neither the Alameda City Council nor the Oakland City Council will be bound by, or required to follow, the recommendations this new advisory body. However, the OCAC should provide an important new venue for airing issues of mutual concern early in the development process, developing mutually beneficial transportation alternatives, solutions and projects, and avoiding future litigation on projects in both Oakland and Alameda. Fiscal Impact The settlement agreement includes a commitment by Alameda t� fund up to $75,000 to support Chinatown staff support or technical consultants. The Council appropriated the funds for this purpose from the General Fund Reserve when approving the settlement agreement in Closed Session. The funds will likely be paid out in monthly increments over a two -year period. Recommendation: The City Manager recommends that the Mayor nominate two representatives and one alternate to serve on the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee for City Council consideration and appointment. By: Andrew Thomas Supervising Planner Respectfull . su f. Gregory Planning and Building Director Attachment: Settlement Agreement. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed' to Service . AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OFALAMEDA, THE CITY of OAKLAND, Mt OAKLAND CRINAATOVVN CHAMFER OF CO ASIAN DEALTH SERVICES COMMERCE AND COOPERATION TO STUDY AND MITtGATEG AND RE. IMPACTS IN ALAMEDA, OAKLAND, AND SPECIFICALLY IN OA I.ATED CHINATOWN" THfg AGREEMENT, dated as ofApril 2004 is by and between, the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce California non-profit Asian Health Services �AHS "% a Caltforiva non-profit corporation, the City Oakland (" Oakland ", a municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council, and the City of Alameda ("Alameda"), a municipal cozporation, acting by aid through its City Council. RECITALS A. Residents and businesses in Oakland Clown and Alameda common network of regional. roadways and Local streets. to upon a • netavorlc � Access to the regional trips beginning or ending in Alameda &l traffic requires the use of local streets in Oakland Chinatown and therefore adds to the traffic volumes of those local streets. 13. The Oakland Chinatown community is located at the entrances and exits to the 1 -880 freeway and Webster and Posey Tubes. OCCC and AIM contend that -levels within Oakland Chinatown and'other associated impacts are traffic the quality of life within the comet negalively an y ire affecting its residents. Traffic front Ahun exits an enter the 88 safety d welfare of and Posey Tubes currently travels through Chinatown and adds to the trafc and es in C. Alameda needs and desires Oakland's cooperation in planning funding, and implementing transportation improvements to be constructed 111 Oakland ln order to mitigate figure traffic impacts anticipated to occur as a result ofpossible future development at "Alameda Point' D. Oakland, OCCC and A&S recognize the long term importance ofthe'redevelopmeIIt and reuse of Alameda Point to the City of Alameda, the region's economy and jobs for' Alameda and Oakland residents, the regional supply of market rate and affordable . housing, and the regional supply ofpublic waterfront open space and recreational • • opportunities. • 13. The Oakland Chinatown community, Oakland, and Alameda must Work together more effectively to identify appropriate transportation improvements to benefit both communities and fimding sources to fiord those improvements. F. On May 20, 2003, Alameda certified the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment EIR, which found that future development at Alameda Point will significantly impact 322440 Pagel Attachment #1 levels of service in Oakland at the 12th/Brush exit from 1-980, the 66/Jackson prance • to 1-880, the Posey Tube and the High Street entrance to I 480. G Oakland similarly has identified potential adverse enviromnental impacts at intersections identified in Recital F, above. H. Alameda has adopted a Citywide Development Impact Fee, which include assessments on all development in Alameda to collect a fair, share of the costs for certain improvements in Oakland including $2275,000 for improvements at 5 and Broadway, $4.9 million of improvements at the 7 and Hanison/6 and Jackson/6th and Harrison • • intearsections, and $1.7 million for the I-880 interchange at ugh Street. . • L Alameda has prepared a Transportation Demand Management program for Alameda Point to reduce residential vehicle trips by 10% and non-residential vehicle trips by 30% for future development in this area. J. The General Plan Aniendme nt for Alameda.Point includes policies encouraging transit-oriented development at Alameda Point. K. On Deceanber24, 2003, the CityofOakland filed suit•challmghig the City of Alameda's EIR for the General Plan Amendment for Alameda Point in City of Oakland v. City of Alameda, Alameda County Superior Court Case No. (RG03133599) (the "Oakland suit"). L, On January 9, 2004, Asian Health Services and Oa klai d Chinatown Chamber of Commerce filed snit challenging the Caty ofAlameda's BIR for the General Plan Amendment for Alameda Point in sue' Health Services 1 , Grip of Alameda_ Alameda County Superior Court Case.No. (RG04135696) (the "AHS and OCCC suit"). 0. Alameda maintains that the BIR for the Alameda Point General Play Amendment . fully complies withthe California Environmental QualityAct (" CEQA"), Public Resources Code section 21000.etseg. • M. Alameda wishes to work collaboratively with the Oakland Chinatown community for the planning, redevelopment and reuse of Alameda Point to the benefit of Alameda and the region, and to minimire impacts of that development on Chinatown and adjacent communities.. • THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing the provisions of this • Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby conclusively acknowledged, OCCC, MIS, Oakland and Alameda agree as follows: • 1.1. Qaddandiaban Within sixty (60) days of the . effective date, , Alameda and Oakland shall establish and provide staff support (which shall be limited to scheduling and noticing meetings, publishing agendas and providing information, reports and recommendations) for an Oakland Chinatown Advisory Conran ttee ("OCAC"). The OCAC shall serve as an advisory committee to 'the Alameda City Council and pig Board and the Oakland City Council and Planning Commission for the purpose o£pmviding ongoing communication and feedback on Oakland Chinatown issues relatedto . the future development and environmental review (CBQA) process for projects, within Alameda Point and Downtown. Oakland, The OCAC shall continue to meet as often as it determines necessary until all project level CBQA documents • for build -out of development at Alameda Point under the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment have been certified or approved by the lead votes to dissolve itselti or until this nEY. until it under section 12 of Mk al;��t � � hyena ofthepairiies between locations in Oakland Meetings of the OCAC will alternate . subject to open meeting laws applicable to Oakland °� OCmi stall be mmrssions, 1.2. OCAC Participation. The OCAC shall be made up offour (4) represettatives and one alternate repr. esentatiye rani the Oakland Chinatown community to be selected by OCCC and ARS to represent the bioad inters of the commun • two (2) representatives and one alternate selected by the Oakland City Council, and two (2) representatives and one alternate representative selected by the , . Alameda City Council. Each representative will have equal voting rights. The OCAC shall, by vote of a plurality of all OCAC representatives, elect a chairperson from anions the representatives selected by OCCC and MIS. The OCAC shall reach all othee decisions by vote ofa majority of all OCAC • representatives. Incase of a deadlock, the chairperson shall be entitled to cast an additional tie - breaking vote 1.3. OCAC Role and Responsibilities. The OCAC will meet to ieview and make recommendations to the Alameda planning Board and City Council and the . cil Oakland Planning Commission and City Coun regard.ing potentially signilloant environmental effects related to the potentiat.implementation. ofAlameda Point • and Downtown Onldand development projects on the Oaklandthinatown community. These recommendations may encompass cumulative impacts, and project impacts specificallyincludia& but not limited Quality, and +edesttian � won, air P safety assumrptfons, projections, - standards, improvements, appropriate contributions toward the implementation of mitigation measures fir cumulative impacts, thresholds of significance, and methodologies: Specific issues for OCAC consideration and recommendation may include: l) Scope of studies necessary to evaluate the potential trade • Alternatives to be considenodhi the envirtmmental analysis, 3) erections 'to be 322440 Page 3 analyzed in Alameda and Oakland including but not limited to the intersections within and adjoining Oakland Chinatown, 4) Both short term and long term mitigation tneaaures to be considered to reduce or eliminate any significant impacts identified, including methods to re -route Webster/Posey Tube traffic around the Oakland Chinatown Community, 5) Mitigations to reduce or eliminate cumulative impacts on the Oakland Chinatown community Boni development in Oakland and Alameda, 6) Implementation of TSM/TDM pmt in either Downtown Oakland or Alameda Point, and 7) any other issue related to the impacts of Alameda Point or Downtown Oakland development on Oakland Chinatown. The OCAC may recommend and request that Alameda and Oakland staff conduct Studies OCAC deems necessary in theperfionmanoe of its • responsibilities. However, neither Alameda nor Oakland shall be obligated to undertake such studies. Alameda and Oakland agree-lbat they will give • consideration to any written recommendations of the OCAC received before or-at apublic hearing conducted by Oakland or Alameda on the matter that tai the subject of the recommendation, and will provide a written explanation for any recommendation they reject. - 1,3.1. OCAC Recommendations. OCAC recommendations shall be in wilting, shall include recordation of the vote of the OCAC on the recommendation, and may include minority opinion reports if desired by any OCAC . representative. 1.4. Info on and Fun 'rg' in order to allow sufficient time for review, comment, and possible revisions Oakland and Alameda staffshall provide copies of all Prot 1elated documentation or documentation related to other mattes s • specifically yak the purview ofthe OCAC as -stated in section 1.3 above, that is anticipata to be provided to the final decision making body, to the OCAC members at the same time such information is provided to the decision making body and not less than two weeks prior to anypublic homing at which any decision related to the substance of the dal would be made by the decision making body. Any additional studies recommended by the OCAC and agreed upon by Alameda or Oakland maybe funded byAlameda or Oakland subject to their sole absolute disarction..Bach City shall have the sole right to select consultants for studies funded a tirely by such City: Consultants involved preparing OCAC- recommended studies funded jointly by any co on of - Alameda, Oakland, and Caltrans (thiough its Revive Chinatown study) shall be • selected by agreement of all jurisdictions participating in the finding, ate Alameda and Oakland have considered any timely recommendations of the • OCAC. In addition, Alameda agrees that it shall provide $75,000 to OCCC and MIS solely for the purpose of finding OCCC and MIS 'staff support for their representatives on the OCAC and Rending technical consultant services to OCCC and MIS representatives on the OCAC. Alameda's $75,000 contribution towards approved OCCC and AS costs shall be subject to the terms as set forth in the meantorandurn attached to Ns Agreement u Exhibit A. Under no circumstances shalt any Rending provided by Alameda be used for attorney's fees 322440 Page 4 t . • Y or to otherwise support litigation against a patty to this agreement except as specifically Provided in this Agreement. Neither Alameda nor Oakland shall be obligated under any citcumstancea to provide any additional funds to OCAC or to any ply to this Agreement • 1,4.1 Verification of Ex enditure. OCCC and MIS shall provide written verification that expenditure of funds provided by Alameda pursuant to section 1.4 above has been made subject to the limitations set forth in that section and the terms set forth in Exhibit A. 1.4.2 Relit to atlenge or Oneoge. Except as set forth in section 2.5.3 below, Participation on the OCAC shall not in any way prejudice OCCC or AHS's right to commence, prosecute, fund or otherwise support.any legal or administrative. proceeding to challenge of oppose anyplan or project located in Oakland or at Alameda Point, including any Environmental Impact Statement, Environmental • Impact Report, relating to anyprojec t or plan in Oakland or at Alameda Point • However, except as otheiwise fly specified in this Agreement, nothing herein shall be deemed to establish any legal or awe claim or'right to challenge or oppose any such plan orproject; nor to permit the OCCC or the AHS to file any lawsuit or challenge related to the obligations set forth in this Agreement in a manner that is ink with section 72, .7.3 or 8.1 below. • 1.5. D sc etion as +m e, j A oy . CBQA and the CEQA Guidelines require Alameda and Oakland as Lead agencies to make certain CBQA decisions and determinations for projects.witbia each city's jurisdiction Consistent with CBQA, Alameda and Oakland reserve the discretion to make those determinations for projects within downtown Oakland and within Alameda Point and MSC following such consultation with duq OCAC as is requited by this. Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be:oonstued as a delegation of police power by Alameda or Oakland nor shall this Agreement be construed to limit the discretion ofAlameda or Oakland in any way, including Without • limitation, to make detenninations regarding environmental impacts or the • feasibility of akigadon measures or des to projects under CBQA, to approve or deny any development application mid/or adopt a statement of ommrlding considerations pursuant to Section 15093 of the State Guidelines for the Implementation of CBQA: (the CBQA Guidelines) or decide what actions are in the bests ofthe health, safety and welfare ofthe citizens of each Jurisdiction. 2. California Environmental ()panty Act (CEQA). • 21. Point Protect Sp� Alameda shall prepare at least one Project level BIR ("Project Specific EMI in compliance with CEQA for the Master Plan • .or any project to implement the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment for the redevelopment ofAlameda Point priot to the construction ofany new permanent occupied buildings at Alameda Point. However, nothing in this Agreement shall 322440 Page .S • • be construed to limit or restrict the leasing ofproperty at Alameda Point that is otherwise permitted by.the Interim Lease Program in place prior to the preparation of the programmatic EJR already certified ibr the Alameda point General Plan Amendment ( 13IR"), or to prohibit Alameda from adopting • zoning necessary to bring the zoning ordinance and zoning map into conformance with the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment, and/or other applicable provlsions of the General Plan (e.g. Housing Element) without preparing a subsequent or supplemental BIR•unless Alameda determines that a subsequent or supplemental Ent or some other documentation under CEQA is required pursuant to the applicable provisions of CEQA. and the CEQA Guidelines, including but not limited to Public Resources Code §21166 and Guidelines Sections 15162 ("Subsequent BIIts and Negative Declarations'', . 15163 ('"Supplement to an EIR") and 15164 ("Addendum to an BIR or Negative Declaration'). Alamedarelinquisyhes any authority it might otherwise have under section 15152 of the CBQA Guidelines to rely on the pEIR or any associated findings during the project-level environmental review ofAlameda Point projects; except the Phase One Project (as defined in Section 2.5.3, below) and the Alameda Point Golf Course / Conference Hotel project, regarding their project level or cumulativetraffq pedestrian safety, or air quality impacts on Oakland Chinatown ("Chinatown Impacts'). Any Project Specific BIR for Alameda Point, except the Phase One Project BIR and the Alameda Point Golf Course'Conferc nce,Hoiel Bin, shall include an updated and revised analysis of Chinatown Impacts. The data, analysis, conclusions, and ay associated findings for Alameda Point projects (other than the Phase One Project, the Alameda Point Golf Course/Conference Hotel project the rezoning or leasing activity referred to above) with respect to these issues will be prepared de novo, and any incorporation of or reference 10 prior analyses, recommendations, findings, conclusions, or determinations regarding Chinatown Impacts in connection with the approval'of the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment or its pBllt, shall be considered as new information and shall not be given any deference based on its source. This and any associated conclusions or findings .for project- . level CBQA review for Alarnedal'oint projects, shall be consistent with the - following requirements: 2.1.1. Chnatown Setting. The analysis of C inatown Impacts in the Alameda Point Master Plan RIR or any Project Specific enviromnental review for Alameda Point projects shall aclmowledge and take into account the setting of the Chinatown District as an intensivepedestrian oriented retaiVcommerciat area with a large populations of cbildrai and seniors; 2.1.2. Utilization of Studies. Alameda shall use its best efforts to ensure that the • Projcot •$ c environmental review utilize the information and consider . the conclusions; and to the extent Alameda determines each' is feasible, • applicable to Alameda projects and either necessary to mitigate a significant impact or the most appropriate nab of midgathig a signifioant impact, 322440 Page 6 . incorporate the mitigation measures contained within any studies conducted • pursuant to this Agreement; 2.1.3. islittgouissana. The Project Specific environmental review will examine and discuss specific measures to mitigate Chinatown Impacts (to • the extent they are determined by Alameda to be significant). The Project. Specific environmental review will identify Alameda s determination regarding the feasibility or infeasibility of each measure as well as any significant secondary impacts uniting front each measure; 2.1.4. Itingtotheiggimmezzosankked. The mitigation measures to be discussed in the Project Specific environtnental review will include, at a minimum, all measures that are identified in the studies. conducted pursuant to this Agreement and all measures tlhatare • for the BIR (including those recommended inmoping in the process gtheses Process bythe OCAC), to the extent Alameda determines each such measure has a news with the project under review and is feasible. Such measures may include, so long as Alameda determines that such measures have a nexus and are feasible; measures to improve effectiveness ofpublic transit connections to Alameda.(e.g., queue-jumping for public transit/HOV at the Webster and Posey tubes during peak commute hours)• . ah�Y mitigation Measures or improvements identified in the Caftans `Revive Chinatown" study, measures designed to route through traffic (i.e., iraffc that does not have Oakland Gown as its destination) around Oakland Chinatown, measures to encourage transit use at Alameda Point; (e.g., Roe and fiaequent infra- ' project shuttle service to/fromAC Transit stops within commercial areas of project, promoting visibility of AC Transit stops and routes through signage, bus shelters, etc.), and measures to divert traffic from Alameda Point from the Webster andPosey tubes. 2.1.5. Isgfigaftmobtbiggjmnau To the extent Alameda adopts mitigation measures identified in the Project Specific environmental review, the - Miton Monitoring or Reporting Progaram preparedby Alaineda pursuant to Public Resource Code section 21081.6 shall identifyhow each adopted mitigation measure shall be implemented, what entity is responsible for implementation, and how impl tion will be fimded, if funding is 2.1.6. Pei yes. All Alameda Point Project Specific BIRs will include a detailed discussion of a iraasit- oriented Project Alternative, if recommended by the OCAC, which maintains the number of jobs and • housing units inaluded.in the project but proposes a higher density, more clustered, transit - oriented site plan than the proposed project. The RIR will • also include a reduced intensity project alternative. The fihet tint an •Alternative would require an amendment to the City ofAlameda's Charter, zoning ordinance or general plan shall not be deemed grounds for screaming out that Alternative from detailed discussion or analysis, but Charter inconsistency may be grounds for finally determining that an Alternative is . infeasible. 2.2. Deinition of "Feasible." The word "feasible" or "feasibility" as used in this agreement shall have the definition set forth in Public Resources Code section 21061.1 as that section has been interpreted through published case law and the CEQA Guidelines. 2.3. Conditions of Approval. For development plans and projects within Alameda Point. and Downtown Oakland, Alameda and Oakland respectively agree to commit to the following: _ 2.3.1. Bach jurisdiction will ensure that all mitigation measures that it determines ' are both feasible and effective, that are within that jut sdiction's sole control, and are found pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and/or • section 15091 of the CBQA Guided to lie nary to avoid or • substantially lessen the severityofa significant project-specific . Environmental impact, are incorporated into the project or adopted as . mandatory conditions of approval as appropriate, 2.3.2. Bach'jurisdiction will ensure that those.mitigation measures which it determines are feasible and effective and are found, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and/or section 15091 of the C31QA Guidelines, to be necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the project's contribution to an anticipated significant cumulative impact, and are only partial contributions to larger programs or improves that require contribution from otter projected development projects,' shall be included in the Mitigation Monitoring Programs as required by Public Resource Code section 21081.6 and section 15097 of the CBQA Guidelines. The Mitigation Monitoring Programs shall include mechanisms tq ensure that all required contributions Avin the project, or Stomeach project phase ifthe project is constructed or developed inphases; are collected no later than the time of issuance ofanybuilding permit foranypr'oject orprojeilt phase and are made available to fund the larger program or irnproveruent prior to commencement of said program or improvement. • 2.33. When either Oakland or Alameda is responsible for the implementation of an identified feasible 'mitigation measure and has determined that it has received all funding required for the implementation ofthat mitigation measure, that jurisdiction shall undertake all activities it determines are required to commence the implementation of that mitigation measure hi a timely fashion. Such measure's shall include performing all required . planning and environmental review, . approvals and, �aPph�l� the mg a>l necessary goental acgrdmdon ofanyroquired tight ofway. All finding required, as used in this section, shall refer to all funds that ' Page 8 . 2* jurisdiction determines are required to complete all planning .environmental review, engines site acquisition, permit issuance, conlr'aat approval and • performance and construction or implementation of the improvement or mitigation measure. ' 2.3.4. Alameda shall not make a finding pursuant to Public Resouroes Code section 21081(ax2) that Oakland "can and should" implement any mitigation measure identified in any Mute CBQA document for Alameda Point or PJSC projects, if the implementation of that mitigation measure is within the:solo jurisdiction of Oakland and Oakland enter; a comment into the record that such measure has been considered and rejected by Oakland Oakland shall not make a fording pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081(aX2) that 'Alameda "can and should" implement a mitigation measure identified in a future CEQA document for any Downtown Oakland project, if the implementation of that mitigation measure is within the sole jurisdiction of Alameda and Alameda enters a comment into the record that such measure has been considered and rejected by Alameda • 7f ul Oakland and Alameda agree that they will work cooperatively to agree, after considering any timely recommendations from the OCAC, upon a methodology or formula for determining each jurisdiction's and project proponent's fair share contributions toward mitigation measures or improvements in Alameda and Oakliind to mitigate impadts tom those projeots upon Oakland and Alameda • Oakland and Alameda farther agree that they will consider the methodologies used by Caltrans, the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, or any . other State or regional agency with appropriate jurisdiction, to calculate.the • appropriate contributions for improvements within those agencies' control or • . jurisdiction Oakland and Alameda farther agree to consider in determining the appropriate methodology or fommla, after recommendations from the OCAQ 1) whether new and anticipated development should fund the total cost of the mitigation measmu/improvemant or only a share • of the cost; 2) whither the mitigation measure/improvement improves service or the condition over existing conditions or si mplym axis' ting conditions - and 3) whether the impact is being caused pri lyby Oakland and Alameda projects or a whether a significant portion of the impact is being generated by projects outside. the jurisdiction of either Alameda or Oakland, 2.�. Mutual Covenants not to Challenge. 2.5.1. Mang& Alameda agrees not to commence, prosecute, fund or - otherwise port any legal proceeding to challenge or oppose the redevelops ient projects listed in Exhibit B, including but not limited to any . entitlements, approvals, licenses, leases, Bavirom ental Impact Statements, Environmental Impact Reports, or other environmental and/Or regulatory *documentation ordet+eminadon trade relating to these projects. Pago 9 • 2.5.2. Oakland. Within seven (7) days after the effective date of this • Agreement, Oakland shall dismiss with prejudice all existing legal • proceedings ohalleiging the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment, including the Oakland suit and any and all existing legal•ohallenges to Alameda's compliance with CBQA with regard to said General Plan Amendment. Further, Oakland agrees not to commence, prosecute, tbnd or otherwise support any legal proceeding to challenge or oppose the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point and/or the tbrmer Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility (") including but not limited to any entitlements, approvals, licenses, leases, Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Impact Reports or any other environmental and/or regulatory documentation or determination made • relating to these projects: 2.5.3.. OCCC and AHS. Within seven (7) days after the effective date of this Agreement, OCCC and MIS shall dismiss with prejudice all existing legal proceedings challenging the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment; including the MIS and OCCC suit and any and all existing legal challenges to Alameda's compliance with CEQA with regard to said General Plan Amendment.- Further, the OCCC and ABS agree not to commence, prosecute, find or otherwise support any legal proceeding to challenge or • .oppose (1) the Alameda Point Golf Course project; (ii) ahy zoning amendment to. bring the zoning ordinance and zahingmap into conformance with the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment and/or Other applicable provisions of the Ge al'Plan (e.g. Housing Element); (iii) anynew or on- going building leasing activity in conformance with the regulatory program . adopted prior to .the adoption ofthe Alameda Point General Plan Amendment (Intern Lease Program); (iv) any procedures .determination, .interim leasing entitlement or outer regulatory action undertaken as part of the approval process lbr the above listed projects or activities; or (v) the. Oakland redevelopment pmject $.listed in Exhibit B, including but not limited to any entitlements, approvals, licenses, leases, linvironmenhil . Impact Statements, Environmental Impact Reports, or other environmental arid/or regulatory documentation or determination made relating to these projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing in this section 2.5.3, O.CCC's and AHS's obligations under this section 2.5.3 do not apply to any project or aotivitythat Alameda cannot 1awfally find is consistent with the adopted Alameda Point General Plan Amendment and/or the Interim Lease Program. In addit ion, OCCC and MIS agree not to commence, prosecute, fiord„ or .off support any legal or eve proceeding to challenge or oppose any development entitlements for the Phase One Project at Alameda Paint, as defined in this section 2.5.3 below, including, but not limited to, any development plat, subdivielon, CBQA documentation, Development Agreement or other development entitlement necessary for construction of an initial first phase development project, As defined herein, the Phase One 322440. Page 10 2.6 Project may include up to 1,000 single filially/duplex units, 100 low and/or very low income multifbmiiy units and 100,000 square feet of neighborhood . commercial construction. Nothing in this challenge shall be • deemed to bar the OCCC or MI or any of mew go written or oral comments regarding any of the projects described ln thisg Agreement to the Alameda Planning Board, the Alameda City Council, the. Oakland Planning Commission or the Oakland City Council; or (ii) appeafing any decision ofthe Alameda Planning Board or the Oakland Planning Commission to such City's respective City Council. .L_1tI �`1 . i 1 at W1 It ,1 Jui,vii �tii' . :ii t :� :'1! ' :! it t it r, II : a 2.6.1 Qhinatowu Irony. The OCCC and MIS bane identified certain phypioal traffic, and/or transportation improvements ("Oakland Chinatown Improvemens"), an interim list of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, that they believe will improve pedestrian safety and circulation in the Chinatown community following development at Alameda Point. The Oakland Chinatown Improvements are estimated to cost approximately $962,000. 2.62 Alameda Pounding oflmprovements. As a condition Of approval ofthe Phase One Project, Alameda shall impose on all madcot lute Phase One Project units a per residential unit development impact fee sufficient to - generate $500,000 ('Impact Fee"). The permit Impact Fee shall be collected at the time of issuance of each of the Phase One Project • building permits for the market rate residential units. Oakland, OCCC - and M S agree that the imposition end paymentof such Impact Fee shall Oakland acts of the Phase One Project on the ty. 2.6.3 Oakland Administers impact Fes, Alameda shall transmit the - Impact Fee proceeds to Oakland on a monthly basis as the proceeds accrue. Oakland and Alameda agree that the collection and expenditure of the Impact Fee is subject to the requirements of dial/litigation Fee Act. (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and that Oakland shall . comply with the provisions of drat statute. The Impact pee proceeds - shall be applied to construct the Oakland mown Improvements, or other improvements ("Substitute Improvements") thai the Oakland City • Council finds, based upon substantial evidence in the record, improve pedestrian safety and circulation in Oakland Chinatown. Substitute Improvements. located more than four blocks from the intemections of 7th Street and Webster Street or 7th Street and Harrison Street shall be ineligible to be considered as Substitute Improvements for purposes of this Agreement. . 322440 Page 11 2.6.4 akkatEllionafiggh. Oakland shall contdbute $402,000 ("Oakland Contribution ") towards the Oakland Chinatown In3provements or-to the • Substitute Improvements. Any fluids that Oakland has secured, provided or expended or will secure, provide or ea►pend for Oakland Chinatown Improvements or Substitute Improvements will be credited toward the Oakland Contribution, and the balance of the Oakland Contribution payable hereunder shall be correspondingly reduced. For example (and not in limitetion of the foregoing), curentlypeodhhg before the Oakland ' City Council is a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enxec rte a finding agreement and to appropriate fluids in the amount of $246,176.00 for installation ofa traffic signal* the intersection of 7ffi Street and Franklin• Street and for otherpedestdan safety improvements is the Chinatown area; provided that this item is approved and the subject (buds are expended, then the outstanding balance oft. Oakland - Contribiition shall be reduced by the amount and expenditure. Oakland shall pay out any balance ofthe Oaldand'Contribution (as such balance may have been reduced by credits described in this. section 2 6.4) promptly upon its receipt ofAlameda's dollar-for-dollar matching Impact Fee contribution. 2.6.5 Use of Fhwds. All parties to this agreement shall use i ho r beat efforts to ensure that the Oakland Chinatown Improvements, or, if applicable, Substitute Improvements, are fully implemented within three (3) years of the date when the fill Impact Fee Ind Oakland Contribution have been . deposited with Oakland. If Oakland has not expended all of the Impact Fee within this time, then, if requested by Alerteda,- Oakland shall remit to Alameda any unexpended portion of the Impact Fee. ,Alameda shall . segregate any such remitted finds and shall use such remitted finds Yo fund mitigation measures adopted to mitigate impacts upon the Oakland Chinatown community caused by figure phases of development at Alameda Point, ifany such measures are adopted through the CEQA -p . Any remitted Impact Fee finds that remain unexpended ten (10) yearn after the folk Impact Fee has been deposited with Oakland .shall revert to the Alameda General Find. Nothing in this section 2.6.5 shall .be deemed to bar Alameda from (i) making wren or oral comments regarding any Mho Oakland Chinatown Improvements or, if applicable, Substitutefmpiovements to the Oakland Planning Commission or the Oakland City Council; or (ii) appealing any decision of tlhe.Oakland Planning Commission to the Oakland City Council;'howeevea, Alameda . • shall not commence, prosecute, find or otherwise support any legal proceeding to challenge or oppose any action by the C2tyofOakland to fund, approve or implement any of the Oakland Chinatown • Improvements or the Substitute Improvements. 2.6.6 Alammeda Ovw.Peyment •If the fair. airelhari of the cost of measu es to • mitigate the impacts of the Phase One Project's pedestrian safety and .322440 1 Page 12 traffic impacts in Chinatown is less than $250,000, then Alameda shall receive a credit for the additional $250,000 of Fee ("Impact Fee Credit'), which impact Fee Credit shall be applied againstAlameda's other obligations t� Rind traffic improvements in Oakland Chinatown or other parts of Oakland due to environmental impacts from flatus phases of development at Alameda Point. 2.6.6.11? n Ho of 7m„arl• Fee ('edit in conjunction with the environmentalreview of the nncxtphese of development at Alameda Point following.the Phase One Project, Alameda shall determine Oakland's and Alameda's fair shares of the cost of measures implemented by Oakland pursuant to this Section 2.6 to mitigate the Phase One Project's impacts is Oakland Chinatown. The analysis will use the fair share methodology developed • pursuant to Section 2.4 ofthis•Agreement. IfAlameda detennineo, punraant to Section 2.6.5 that the Impact Fee Credit should be applied to Mare phases, that determination and supporting - imalysis shall be such figure ��ocumented during the envlmnme�ntat review for P • 2.6.7 Letter of Acko _ led Amesi . Within thirty(30) days after the effective ' date of this Agreement, the OCCC and. AILS agree to execute the letters mitigate the attad ed as wit C, acknowledging that the Impact Fee is sufficient to - Y impacts of the Please One Project on the Chinatown 2.6.8 Oakland Aclauowledgemean t• of Pull Mitigation. Oakland acknowledges and agrces that Alameda's perfiirinance under -this Algreene nt will fiully mitigate any and all traffic, pedestrian safety; and localized air quality .impacts upon Oakland Chinatown generated by the Alameda Point Golf Course/Hotel project and Alameda Point Phase One Pi+oject. 3. P1A .-c '' % Alameda and the OCCC/AHS shall endeavor to complete the studies set firth in this section after considering timely iecommendations from the - OCAC and prior to publication ofthe Project Specific BIR for Alameda Point ' contemplated in Sectlon.2.2.Oakland and Alameda shall der any available dings, conclusions, and iecommendations ofthe studios setforth in this section, and other studies which may ba prepared pursuant to section 1.3 (so long as those studies are completed prior to the preparation ofthe applioable Project Specific BIR for Alameda Point or Downtown Oaklandproject) whem preparing draft - envh.+onmental documents for projects in Downtown Oakland, Alameda Point and FISC and as required by CBQA. The Planning Studies identified in paragraphs 3.1 through 3.5 shall include identification of specific improverne nt projeote and the relative feasibility of those improvement projects, cam, finding strategies, and methods to collect fair'share contribution $mn all parties. • 322440 Page 13 3.1. fiNadwaybackson Pbiase 11 $tudy. Alameda and Oakland shall establish a joint management team for completion of the Broadway /Jackson Phase II Study in a timely manner. ,Alameda shall use its best efforts to complete the technical portion ofthe Broadway /Jackson Phase If Study within one year ofthe date of this Agreement. 3.2. Alameda shall complete an Alameda to Oakland Alternative Transportation Corridor Feasibility Study prior to the Alameda Point Master Plan or project specific BIR approvals. The Study will include the approximate costs of each • alternative Alameda determines may be appropriate to consider evaluating in a potential Major Investment Study or other similar study and the necessary impact fees or exactions to coves Alameda's local share of those costs; Alameda and Oakland agree to work cooperatively to evaluate the feasibility of an alternativs . estuary crossing that will reduce the projected &tore traffic volumes fn the Webster/PoseyTubes. 3.3. Trausportation Alternatives for Alameda Point Alameda.shall complete a comprehensive study of the feasible transportation alternatives for Alameda Point prior to approval of the Alameda Point Master Plan or certification for any • project specific BIR for an Alameda Point project (`Transportation Study"). The Transportation Study, shall be conducted is collaboration with potential service providers and shall include costs and mode -shift benefits of suppleanitai,fmry, • shuttle, and transit connections from Alameda Point to Oakland. The intent of . this work is to identify specifically the type and scale of altemaiive transportation services that will be required to support the Alameda Point development and reduce or °Bret automobile traffic volumes resulting Brom Alameda. Point development through the Webster and Posey tubes near (awn. The . Transportation Study will include the costs of each alternative and level of development impact fees, or exactions-fioni development projects necessary to cover those. costs. • 3.4. Revive.binatown S 2k. Oakland, OCCC and Aga shall use their best efforts' to complete the Revive Chinatown Study within one year of thedate ofthis - Agreement. Thu completed study shall include a final list . of specific physical • improvements to be constructed by Oakland in Chinatown and partially fimded by the Alameda fiords described hi section 2.6.2. However, no aspect ofthe •processing of any project shall be contingent upon the progress. or completion of the Revive Chinatown Study. - :!!r'! i .' �1:._I r,I . * :{ !.::r L' S �i : I I rtt.:.I . r )i! I I :::j ' _ A .4. Development and Implementation of TSM!FDM Measures. Alameda shall continue to develop and implement Transportation System Management and Transportation . Demand Management (TSM/TDM) measures to reduce the trips generated by new - development at Alameda Point to a level less than significant if feasible. • • 322440 Page 14 4.1. TM/TPM Targetft Alameda shall require all new development at Alameda • Point to find and/or implement TSM/TDM measures desk reduction, below standard 1TB � to achieve a target of 30% in nonresidential peak period vehicle traffic and each residential tial use peak. The Alameda Point Master Developer or Alameda, dont3al Developer) sliaall conduct an annual commute mode survey at Alameda n.o Master Point to dete►nnine the success of the TSM/TDM program in achieving these targets and if such reductions in trips generated are reflected in proportionate reductions in peak period vehicle trips' utilizing the Webster and Posey Tubes, Surveys shall be conducted during a period of normal traffic geneation; i.e., surveys periods will not include•vacation, weekend, or holiday periods. If Alameda, Point is approved in phases, and to the extent that Alameda determines that additional, feasible TSM/TDM measures exist that 1) have not already been implemented • and/or imposed upon Alameda•Point development and 2) will reduce significant -impacts ofAiameda Point development, Alameda will require implementation of • additional TSM/TDMmeasures on subsequent p ofAhmneda Point development if Alameda determines through the monitoring program, that TSM/TDM targets, including proportionate reductions in pealc period vehicle • trips utilizing the Webster and Posey Tubes, are not achieved in the first phase. To the extent that Alaineda detemunes that reducing residential and non resldenutial peak hour vehicle traffic is not necessary to mitigate a significant environmental impact, Alameda shall not be required to impose T'SMITDM • measures -too achieve a level of Trip reduclion that Alameda determines exceeds the level required to mitigate a significant environmental impact. 5. Collaboration; Oakland and Alameda agree to collaborate to efficiently utilize the existing regional transportation system and to facilitate improvements to that system, 5.1. Joint advocacy Alameda and Oakland shall regional transportation fiords for design, advocacy efforts for impmvean�ts to the regional roadway � �� construction of both cities, system used by, andofmutuaa benefit to, 52. •jntefgovemmental communications. Alameda and Oakland shall establish a Transpnon went Team involving staff from both cities to meet regularly to coordinate and •address joint transportation issues. The Transportation Iminoveme nt Team wiliestablish apmcess.for ongoing communication and feedback on transportation issues in addition to the environmental review (CEQA) process. 6. Dispute Resolution Process. Ifthere is a disagreement betweerrthe parties relating to this Agreement; the parties agree to attempt to resolve such disagreement as follows: • 322440 I A t o : i • 111E : i i ! 1 • i f: ;L it S, ti� , Ik1 :� i .10.0 ice, press find or otherwise leer 1r taking any action to commence, support•an ylegal or • • Page lS administrative proceeding to challenge or oppose any project at Alameda Point or Oakland on grounds other than grounds arising ing out of or relating to this Agreement, OCCC and AHS.shall provide the City of Alameda, or City of Oaldand as applicable, advance written notice of their intent to commence such action either ten (10) days' or % the period provided by statute, or regulation as applicable, to file an action to challenge an approval of an Alameda Point project, • whichever is lei before commencing such legal action. Within the advance notice period, OCCC and MIS shall meet with the City of Alameda; or the -City of Oakland if applicable, along with any real party in interest involved in the project to be challenged to attempt to settle any disputes raised by OCCC and/AHS. If the dispute cannot be'rosoived.within the advance notice period, . OCCC and ABS shall, if requested by Alameda or Oakland, as applicable, and-all real parties in interest involved in the project to be challenged, agree to a tolling agreement to allow time to resolve the dispute without initiating•the proposed legal proceeding. 6.2 Die puts Resolution over Tcnns of his Aae+eement. Anyparty seeking to resolve a disagreement over the interpretation or the alleged non - compliance or breach of the terns of this Agreement shall serve notice on the alleged offending • ply in vatting (bye fax, or personal delivery) not later.than fifteen business days after receiving notice of the decision or action that the party intends to challenge. Failure to provide mitten notice as required undue tics subsection shall preclude the complaining party Som bringing any legal action based upon that alleged non-compliance or breach. • • - .3 tiup� fund City of Alameda. For five business days after the notification has been saved, or ten days if service is by mail, implementation of i he decision that is being disputed shall be stayed, unless earlier action is required by order of a • regulatory agency or by a threat to the public's health and safety.: Within five business days oftlheabove notification, the party whose deodsion,is being challenged may request that The disputing party meet and confir with it and attempfto resolve the dispute. Such meetings shall cue during a period of at least five business days following the request unless either patty deter tines that further continuation would be fidile. Any such settlement efforts shall not prevent - the dispuling patty fimn undertaking legal or administrative action to challenge the disputed decision ifnecessary to •satisfy any applicable time liteitation. 7. afmagLat. The parties agree that the following remedies shall be the sole and • absolute remedies available to enforce, interpret, or seek remedies for claimed. breaches of the temas of this Agreement. 7.1. Any claim in which a party alleges that OCCC or MIS has famed to fulfill fully its obligations under this Agreement shall be filed and servedwithin 30 days of _ the date the cause of action arises. The obligations of OCCC and/or ASS may be 1I 1 f 322440 ' Page 16 . enforced solely through the remedies of Spe d&c PeribrMance, preliminary injunction and/or *Mount injunction. 7.2. Except for a dispute alleging a breach of Alameda'e obligation to provide . Aiding to the OCCC and/or thQ AHS under section 1.4, which shall be resolved through binding arbitration, any claim in which a party alleges that Alameda or Oakland has failed to fulfill fully its obligations under this Agreement shall be brought solely as a writ petition challenging the agency's decision that it complied with this Agreement. Any such writ action shall be filed and served within the statutory period otherwise applicable to, and in conjunction with any challenge to a land use .approval 'ofanyfuture Alameda Point or Oaldaadproject which shall be 'evidenced by a Notice of Detenninatiom (NOD) filed with the County Clerk (or other applicable public notification 'fan NOD is not filed), and shall be subject only to the rules applicable to emendate proceeding (including without limitation deference to the local agency's decision, rules regarding exclusion of evidence outside the record, and rules regarding the substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious standard of review, as applicable). In the event that more than one statute of limitations may apply, to any such challenge, the action shall be filed within the earlier of such imitations periods. The remedies in such action shall be limited to those available in a writ of mandate proceeding except that to the extent that the remedy sought relates solely to the breachiof an express term of this Agreement nt that is not subject to review under the standards and procedures for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085 or 1094.5 (as those sections maybe amended) then. the remedy shall be limited to an order of specific performance and/or an injunction, which the parties agree shall operate in the same manner as a writ. Further, except as to enforcenieat.of section 2.6, as between .Oakland and the OCCC and the AHS, the OCCC and the ABS shall haven cause of action for breach of this Agreement under any circumstance. 7.3. Monetary damages shall not be available as a remedy in any action relating to or - arising out of this Agreement. Further, in no case shall any action relating to or arising out of tins Agreement be deemed to bar; suspend, enjoin, or otherwise • .preclude any governmental ntal entity from undertaking any action or decision in processing or approving a project. 8. .,Attorneys Fees. 8.17n any action or proceeding at law or in egndty.be tween the parties to enforce or interpret ay provision of this Agreement, each party sh'ali bear all oat own 'costs, including attorneys. fres and experts fees. • 8.2 Notwithstanding subsection 8.1 above, within thirty (30) days after the effective . date of this Agreement,.Alameda shall pay to OCCC and AHS their combined attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $3,000. Payment by Alameda of the • amount specified in this subsection 8.2 constitutes a full and final compromise, release and settlement .of any and all claims fbr attorneys fbes and posts Som all pedtionen and each of then against Alameda through and Winding the litigation and Rettlement activities eulminating in execution of this Agreement. Payment of attorney's fees and costs pursuant ti this section shall be deducted limn the $75;000 payable to the OCCC and AHS by Alameda for the reimbuisemernt..of certain future OCCC and AHS exposer; set forth in section 1.4 above. The $75,000 available for such fiuture reimbursement of OCCC and AHS expenses shall accordingly be reduced to $72,000 following the payment by Alameda for OCCC and MIS attorney's fees and coati. . 9. Partial Execution.. If thls Agreement is executed byAlameda and Oakland, but not executed byboth OC(JC and HS within ninety (90) days of execution by Alameda. and Oakland, then this Agreement shall be binding between Alameda and Oakland, but neither OCCC nor ABS shag be considered a party to this Agreement. In such event, Sections 1 and 2.6 shall have no force and effect, and neither Alameda nor Oakland shall have any duty to OCCC or MIS regarding an aspect of this Agreement. Furthermore neither OCCC nor AHS nor any other person or entity shall be deemed to be an incidental or intended third patty beneficiary of this Agreement. 10. No Admissions Made. This is an agreement of compromise. Accordingly, the parties agree that none of its provisions constitute, or shall be construed as, an admission or as evidence conning the validity or adequacy of the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment or its BIR • . 11.$'ve Date oftliis A This Agreement shall be effective as ofthe date . upon which all of the signatories have signed the agreement (the "effective date"). • 12. Termination. This Agreenientmay be teeminated by any party, for any or no reason, . ten (10) years aft the Effective date ofthe Agreement Notice of temination must • be made in writing and delivered to each of the other parties by U.S. Mali or personal .service. 13. No Third Party Beneficiaries. lie mutual promisees in this Agreement we intimded only for the benefit of the parties. The parties agree that there are no intended or incidental third party beneficiaries to this Agreement: 14. Notice' s , Any notice that maybe required under this Agreement shah be in vriting.. . shall be effective as of the date of service as indicated in a return receipt or statement from the U.S. Post Office, statement fiom a commercial delivery service or 'messenger's signed proof of service, and shall be given by personal service or by certified or registered mail, to the addresses set for the below: . If to Alameda: Planning Director City ofAlameda CityHali . . 322940 Page 18 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 If to Oakland: Plammiag Director . City of Oakland 250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94612. • If to OCCC: Executive Director Oakland Chinatown Cban lber of Commerce Pacific Renaissance Plaza 388 Ninth Street, Suite 258 • Oakland, CA 94607 If to AHS: ChiefExecutive Officer - Asiaa Health Services Asian Medical Center 818 Webster Street Oakland, CA.94607 -4220 15. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and - governed by the laws of the State of California applicable to contracts made and to be performed in California, All refireirces to California Code sections and CEQA Ouidelinea shall be construed to refer to the law or Guideline as it exists on the date the action subject to that law or Guideline occurred. 16. Amendments. This Agreement maybe amended only by written agreement executed - by all of the parties. 17. IM2g..auk This Agreement represents the entire agent between Alameda, Oakland, the OCCC, and the AHS with respect to its subject matter. No representations, warranties, inducements or oral agreements have been made by any . ley with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement except as expressly set forth. in this Agreeanesht. 18. Aithatathheikaigam. The parties to this Agreement represent that the signatories below have the actual authority to bindlheir respective parties to the turns of this Agreement and acknowledge that each party Willis Agreement has relied upon that apparent authority in entering into this Agreement, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on the signature dates below. Effective Date: CHINATOWN ALAMEDA Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, City of Alameda, a California non-profit corporation a municipal corpo . on Acting through its Executive Director Acting through Co Manager Asiaa Health Services • A California nonprofit corporation, Acting through its Chief Executive Officer ritlin -Cep —Atf. Signature Date: d/# /o 1 322440 Page 20 APPROVED AS:TO FORM ACityAttorney OAKLAND City of Oakland, a municipal corporation Acting through its City Cognoil ' City Manager Signature Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM 322440 Page 21 Exhibit A� MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN TIM CITY OF ALAMEDA . AND OAKLAND CHINATOWN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND ASIAN HEALTISERVICES REGARDING FINANCIAL ASISSTANCE FOR COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN CHINATOWN IMPACT MITIGATION PLANNING TINS AGREEMENT, dated as of March , 2004 is by and between, the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, ( "OCCC"), a California nonprofit corporation, Asian Health Services ("AHS"), a California nonprofit corporation and the City ofAlameda ( "Alameda"), a municipal corporation, acting by and through its City Council. • • • A. The Oakland Chinatown (chamber of Commerce ("OCCC') and the Asian Health Services Inc ("AHS') have agreed with the City ofAlamseda to settle their dispute with the City of Alameda ova the adequacy of the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment MR, and the parties have entered into an agreement between the City of Alameda, the City of Oakland, the Oakland Chnatown Chamber of Commerce and Asian Health Services regarding cooperation to study and mitigate traffic and related impacts in Alameda, Oakland, and specifically in Oaklmrd C hinabo'n (referred herein as the "Chinatown Agreemenn . B. As part of that settlement, the OCCC and the MIS have agreed with the City of Alameda and the City of Oakland to form and participate in an advisory committee • OCAC) to the Alameda Planning Board and City Council and the Oakland Planning Commission and City Council to advise those bodies in particular and the - Cities ofAlaineda and Oakland in general regarding impacts within the greater Chinatown neighborhood of Oakland from proposed projects in Oakland and/or Alameda Point; and their mitigation. C. Asa further part of that settlement the City of Alameda has agreed to provide • funding, in an amount no less and no morn than $75,000, to OCCC and AHS solely for the purpose of funding OCCC and AHS staffin support of OCCC and MIS. • representation on the OCAC and fimding professional consultant services to OCCC and MIS representatives on the OCAC. - THEREFORE, for the purpose of efficiently and emotively implementing the Chinatown- Agreement, OCC, MIS and Alameda agree as follows: 1. Single Point of Contact, The OCCC and the MIS shall appoint a single individual to act as the Single Point of Contact bet*reen the City ofAlameda and the OCCC and MIS for the purposes of p oviding funding and the accounting of expendihries under this Agreement and the Chinatown Agreement. The OCCC'and'the Alt agree that Single Point of Contact shall represent both entities and shall have fiduciary . 322440 Page 22 responsibilities to both entities. The OCCC and AHS further agree that they shall hold the City ofAlameda, its City Council and officers and employees hornless for any acts or omissions of the Single Point of Contact. The OCCC and ASS shall jointly notify the City ofAlameda in writing of any change in the single point of contact at least five business days prior to the of active date of the change. 2. Disbursement Qf nda Alanieda shall disburse, funds to the Single Point of Contact . as set forth below. ' 2.1. EgtogroyAsfitaiamil Norio any request for disbursement of buds; the Single Point of Contact shall provide the City of Alameda with: a) the names and billing rates for the OCCC and the ARS staffwho will be billing for their time spat attending or preparing for attendance at OCAC meetings, and/or • performing other OCAC related activities, and b) a copy ofthe consultant contract and associated scope of service for any professional. consultant for which the Single Point of Contact will be requesting funds, prior to any west for disbursement of funds. . 2.1.1. The City ofAlameda shall review and approve the OCCC orAlfS staff members being funded by Alameda. Said staffmembers will be deemed approved ifnaobjection is conunmtioated in writingto the single point of contact within l0 business days ofreceipt of the submittal. 2.1.2: The City of Alameda reserves the right to review and approve or reject any professional consultant or professional consultant scope of work based . on its determination that.the consultant and the scope of work.are in substantial compliance with the specifications attached hereto as Attachment 1. Said consultant/scope ofwork will be deemed approved Milo objection is communicated in writing to the single point of contact within ten business days ofreceipt of the submittal. • 22. igm_ongoli Q dingmbursements request a. disbursement in wri to the � The Single Point of Contact shall document the number of hours worked beach The win approved pursuant to Section 2.1.1 by AIIS staff member ' disbursement shall tab into'acoe disbursements; for staff Y spent fiaoni previous disbu sements. Requests for disbursements for consultant services shall be acco ianied by the pre - approved scope of services authorized pursuant to 2.1.2. Along with the request for disbumenient the Single Point of Contact shall provide ati aocounting of the .expenditure ofthe previous disbursement The request for funding disbursements will be made on a monthly basis and will be paid to MIS and OCCC Within 1S businesses days ofreceipt by the City ofAlameda. 2.3. J11 : ' en L �� o : 1': The i tyof C Alameda shall grant the lull amount ofthe Request for Disbursement unless any • ofthe following exists: a) the request for disbursement is not 322440 Page 23 consistent with the list of Pre- approved'Reoipientu orb) the request for disburdening does not meet the requirements of Sections 2.2 above; or o) the accounting of the expenditure of the previous disbursement indicates that thuds were spent for a purpose width is notpennitted under the Chinatown Agreement. or finds were received by a person who has not been approved by the City of Alameda. The Disbursement Request'will be deemed approved Hilo objection is communicated in writing to the single point of contact within ten business days of receipt of the submittal. Any disputes regarding perfonnance agreement will be resolved through binding arbitration; of this , iN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed on the signaturei dates below. Effective Date: a 1 ATOWN Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, CityofAlameda, a California nonprofit corporation a municipal • • • • on Acting through its. Executive Director Acting a � � � � _ ,. City • , uncll AUA14EDA' BY / �� Affix ILT 17.4. Signature Date: Asian Health Services • • AC California nonprofit corporation, Acting through its Chief Executive Officer . Toth,: GAO -A H5 Signature Date: 4/�/0 • 322440 Page 2A. Date: `I (t 9,10t . APPROVED AS TO FORM Attaohmeirt 1: Specifications for Consultant Service Scope of Work Prior to submittal of any request for disbursement of fiends for consultant services, the OCCC/A s Point of Contact shall submit a proposed consultant scope of work to be funded. The proposed consultant scope ofwork shall include adequate detail and information to enable the City ofAlameda to determine that the scope ofwork is consistent with the following specifications and criteria: • 1. The consultant must be a professional wldr relevant experience for the work being completed. The following consultants are pre-approved: • ' 1.1. Dowling Associates (Transportation) 1.2. DSS Associates( Transportation) • 1.3. CBS Consulting (Transportation) 1.4. Fehr and Peers Associates Crtation) 1.5; OMNIMeans (Transportation) • • . 1.6. Lamphier- Gregory (General Environmental Services) '1.7. ESA Associates (General 13nvironmental Services) • 1.8. Baseline Bnvfonmenl Consulting (Gent Environmental Services) 1.9. Borchard & Associates (General Environmental Services) • 1.10. Jones and Stokes (General Environmental Services) • 2. The consultant scope of v rOrk meets the following criteria: 2.1. The scope is well defined and specific. 2.2. The scope is consistent with the consultant's area(s) of expertise and with the scope of issues for the OCAC, as set forth in the Ciinatown Agreement, Exhibit B: Oakland Projects. • Jack London Square Redevelopment: up to 1.5 million net new square feet (mixture of entertainment, retail and offices) within the Jack London District as geographically delineated by the estuary, Clay, 2nd Street and Alice Street. Uptown Mixed Use Project: 1,300 residential units, (including 1,000 student beds), and 50,000 square feet of retail in the central downtown area bounded by 20th Street (Thomas Berkeley Way), San Pablo Avenue, Telegraph Avenue and 18th Street. Central Station: 25 acre site bounded by the•li ontage road, Wood Street, 14th Street and Grand Avenue, which includes the historic Union Pacific West . Oakland Rail Station. Development may include up to 1,200 residential units, up to 200,000 square feet of office and retail space and the restoration and reuse of the historic rail station. Broadway- Grand, Residential Development up to 500 • residential units in the 2 block area bounded roughly by West Grand, . Broadway, Valley and 24th Street. Chinatown Transportation/Pedestrian Safety Projects WITHIN CORE OF.CHINATOWN ESTIMATED t Bulbouts and curb ramps on 6th and Webster $100,0 Bulbouts and curb ramps on 9th and Webster $100,8 Bulbouts and curb ramps on 10th and Webster $76,01 Buibouts and curb ramps on 11th and Webster $100,01 Convert 10th Street to Two Way Webster and Madison 5100,Ot Bulbouts 8th and Harrison $100,0C Bulbouts 9fh and Harrison $100,OL • Bulbouts 10th and Harrison $100;00 Countdown Pedesfrian Signals for all of the above in intersections on 100,00 $24,00 Ha rlson and Webster at $3,000 each Signal Mast Heads on Countdown W Signal � 9th and S3,0o • Sf30,0a Total Chinatown Core $962/001 Dear Mayor Johnson and Mayor Brown, • We are writing this letter on behalf ofthe Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce (OCCC) and Asian Health Services (AHS) to'express the position of the Boards of Directors of both organizations concerning resolution of transportation - related issues concerning the future development at Alameda Point. Both of our respective Boards considered this matter on . Both Boards agree that the teens of the settlement agreement between OCCC, AHS, City of Oakland and the City of Alameda ensure that sufficient funding for future tiransportation improvements in Oakland Chinatown will be provided with the development of Phase I of the Alameda Point Project to adequately mitigate for any potential transportation - related impact that may occur in connection with Phase I (Phase I contemplates up to 1100 dwelling units and 100,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial development). As we understand the Agreement, it will: Commit Alameda to providing a $500,000.00 of fimding toward transportation improvements in Chinatown pursuant to the specific terms ofthe Agreement; Commit Alameda and Oakland to a process that will provide for a final determination regarding Oakland and Alameda's "fair share" contribution toward funding such improvements in Oakland Chinatown while guaranteeing that $500,000.00 will be made available by Alameda and $462,000.00 from Oakland to fund transportation improvements if the initial phase of the Alameda Point project is approved for construction. Taken together with Alameda's funding commitments, we understand that this will result in $962,000.00 in funding for transportation improvements in Oakland Chinatown pursuant to the specific terms/limitations ofthe Agreement; Commit Alameda and Oakland to further study of transportation issues affecting Oakland Chinatown to identify mutually acceptable solutions to common transportation issues; Commit Alameda to preparing a new project level Environmental Impact Report to •evaluate the phase following the initial phase of any proposed development at Alameda Point; . We understand that Alameda and Oakland have also agreed to establish an advisory committee to ensure that input from Oakland Chinatown representatives is received throughout the planning process for Alameda Point, and that Alameda will be providing OCCC and AHS with $75,000 for reimbursement of its prior legal fees and of its costs for participating in the advisory committee and funding technical assistance for the advisory committee pursuant to the terms of the Agreement. .� • Both Boards have reviewed and accepted the•settlement agreement, including in particular, the key terms noted above. Pursuant to both Boards believe that the settlement agreement ensures that transportation-related concerns from figure development of Phase I of Alameda Point will be satisfactorily addressed and any impacts adequately mitigated. On behalf of both Boards, we appreciate the cooperation that has been extended by both Cities and look forward to working closely together in the future to implement necessary transportation improvements in our communities. Sincerely, Jennie Ong • Executive Director OCCC AHS City of Alameda Memorandum Date: July 8, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's conditional approval of Variance VO4 -0004 and Major Design Review DR04 -0007 to permit the construction of a new 230 square foot, single -story addition to encroach to within approximately four feet (4') of the rear property line, where the minimum required rear yard setback is fifteen feet six inches (15'6 ") pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code Subsection 30- 5.6(a)(3). Applicants: Ronald and Myrna Put; Appellant: Ron Curtis. BACKGROUND On February 9, 2003, the applicants, Ronald and Myrna Put, submitted a Variance and Major Design Review application to permit the construction of a single - story, 230 square foot addition to the rear of the existing single family dwelling. A Variance is requested because the proposed addition will be located approximately four feet (4') from the south (rear) property line, which is an encroachment of eleven feet six inches (11'6 ") into the required rear yard setback of fifteen feet six inches (15'6 "). The project was reviewed at two Planning Board meetings. At the first Planning Board meeting held on May 10, 2004, Staff presented the Planning Board with a report and draft resolution recommending denial of the project because all three findings could not be made to support the Variance. The property owner, Ronald Put, submitted a petition with signatures from the surrounding neighbors in support of the project. The appellant, Ron Curtis, spoke in opposition of the proposed project stating that it would set a precedence for buildings to extend out to the waterfront along the lagoons and that the proposed addition would create a sound wall that would reflect noise onto his property, which is located approximately thirty feet (30') away from the proposed addition at 903 Delmar Avenue. At that meeting, the Planning Board briefly discussed the project, and the consensus was that the item be continued to the May 24, 2004 meeting so that the project could be reviewed by a full board. The Planning Board requested that Staff prepare a supplemental report for the May 24th meeting that detailed the history of structures and properties abutting the lagoons within the same vicinity of the proposed project at 903 Delmar Avenue. At the second Planning Board meeting held on May 24, 2004, staff presented the Planning Board with a supplemental report that described the structures along the lagoon in the vicinity of 903 Re: Public Hearing and Resolution #5 -B 7 -20 -04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 8, 2004 Page 2 Delmar Avenue. Additionally, the property owner, Ronald Put, submitted photographs of different views of his property and surrounding structures that were built up to the waterline on the properties along the lagoons. During the meeting, no public comments were received in opposition to the proposed project. The Planning Board made the determination that denying the project would deprive the property owner of their right to share views of the lagoon, which is a right enjoyed by neighboring properties in the vicinity along the lagoons. In addition, the Board determined the flag shape, size, and existing design of the main dwelling to be extraordinary circumstances that limited the expansion alternatives. The Planning Board made all three findings to support the Variance and voted to approve the Variance and Design Review to construct the proposed addition to within four feet (4') of the required rear yard setback. On June 2, 2004, the approval was appealed by Ron Curtis. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Mr. Curtis, the appellant, is the owner of 902 Regent Street which abuts 903 Delmar Avenue, the subject property (see attached aerial photograph). The bases of his appeal are: the design of the unit, its position on the lot, and noise pollution. The specifics are noted below in bold type with staff's response in standard type. 1. This project is poorly designed because it, "blocks light to unit at 901 Delmar Avenue ". The proposed addition would be setback approximately three feet (3') farther from the rear property line than the existing main building located at 901 Delmar Avenue which is owned by Mr. Johnathan West, who supports the Put's application and are not part of this appeal. Additionally, the project was designed as a single story addition to address any shading or view blockage to the adjacent neighbors. The exterior design of the addition is also consistent with the original architecture of the main house. 2. This project is positioned poorly on the lot with, "a door that is less than 40 feet from 902 Regent' s bedroom." City development standards allow for side yard setbacks to be five feet (5') from the side yard property lines, pursuant to AMC Section 30- 5.6(a)(2). The proposed addition will be setback approximately seventeen feet seven inches (17'7 ") from the west property line (right side yard abutting 902 Regent Street) and five feet (5') from the east property line (left side yard abutting 901 Delmar Avenue). Therefore, the proposed addition is well within the required side yard setback limitations and is consistent with the other structures in the neighborhood. Moreover, City standards do not require a minimum distance between a door on one property and a bedroom on an adjoining property beyond what is required by standard property line setbacks. 3. This project will create noise pollution because, "the stucco wall will funnel sound to 902 Regent's bedroom." The proposed addition would enclose an existing open patio area that is currently used for outdoor entertaining, and would provide an enclosed space for entertaining that could limit exterior ambient noise levels rather than cause increased noise Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 8, 2004 Page 3 impacts to neighboring properties. The project is located in an urbanized area where the homes are designed to be close together, as the minimum required side yard setback is five feet (5'). The proposed addition will be setback approximately seventeen feet seven inches (17'7 ") from the right side yard property line. Additionally, the existing home's exterior is stucco —a typical hard surface construction material. Stucco is the preferred construction material for the proposed project because it is consistent with the architectural design and style of the existing home. As with all properties in Alameda, activity at 903 Delmar Avenue is subject to the AMC noise ordinance which provides noise level standards and remedies in cases of excessive noise. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS / FISCAL IMPACT There will be no additional funding in the Planning & Building Department budget necessary relating to Planning activities for this project. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, review all pertinent testimony and information then act to uphold the Planning Board approval of Variance VO4 -0004 and Major Design Review DR04 -0007 by adopting the draft City Council Resolution included in the agenda packet. However, if the Council finds that conditions of the Planning Board Resolution should be modified, the City Manager recommends that the appropriate changes be reflected in the approved City Council Resolution. Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Fuz Planning nd Building Director elodie Bounds P anner I ATTACHMENTS: 1: Aerial Photograph dated July 8, 2004. 2. Staff Report and attachments for May 10, 2004 Planning Board meeting. 3. Letter and Petition in support of project, distributed to Planning Board at meeting on May 10, 2004. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers July 8, 2004 Page 4 4. Planning Board Minutes from May 10, 2004 Planning Board meeting. 5. Staff Report and attachments for May 24, 2004 Planning Board meeting. 6. Photographs of the project site distributed to Planning Board on May 24, 2004 by the Property Owners. 7. Photographs of surrounding structures along lagoons distributed to Planning Board on May 24, 2004 by the Property Owners. 8. Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -36 approving VO4 -0004 and DR04 -0007, dated May 24, 2004. 9. Planning Board Minutes from May 24, 2004 Planning Board meeting. 10. Petition of Appeal from Ron Curtis, dated June 2, 2004. cc: Ronald & Myrna Put, Property Owners Angela Klein, Applicant Ron Curtis, Appellant President, Planning Board G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004\n -July 20\ 23VO4_0004DeImarAve903[2].doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service 903 Del Mar Ave. Vicinity Attachment #1 0 0 N 05 >, Scale 1:1408 ITEM NO.: CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 8 -B STAFF REPORT APPLICATION: VO4- 0006/DR04 -0007 — Applicants Ronald & Myrna Put — 903 Delmar. The applicants request a Major Design Review and a Variance pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) to permit the construction of a new 230 square -foot, single -story addition to encroach to within approximately four feet (4') of the rear property line, where the minimum required rear yard setback is fifteen feet six inches (15'6 "). GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e) — Additions to Existing Structures. STAFF PLANNER: Melodie Bounds, Planner I RECOMMENDATION: Deny Variance and Major Design Review. • ACRONYMS: AMC — Alameda Municipal Code ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Project Plans 3. Aerial Photograph of Vicinity, dated July 8, 2002 4. Memorandum, dated April 29, 2004, from Flavio Barrantes, City of Alameda Public Works Department 5. Letter, dated April 29, 2004, from Ronald Curtis, (opposed) I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicants request the approval of a Variance and a Major Design Review to permit a first floor addition to encroach into the required rear yard of this single - family residence (see figure 1, Page 2). A Variance is required because the addition will be setback approximately four feet (4') Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 10, 2003 1 Attachment 2 from the rear property line, where a fifteen foot six inch (15'6 ") setback is required per AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7). Figure 1 The proposed first floor addition will be approximately 230 square feet in size (13'4" x 17'3 %2 ") and measure approximately thirteen feet six inches (13'6 ") in height from grade to the peak of the gable roof. II. BACKGROUND A. Existing Site Conditions The property is situated next to the lagoon with the rear portion of the property facing the lagoon. The 9g current use of this property is a two -story, one - family residence that was constructed in 1941. The subject property is a 3,958 square foot flag lot. The banner portion of the lot has a substandard lot width of 40' and a lot depth of 83' (see figure 2). Most of the property is tucked away from the street and is connected to the street by a narrow driveway that is 11' wide by 58' deep. If the driveway is discounted when calculating lot dimensions, the property is 40' wide by 83' square feet in size. Figure 3 Figure 2 4& Driyeway It is important to note that the plans show an existing lawn area and deck that extend across the property line and beyond the seawall into the lagoon (see figure 3). Infill into the lagoon is prohibited. The lawn area cannot be considered as "open space" for the subject property. In addition, The Public Works Department has noted . that the existing deck is in violation of the City of Alameda standard plan 4745 -91, "Dock Standards for North Side of the Lagoons," adopted by City Council on March 17, 1959. A Code Enforcement Case has been opened in reference to the aforementioned violations. Additional violations on adjacent properties may exist. The Public Works Department will continue to review encroachments into the lagoon. 11'' deep and 3,320 Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 10, 2003 2 B. Surrounding Land Use All surrounding property uses are one and two -story, single - family residences that vary in architectural style. The properties directly to the west and east also abut the lagoon. North —two- story, single - family residence South —two -story, multiunit residence (property across lagoon) East—two-story, single- family residence West: two -story, single - family residence C. History of Similar Project Proposals The Planning Board has considered two similar but less extensive projects at 630 Sand Hook Isle and 901 Delmar Avenue. Please find below a brief summary of these two project proposals. 630 Sand Hook Isle: On November 8, 1999 the Planning Board reviewed a proposal for a Variance for a 74- square foot expansion of a single - family residence to within approximately 16 -feet of the lagoon for a property at 630 Sand Hook Isle. At that time the Planning Board denied the Variance and Design Review; however, the project was approved on appeal to the City Council. 901 Delmar Avenue: On March 26, 2001 the Planning Board reviewed and denied without prejudice a proposal for a Variance (V00 -27) at 901 Delmar Avenue to reconstruct an existing legally nonconforming, 176 - square foot, completely enclosed sunroom structure to be rebuilt to include a roof deck. Permit records indicate that the existing patio structure was built, with zero setbacks, up to the rear property line with legal permits. Because the Planning Board acted to deny the Variance without prejudice, the applicant was permitted to reapply for a Variance within the same year. The applicant revised their proposal and applied for a second Variance (V01 -06) to rebuild the existing legally nonconforming structure to remove the originally proposed roof deck and stylistically integrated the existing structure to better incorporate the architectural elements of the main residence. The Variance (V01 -006) was presented before the Planning Board on May 14, 2001 as a Consent Calendar item, and the Planning Board acted to conditionally approve the Variance at that time. During the March 26, 2001, Public Hearing discussion for the project proposal at 901 Delmar (V00 -27), a point was made that approval of the project would set a precedent for building encroachments up to the lagoon. This concern was over the eventual loss of all open space abutting the lagoon. It is important to note that even though the lagoon is open space, it is not zoned as such; and therefore, the lagoon cannot substitute for the required open space of the lagoon properties. Staff has recognized that some other buildings appear to be built up to and into the lagoon. Some of these properties may have property lines that extend into the lagoon area and other properties Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 10, 2003 have property lines that end at the waterline. However, it is absolutely forbidden to develop into the lagoon area because it is a water retention zone and needs to maintain its water capacity. III. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301(e) — Additions to Existing Structures. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS Discussion: Variance approval is based on a property -based hardship, which prevents the property owner from using their property within the same context as their neighbor under the limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. In this case, the applicant wishes to minimize the required rear yard setback by constructing a new addition that would enlarge the existing footprint of the building to extend within Figure 4 approximately four feet (4') of the rear property line. The project site and existing residence is not extraordinarily small when compared to other properties within the City. In fact, the project site is larger in size, by approximately 457 square feet, not including the 83' driveway, when compared to the two (2) neighboring properties located directly to the east (see figure 4). 98' Delmar Avenue 40' 38' 52.5' 903 Delmar 901 Delmar 899 Delmar The recent code amendments related to waterfront lots apply only to the estuary and no changes were made for yard encroachments along the lagoon. The applicant was advised that Planning Staff could not make the findings to support a Variance to allow the construction of a new addition into the required rear yard setback. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 10, 2003 4 The following table compares the standards between the R -1 District, the existing conditions, and the proposed changes to current site conditions (note: setbacks do not include driveway portion of lot): Table 1: Development Standards Comparison DESCRIPTION R -1 EXISTING PROPOSED COMPARISON Front Setback 20' . 4'6" 4'6" Legal Nonconforming No Changes Side Setback 5 Feet single story 7 Feet two story 10'6" (west side) 5' (east side) single story No Change Complies Rear Setback 15'6 " ** 17' 3' l l %2" Does Not Comply Variance Required Lot Coverage W /driveway Max. 48% 34% 40% Complies Lot Coverage W/O driveway Max. 48% 40% 47% Complies Building Height 30' Highest point of house measures 22'6" Addition measures 13'6" Complies Parking 2 1 No Change Legal Nonconforming No Changes No. of Stories 2 2 Existing House = 2 Addition =1 Complies * Chimneys may encroach two (2) feet into required side yard setbacks ** Minimum rear yard setback is 20 percent of the average lot depth for lots with substandard depth. Staff evaluation is separated into the required findings for the Variance approval, and the findings for Design Review approval. A. Variance to rear yard setback. Findings: In order to grant the requested variance, the Planning Board must make all three of the following findings: 1. There are extraordinary circumstances applying to the property relating to the physical constraints of the parcel, such as size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, or applying to the proposed use of the property. Staff cannot make this finding. Although the existing lot is less than the minimum 5,000 square feet and has less than the minimum required depth of 100 feet, the site is generally consistent in size with other lots in the area. The site is similar to other flag lots in the vicinity; and moreover, the property is larger in size than the other lots in the neighborhood. Therefore, no extraordinary circumstance applies to the property relating to the physical constraints of the parcel. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 10, 2003 5 2. Because of extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance standards would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of the property in the same district. Staff cannot make this finding. It hasn't been demonstrated that a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship exists that requires the construction of a rear addition to increase the habitable floor area of this single - family home into the required rear yard. The existing residence is approximately 1,766 square feet in size and the proposed addition would add only 198 square feet of habitable space to the existing residence. The inability to provide this additional space does not prevent a reasonable continued use of this residence. In addition, provision of an additional room that may be used as a dining or family room does not appear to encompass the installation of necessary living space to the extent that a denial would represent the deprivation of a substantial property right. 3. The granting of the variance, under the circumstances of the particular case, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to persons or property in the vicinity. Staff can make this finding. There is no detrimental impact because the proposed addition is consistent in architecture and design of the existing home and does not significantly intensify the residential use. Because of the location of the proposed addition abutting the lagoon, there would be minimal, if any, view blockage or shading impacts to adjacent properties. Variance Conclusion: Staff is unable to make all three Variance findings for the proposed rear yard setback for the first floor addition. Therefore, Staff is recommending denial of the Variances that would permit the construction of the first floor addition into the required rear yard setback. B. Design Review Findings: Staff believes that the following findings can be made for approval of this Design Review application. However, because staff is unable to make all three findings to support the Variance, staff is unable to approve the Major Design Review application as submitted: 1. The project will have no adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity. Staff can make this finding. The proposed first floor addition is compatible with the design and architectural styling of this residence and is also in context with the design of other homes in the neighborhood; and therefore, will not result in a visual detriment. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 10, 2003 6 2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding properties. Staff can make this finding. The design of the first -floor addition incorporates the architectural features of the original portion of the single - family residence. 3. The project will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines. Staff can make this finding. The proposed first -floor addition is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines. Design Review Conclusion: In conclusion, the proposed single -story addition is compatible in design with the existing residence and surrounding neighborhood. However, staff cannot make the necessary findings for the Variance; and therefore, staff cannot support the Design Review application for these improvements as submitted. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, then act to deny Variance No.: V03 -0004 and Major Design Review DR04- 0007 based upon the findings contained in the attached Draft Resolution. G:\PLANNING\PB\REPORTS12004\i -May 10\903delmar Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 10, 2003 7 • CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DENYING THE VARIANCE, VO4 -0004, AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, DR04 -0007, AT 903 DELMAR WHEREAS, the applicant requests a Major Design Review approval for structural expansion of a single - family residence into the required rear yard setback. A Variance is required to permit the single story addition to encroach to within approximately four feet (4') from the rear property line, where the minimum required rear yard setback is fifteen feet six inches (15'6 "); and WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on March 9, 2004; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low- Density Residential in the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an. R -1, Single - Family Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on May 10, 2004 . and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is unable to make all of the following required findings in order to support approval for the Variance to permit the single -story addition to extend to within approximately four feet from the rear property line, pursuant to Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) of the Alameda Municipal Code: 1. There are extraordinary circumstances applying to the property relating to the physical constraints of the parcel, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. Staff cannot make this finding. Although the existing lot is less than the minimum 5,000 square feet and has less than the minimum required depth of 100 feet, the site is generally consistent in size with other lots in the area. The site is similar to other flag lots in the vicinity; and moreover, the property is larger in size than the other lots in the neighborhood. Therefore, no extraordinary 'circumstance applies to the property relating to the physical constraints.of the parcel. 2. Because of extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance standards would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such . as to deprive the applicants of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of the property in the same district. Staff cannot make this finding. It hasn't been demonstrated that a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship exists that requires the construction of a rear addition to increase-the habitable floor area of this single - family home into the required rear yard. The inability to provide this additional space does not prevent a reasonable continued use of this residence. In addition, provision of an additional room that may be used as a dining or family room does not appear. to encompass the installation of Attachment #1 • necessary living space to the extent that a denial would represent the deprivation of a substantial property right. 3. The granting of the Variance, under the circumstances of the particular case, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to persons or property in the vicinity. Staff can make this finding. There is no detrimental impact because the proposed addition is consistent in architecture and design of the existing home and does not significantly intensify the residential use. Because of the location of the proposed addition abutting the lagoon, there would be minimal, if any, view blockage or shading impacts to adjacent properties. WHEREAS, the Planning Board is able to make all of the following findings relative to Design Review approval; 1. The project will have no significant adverse impacts on the persons or property in the vicinity. Staff can make this finding. The proposed first floor addition is compatible with the design and architectural styling of this residence and is also in context with the design of other homes in the neighborhood; and therefore, will not result in a visual detriment. 2. The project will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of the surrounding area. Staff can make this finding. The design of the first -floor addition incorporates the architectural features of the original portion of the single-family residence. 3. The addition will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines. Staff can make this finding. The proposed first -floor addition is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines. 4. No adverse effects such as shading or view blockage would occur on adjoining properties, pursuant to AMC, Subsection 30- 5.7(k)(1). This finding can be made. The first -floor addition, setback approximately four feet (4') from the rear property line, would not cause excessive shading because the addition is located adjacent to the lagoon. View blockage to adjacent properties would not occur because there are no structures immediately behind the site or within view of the addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby determines that the proposal is Statutorily Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15301— Minor Alteration of Existing Structures. 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby denies Variance, VO4 -0004, and Major Design Review, DR04 -0007 to permit a first -floor addition to within approximately four feet (4') of the rear property line. The decision of the Planning Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision by completing and submitting an appeal form and paying the required fee. 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. NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1), these Conditions constitute written . notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90-day appeal period in which the applicant may protest these few and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 2004 by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3 ATTEST: Gregory Fuz, Secretary City Planning Board Melodie Bounds - DR04- 0007b.doc Page 1 MEMORANDUM April 29, 2004 To: Melodie Bounds Planning Department From: Flavio D. Barrantes Public Works Department Re: Application No. DR04 -0007, VO4 -0004 Job Address: 903 Delmar Avenue — 229 S.F. Addition. The following summarizes the record information currently on file in the Public Works/ Engineering office. If the applicant should dispute our records then he should be requested to provide additional recorded documentation which superceding Tract Map 1986 and allows for the encroachment. • Easement: The lagoon easement was established by course and distance as shown on subdivision Tract Map 1986. The title sheet of the map contains the following statement, "and the undersigned, South Shore Land Co., a corporation, hereby dedicates to the public an easement for drainage purposes over lands designated as `Lagoon" upon and embraced within the blues lines of the herein embodied map ". This easement serves as a detention basin for storm runoff. All encroachments into the easement must be removed with the exception of the dock provided that it is brought into conformance with City of Alameda standard plan 4745 -91, "Dock Standards for North Side of the Lagoons ". This map was filed with the County Recorder's Office on December 31, 1958, in book of records 39, on page 41. If you have any questions regarding these comments or require additional information, please feel free to call me at (510) 749 -5846. FDB: gc Prkded on recycled paper Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Attachment #4 ppaetoaie tsounas - aus ueimare vanance nerusai rev u'+ -.51J-u' .uoe rage RONALD I. CURTIS 902 Regent Street Alameda, CA 94501 Phone: (610) 865 -5887 FAX (510).865 -9600 April 30, 2004 City of Alameda Planning Board C/O Ms. Melodie Bounds - Frisby Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Ave. Room 190 Alamesia, CA 94501 Re: Variance at 903 Delmar Avenue VO4 -0004 Honorable Members of the Planning Board: The Put house is located adjacent to the east side of our house, and we are opposed to the approval of the above subject application. This variance will allow the construction of a 230 square foot addition on the south side of 903 Delmar which will encroach on the lagoon setback. The construction of this new structure will restrict light and view from the eastern side of our house. In addition, since the erection of the addition at 901 Delmar, the sound in the Put patio has increased. The wall that was erected parallel to the eastern Put property line and perpendicular to the lagoon has acted as a reflector to reflect noise from the Put patio into our yard. With the construction of a wall 25 feet closer, the noise level will be substantially intensified. All of this will have the effect of eroding the ambiance that we have enjoyed for the past 32 years. In addition to taking something from our quality of life, there will also be a reduction in the financial value of our house. Setbacks were developed to maintain an open feeling and to provide adequate light, view, and ambiance for each neighbor within his own property. When an exception is made, one neighbor gains at the expense of the other. It is the obligation of the Planning Board to protect each and every neighbor from the inequity of one neighbor gaining something at the expense of another. Three years ago, a similar variance was requested by the owner of 901 Delmar. Even - though the requested variance did not directly. affect our property (at that time we did not realize the effect on noise levels) we strongly opposed that variance because we believed that granting the requested variance would set a precedent for others to encroach on the open space of the lagoon, and their neighbors. At that time the variance was denied and continued. At the next meeting, we rescinded our objections because we were assured by the Planning Board that this one variance would not set a precedent, and we asked at that time that the minutes of that meeting reflect this fact. With all of the above in mind, I am sure that your decision will be prudent, fair, and equitable. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ronald I. Curtis Attachment #5 Distributed at the Planning Board Meeting of g / D Q Ronald Put & Myrna Pu Re: Agenda Item # F-B 903 Delmar Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 522 -8031 May 9, 2004 To: The Honorable Members of the Planning Board Re: Application for addition @ 903 Delmar Avenue, Alameda We respectfully request your approval to allow us to proceed with the subject proposal and have the following additional information for your consideration. We have applied to construct a 230 - square foot ground floor addition adjacent to open lagoon space that was carefully designed to be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of our home and other surrounding properties. We wish to construct the addition as a dining room/family room and to accommodate our growing family size that is limited in our present 1,601 square feet two bedroom living space. This addition would also allow us to more efficiently utilize our lot which is presently characterized by a 68 foot long by 11 feet wide driveway, a 10.5 feet wide side yard running the entire length of the lot and a full backyard/patio adjacent to the lagoon. The driveway is not usable for expansion being only 11 feet wide. While the location of our residence on its lot is the result of its history, being a former bay front home with water on the back and along the side of the house, expansion into the side yard is limited to only 5 feet and not economical or practical. Expansion into to rear yard/patio appears to be the only practical and economical alternative for expansion. Planning Board staff generally agree that the proposed addition is well designed and would not represent a detriment to the public welfare by reducing living space close to other occupied structures or be injurious to persons or property in the vicinity. This is true because of the unusual circumstance that our lot abuts an open -space lagoon that is approximately 125 feet wide and affords ample setback distances. Signatures of 26 neighbors on both sides of the lagoon, urging approval, also evidence this. Planning staff also agrees that the subject project would not appear to have adverse effects to either neighborhood aesthetics or to safety related access concerns (firefighter, police access). Planning staff appears to be most concerned that three findings must be met in order to approve the projects variance. Upon review of a similar application by Ronald Stanley, 6300 Sand Hook Isle and by John and Asa West, 901 Delmar Ave. it appears that these variance findings are somewhat subjective in nature and can reasonably also be made in our case. I respectfully suggest the following finding language for items 1 & 2: 1) There are extraordinary circumstances applying to the property relating to the physical constraints of the parcel such as size, shape, topography, location or surrounding because: The lot is unusual in that it is smaller than the normal 5,000 square feet. The banner size of the lot is at 3,320 square feet also significantly smaller than other lots in the neighborhood, which are typically 3,920 square feet. In addition, due to the history of Attachment 3 the residence being a former bay front property, there exists a 10.5 feet wide side yard running the entire length of the lot. Today the lot backs up to a lagoon, which serves as major open space element in the neighborhood Because of the shape of the lot and the location of the residence on the lot, opportunities for residential expansion are limited unless the patio area is used Expanding the residence along the side or by raising the height of the residence are neither aesthetic nor economically viable. 2) Because of the extraordinary circumstances the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance standards would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other home owners ofthe property in the same district because: The applicant has provided significant evidence that other properties enjoy interior space which otherwise would be denied him through the literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Lastly, we are attempting to go about this process in a legal and honest manner and find it disturbing that it appears to be commonplace to first build a patio cover and then at some later date to enclose this and claim it as habitable space. Thank you for consideration of our application. Ronald Put Attachment: rP1 s4 Myrna Put 1) Petition of Neighbors Urging Approval 2) Assessors map showing lot sizes in the neighborhood 3) Plan filed with Planning Department regarding lawn 06/1994 4) Letter to public works indicating land on both sides of seawall 03/2002 Plans for construction of 230 sq. feet addition at 903 Delmar Ave By signing this petition I would like it to be known that I fully support the proposed project and respectfully request the planning board to approve. Name Address Signature \- K OCIll.nd(-1 205- e Imito-K- -eg,c,ct ALCIA,CA--- gv4ANJ g I £ el 05 Da briviNC Avg, q _z';--77,Y ;24---;ve "7,-,),, 4,/9-i-3.7- fry --e'-z-Z (,0 Ati n DWI!' el 9 �i-oa l� Alanlek, e q so 1 c- 4)1366f) -;39tor...e-L-00 -6(Ak&vA6-1z. CA \-)j\C PA-kiaC_I-to/ -539 --.-6/ .(,,,,_k)Ni hsVxvt,J,__ksz_ CA- ov( 2,.c.. 4 Co /( ut€.0., C v 3? ` ziC) ei',L),E2afl;fr-11 1 3 74)4' 11-g le , f U Plans for construction of 230 sq. feet addition at 903 Delmar Avi By signing this petition I would like it to be known that I fully support the proposed project and respectfully request the planning board to approve. Name Adress Signature 49q4144-1,p, mey,/ ati -�i %ih 1107 Pk2ei''' ,..0..._ °t"4 0 2_ Peirkk, 1 de 5\--0\con \ -e- - q. (_ S Delve- IA)/ 1 ' I, 1A-A. MoJfee, dOir\irt)._, q /7-- boika-st .LA-e--(2-c--- 12-e-A -(14's-k k.ikL) % LL.--1 (-'�Cl'-k , • ♦ a /60444 1.--)C-IT ci vvvr A ter blo-r\-a7,5'). Oro, ■ /---c(„,,,, 0.415 331 brod-doil, #fir Plans for construction of 230 sq. feet addition at 903 Delmar Ave By signing this petition I would like it to be known that I fully support the proposed project and respectfully request the planning board to approve. Name Adress Signature /1 --/L gt- liMpEk A-Afti 3.3g 13-6,4atfity LA hvepii--'7 ig C,A4,-; wiet6 A 1 )1,..A 3-1 ) ciovt,)•w,, 43,z ALc.ct c 4 it r / 40A7,1‘rr--- 41r I 7- tjaj -3.3 5 6/47-7,1-ekr> ?e) 4&' -3 1 2P-d-e-e(-, P / ti-3 /--(11/ 7-fir Lai 3 -67-. 4I z ---;,, / / 1: - 1 April 2004 RE: Plans for construction of 230 sq. feet addition at 903 Delmar Ave To Whom It May Concern: As owners of the property located at 899 Delmar Ave we have reviewed the proposed construction of an addition by our neighbors at 903 Delmar Ave. We would like it to be known that we fully support our neighbors in this endeavor and respectfully request the planning board to approve this project. 4. /82 • Cede anle r • 21-000- ASSESSOR'S MAP TO PIcn of the Encinetsan in.foniofaha:13..e. .Au) stole .trig■ 4o /72 Roosevelt Drive !79 /76 Nt /76 Otis (BAY 1SLANDITVe9 Drive Co 3s 1 914 E • • Qoa Z4 0 37 4s 4. fl 98 95 • 0 0 et f9 99 1- 1 I 1 1 tr f 1 wner•_n 1_ 1 1 1 . F31 t 1 1 ; • . t f 1 • t L 1- • 1 1 . e t 6s L a .Q • Co 3e •Q StS &JS-NOT- A5UfV€1FOFTHEFlo- BU?1S NAItfl1I eft CDAMO 1raTA 01.5AtInt Isn TI1 n.mr.A 419 15 /78. .e Profile view of sea wall- Flowerbeds Flowerbe4 Glass window 651 475" Ai-real view Flowerbeds tBQ". (.y Ronald Put 903DelmaFAvs Alameda. CA94501 (510) -9031 March 7, 2002 Mr. Lance l3rya , Maintenance Division Superyisor (Sty of Alameda 1616 Forbhaann VVay Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Sir I have recently discussed the lowering ofa portion of a fonnerseawelt on my property with employees of your derision. I an planning to lower a potion of a fanner Seawall from 3r in height to 18" in height (or about 1.5 feet to ver) as measured flan mybackyard patio area. The length ofthis porton of former seawall is 12.5 feet and the wall has a thickness of almost 2 feet. My residence at 903. Delmar was built in 1942 aid usedta be bayfiatt property requiring water and wave protection at that lime. However, with the construction of the lagoons in the 60's and 70's the water body was transformed Into- a lagoon lagoon front properties have either totally removed the former seannati on their property or lathered it significa ly over the years. The ravishing stretch of former semen that 1 plan fro laver appears to bean good scrape but it no lager saves a function. The lagoon water does. not even touch this. former seawall anymore, there is land on. both . sides` The small stretch ofwatcross- not protect my residence or anyt irg ei<se in-the nekjhborl ood against flood nor does it hold back sod or prevent elusion from my property. The property bind adjacent (as viewed from the lagoon) to my. property in 1972 (a/the 902 RegentSbeet address) does not-even have a seawall regtasme t. Laming my former seawall will not weaken the struckee, to the extend that tftts is even needed, since lam planning to leave the Mower portion tithe wall in p This dhage wAI greatly improve the aesthetic appeal of my property for myself and for other residents in the neighborhood that can view this (from the apartment complex on the other side of the iaggon). Mr. Ed Sommerauer from your departrnent has taken a look at what I want to do and Mr. Flavio Berates personally kapected my property today. Nether of them appeaser have any objedjons against this plan. Mr. Barattes has staetches of my property and this plan. At this time I'm moving forward with obtaining penis from the building department for this ramification and 1 plan to npve toward with this prnjec t no sooner than 2 weeks from the data of this letter. Should your Moe have any objections, conoems or require further inspeclioris or at me to charge my plans bit some Wormy then please contact meat your convenience. Ronald Put 8 -B. VO4- 0004/DR04 -0007 — 903 Delmar Avenue — Ronald and Myrna Put (MB). The applicant proposes to construct a 230 square -foot, single -story addition to the rear of the residence. The height of the proposed addition will measure approximately thirteen feet five inches (13'5 ") from grade. A Variance is required to allow the addition to encroach approximately fourteen feet (14') into the required rear yard setback of fifteen feet five inches (15'5 "). A Major Design Review approval is also requested for the exterior changes to the residence. The project is located within the R -1, One - Family Residence Zoning District. Ms. Bounds summarized the staffreport. Staff recommended denial of Variance V03 -0004 and Major Design Review DR04 -0007 because the findings could not be made. Staff had found no extraordinary circumstances that applied to the property with respect to physical constraints. Staff was unable to prove that an unnecessary hardship existed that would result in a practical difficulty for the property owners. She noted that the project site and existing residence was not extraordinarily small when compared to other properties within the vicinity; and added that it was larger in size than the two neighboring properties situated to the east, also located on Delmar Avenue. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ron Curtis, 902 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to this item. He was involved in the development of Harbor Bay Isle from 1976 to 1980, during the initial phase of that development. He noted that there were extensive negotiations with the Planning Board and the City regarding light, open space, noise, and the value of keeping within the Zoning Ordinances outlined by the Municipal Code. He noted that when exceptions were made, one neighbor gained to another's expense. He detailed the background of previous setback Variance requests in the neighborhood, which he also opposed. He noted that at that time, the stucco wall extending out to the lagoon created a reflector for sound; instead of sound from the patio dispersing in all directions, it focused on their side yard and into their master bedroom window, which faced the then- applicant's patio. He noted that the current project was bigger, and would funnel sound from the applicant' s patio to their yard and bedroom window. He noted that while the lagoon was not an official open space, it served to absorb noise from the patios facing it. He noted that the proposed Variance obstructed their view slightly, but that any obstruction of light or view diminished their property. He believed that the approval of this Variance would erode their long - standing quality of life, and urged the Board to deny it. Ms. Angie Klein, project architect, described the lot as substandard and odd - shaped, and detailed the proposed alterations to the home. She noted that the applicants would add Planning Board Meeting Page 6 May 10, 2004 Attachment 4 historic replacement windows, and would like a dining room within their lower floor. She noted that the lot coverage was 38%, well under the lot coverage limit of 48 %. Mr. Ronald Put, applicant, detailed the history of the application covering the last ten years. He noted that the Lagoon homeowners association had approved of his lawn. He noted that Ms. Bounds had advised of Code problems with the dock. He advised that the dock had been in place, and had not been altered, since he moved into the house in 1993. He was willing to work with the City to remedy any Code or safety problems associated with the dock as needed. He noted that there used to be a non - permitted patio cover on his property that had been built by a former homeowner; he chose to remove the cover. He noted that he followed the City's requirements when working on his house, and files for permits as needed. He understood that normal lots in Alameda were approximately 5,000 square feet, and that typical lots in the neighborhood were 4,000 square feet. He noted that the usable part of his lot was 3,300 square feet. He noted that if they expanded to a second floor, the neighbors' views would be blocked. He noted that his one -story home was the only one set back a considerable distance from the lagoon. He noted the absence of a family room or dining room in his home, and noted that most of the homes in the neighborhood had a reasonable family room or dining room. He believed that their request was a property right already enjoyed by the residents of the neighborhood and along the lagoon. He submitted a petition with 26 signatures urging approval of this project; 7 signatures were immediate neighbors or residents of the street, and 19 signatures were from residents on the lagoon who could clearly view his property from their homes. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. President Piziali advised that the major issue was the reduction of the 17 -foot rear setback to 3- feet -11- inches. In response to an inquiry by President Piziali, Ms. Bounds replied that the normal rear yard setback from the house was 151/2 feet. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook, Ms. Bounds replied that the side setbacks were an average of the lot depth for a flag lot. Under the general provisions section of the Development Code, a reduced setback was allowed from the standard 20 -foot setback. President Piziali noted that he had a difficult time making the findings for this application. Ms: McNamara expressed concern about the amount of the Variance being requested in this application, and noted that it left only a four -foot area from the backyard to the retaining wall. Planning Board Meeting Page 7 May 10, 2004 In response to an inquiry by President Piziali, Ms. Bounds confirmed that the lawn area and infill would be taken care of through Code compliance. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Lynch, Ms. Bounds noted that when the applicant presented the initial plans, staff discouraged the Variance and briefly discussed the possibility of building a second story. She noted that they already had a second story addition for a room that was added, and that was not an option. Other alternatives were not discussed at that time. President Piziali inquired whether the applicant would be able to get an approval ifthe project were to be reduced in size. Mr. Lynch noted that a discussion may need to take place as the approval process related to the neighbors, as well as the challenge of the applicant's design process. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook whether findings had been made for neighboring properties, Mr. Cormack replied that there had been many "sunrooms" along the lagoon which had been enclosed over the years without building permits. Mr. Lynch noted that he could make Finding #2, but had difficulty with Finding #1. Mr. Cormack noted that Phase 2 of the Code Amendments is nearly completed, and added that the Board could direct staff to look at the open spaces around the lagoon and bring back a hearing item to review that section of the Code. He noted that would not be helpful for this item at this time. In response to an inquiry by Ms. Cook, Mr. Cormack replied that along the estuary, construction will be allowed within the 20' -0" rear yard because there was water beyond the rear property line which provided open space. In response to an inquiry by President Piziali, Ms. Harryman advised that a Variance was a case -by -case consideration with respect to setting a precedent. She noted that Finding #2 discussed the neighborhood, and that Finding #1 discussed extraordinary circumstances. She noted that although neighboring properties come into play, it did not guarantee that this property would meet the same extraordinary circumstances for the Variance. Ms. Cook noted that she would like more information on similar structures in the neighborhood. She noted that this was a relatively small lagoon, and noted that several of the properties were built up nearly to the water. Planning Board Meeting . Page 8 May 10, 2004 President Piziali noted that it would be fair to the applicant to continue the item until the full Board could be present. M/S Lynch/Cook and unanimous to continue this item to the Planning Board meeting ofMay 24, 2004, with additional information with respect to surrounding properties. AYES — 4 (Bard, Cunningham, Mariani absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 Planning Board Meeting Page 9 May 10, 2004 8 -A City of Alameda Inter- department Memorandum Date: May 13, 2004 To: President Piziali Members of the Planning Board From: Melodie Bounds Planner I Re: Supplemental Staff Report — VO4- 0006/DR04 -0007 — Applicants Ronald & Myrna Put — 903 Delmar Avenue. Please bring the Staff Report with attachments (Item No. 8 -B) from the May 10, 2004 Planning Board Meeting. Should an additional copy be needed., please contact Latisha Jackson at (510) 747 -6854. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Aerial Photograph dated 2003 2. Sanborn Map dated February 1988 3. Planning Board Minutes dated March 26, 2001 4. Staff Report dated May 14, 2001 and related Minutes 5. Letter and photographs, dated May 18, 2004, from Ronald Put (applicant) BACKGROUND A. Planning Board Review At the May 10th Planning Board meeting, this Variance and Major Design Review Proposal was presented and public comment was heard. Four of seven Board members were present at the May 10th meeting. The Planning Board requested this item be continued to the May 24th meeting to be reviewed with all seven members of the Board present. In the interim, Staff was asked to further research the neighboring properties and structures built along the lagoon in the same vicinity as the property located at 903 Delmar Avenue. A particular interest was raised regarding the property located directly east of 903 Delmar Avenue, and the conditions for which an addition to this home (901 Delmar Ave.) was permitted to be built up to the lagoon and rear property line. The Planning Board also requested Staff to review and determine if the recent amendments to properties along the Estuary, if applied to the lagoon properties, would permit the current project proposal at 903 Delmar Avenue. Attachment 5 B. History of Structures Along the Lagoon The aerial photograph attached with this report shows properties in the vicinity of 903 Delmar Avenue with structures built up to the rear property line along the lagoon. Research found that many enclosed patio structures abutting the lagoon were permitted structures between 1964 and 1974. At the time permits were issued for these structures, patio covers were a permitted yard encroachment to within five feet (5') of the rear yard setback, as long as 50 percent of their walls were unenclosed. The records do not clearly indicate how many of these permitted patio covers on properties abutting the lagoon became enclosed over the years. At the time when many of these structures were permitted Design Review was not required for single - family residences. Because Planning Staff did not review plans for these structures prior to the issuance of building permits, it is possible that many of the existing additions along the lagoon were permitted patio covers that may have been enclosed without regard to Zoning Code regulations or the permitting process. C. Properties directly East of 903 Delmar Avenue 901 Delmar Avenue As mentioned in the May 10th Staff Report, the property owners applied for and were granted a Variance to reconstruct the existing nonconforming patio enclosure that extended across the rear property line. The permit history indicated that building permits were originally issued for a "covered patio" in October of 1964. The Staff Report, dated May 14, 2001, for the Variance (V01 -06) explained that there was no clear evidence on record to indicate whether the existing "covered patio" was enclosed or not. Thus, the structure was determined to be an existing nonconforming room addition. The applicants originally applied for a Variance (V00 -27) to reconstruct the entire nonconforming room with an added proposed roof deck. The Board denied this Variance on March 26, 2001. The applicant submitted a second Variance request (V01 -06) a month later and proposed to lessen the nonconformity of the structure by eliminating the existing overhang that extended across the rear property line. The applicants also rescinded their original proposal to construct a new roof deck. The second proposal to reconstruct. the room addition was determined to be more compatible with City Codes and better integrated with the style of the existing home. Staff made all three findings to support the granting of the Variance and recommended Planning Board approval. The May 14, 2001 Staff Report for the Variance (V01 -06) is included with this report as an attachment. 899 Delmar Avenue Records indicate that a sunroom addition was constructed on the property located at 899 Delmar Avenue sometime between July 9th and July 29th of 1985. A Building Permit was issued on July 29, 2004 for foundation work on the existing house, which included and identified the sunroom on the property as existing. It is unclear from the records whether the sunroom received a permit for new construction at the time it was built. However, the site plan attached to the building permit for the foundation work shows the existing sunroom located within less than a foot of the rear property line and seawall. The records do not clearly specify the extent to which the sunroom was enclosed. Page 2 900 Delmar Avenue No records indicate an addition to the rear of the single - family dwelling. However, the attached aerial photograph depicts a rear addition that is not reflected on the Sanborn Map dated February 1988 (also attached). The addition may have been constructed without the benefit of permits. D. Properties directly West of 903 Delmar Avenue 902 Regent Street Records indicate the existing single - family dwelling was constructed with permits in 1973. 900 Regent Street Records indicate the existing single - family dwelling was constructed in 1941. E. Estuary Code Changes Staff indicated during the previous meeting on May 10, 2004 that recent Code amendments to properties abutting the estuary could be revised to include the lagoon properties. Alameda Municipal Code Section 30- 5.6(d)(3), if applied to the lagoon properties, would permit new construction to within three feet (3') of the rear property line abutting the lagoon with Design Review and as long as Staff could make the finding that the proposed expansion would not "substantially impair the adjoining neighbors' views of the water and hillsides beyond ". In the case of 903 Delmar Avenue, Staff believes the proposed addition is consistent in design with the original architecture of the house and is able to make the finding that no substantial impairment will occur to adjoining neighbors' views of the water and hillsides beyond. Therefore, if the language of the Code relating to the estuary properties were applied to the lagoons, Staff would be able to support the applicant's proposal to construct the rear addition. However, under the Variance process, Staff is unable to make all three findings to support granting a Variance. Staff is thereby recommending denial of the Variance request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all pertinent testimony and information, then act to deny Variance No.: V03 -0004 and Major Design Review DR04-0007 based upon the findings contained in the Draft Resolution from May 10, 2004 Planning Board Meeting. Should the Planning Board determine findings could be made, Staff recommends that the Board discuss the current regulations governing construction in the rear yards of properties on the lagoons. If the Planning Board consensus is to allow for construction within the rear yard, direction should be given to Staff to notice a public hearing on a future agenda for discussion of an amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code. GAPLANNINGIPB\REPORTS\2004V -May 24\23903DeImarAve Supp.DOC Page 3 903 Del Mar Aerial Photograph 2003 Attachment #1 a a 1 Attachment #2 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8 -A. V00- 27/DR00 -129 — John and Asa West — 901 Delmar Avenue (DB). The applicants request a Major Design Review approval to demolish an existing nonconforming enclosed patio and replace it with an approximately 176 - square foot room addition with an approximately 176 - square second story deck. A Variance is required to permit the room expansion and the second story deck to abut up to the rear property line, where a minimum 14.4 -foot rear yard.setback is required. The site is located at 901 Delmar Avenue within an R-1, One - Family Residence Zoning District. Planner II Dennis Brighton summarized the staff report. He noted that staff could not make the necessary findings to recommend approval of the Variance. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ron Curtis, 902 Regent Street, spoke in opposition to the setback Variance. He noted he was involved in the development of Harbor Bay Isle during its initial phases from 1976 to 1980. He recalled taking part in negotiations with the Planning Board regarding light, open space, and adhering to the City's Municipal Code. He believed that when an exception was made, that one neighbor gained at the expense of another. Even when neighbors agreed, he believed that future owners were not afforded the same advantages. He believed that granting the requested Variance would set a precedent for others to encroach upon the open space of the lagoon and their neighbors. He noted that another Variance has been requested by the applicant's neighbor to build a second story. This Variance would affect his property and it is being processed by Planning staff Ile strongly urged the Board to deny this Variance requested by Mr. West. Mr. John West, applicant, submitted letters of support from both of his adjacent neighbors, as well as from the neighbor directly across the lagoon. He noted that he would like to reduce the second story deck to extend five feet from the house. This addition would be more usable and aesthetically pleasing to the applicants, and to their neighbors. He noted that Staff found the n ew design more acceptable, but still expressed concern about the necessary findings. Mr. West believed that the findings were subjective, and respectfully proposed alternative findings by which to approve the Variance. He believed there were extraordinary circumstances that applied - to the property regarding the physical constraints and size of the parcel. He noted that they did not have neighbors that were affected by a reduced rear setback, because of the presence of the lagoon. Mr. West noted that their request was a property right enjoyed by property owners throughout the lagoon. He believed that the setback limits for lagoon/open space situations were outdated and • unjust. He proposed replacing their existing structure with a well- designed structure, and believed that it was a good, well - founded project. Planning Board Minutes March 26, 2001 Attachment #3 The public hearing was closed for Board discussion In response to Mr. Bard's question regarding the construction of the current structure, Mr. Brighton replied that it was built under permit as a patio cover. Mrs Bard inquired further regarding the determination if a permitted project turned into another project, Mr. Brighton replied that staff viewed this as a non - conforming structure. It appeared that all permits had been issued, however, staff was not certain whether the original structure was built entirely enclosed, or as a patio cover that was enclosed at a later date. He noted that there were no plans on file regarding that issue. Mr. Brighton noted under the 1962 Zoning Ordinance, that as a patio cover, 50% of the structure should had been unenclosed. The unenclosed portion could only be enclosed by removable or plastic or screen panels. In response to President Rossi's question whether any property on the lagoon had a piece of the building directly against the lagoon, Mr. Brighton replied that there were numerous instances in the lagoon area. In response to President Rossi's question whether those structures were built legally, Mr. Brighton replied that they should not have gotten building permits for structures adjacent to or crossing over a property line without constructing a fire rated wall. Mr. West noted that the inspectors that examined their addition noted that they approved those types of structures on a regular basis in the early 1960s. Mr. Piziali noted that this property was difficult to see from Broadway and Park Street because of the trees. He noted that he would like to approve the structure, but had a problem with doing so, because of the proximity to the property line. In the applicant's case, he believed that it would probably not impact any neighbors or the lagoon. However, other property owners in a similar position along the lagoon would impact their neighbors if they chose to build a similar structure. Vice President Gilmore appreciated the fact that the property owner approached the Planning Board before they built, rather than after the fact, asking for a blessing on the completed structure. She wished to reward honesty as a means of encouraging that kind of honesty, as opposed to the people who come to the Board after the fact. Mr. Fossum noted that he had examined the property, and noted that there were potential future problems if this project were approved. On the other hand, every potential structure would be individually analyzed. He believed this project would benefit the current owners, and that there would not be any impact on neighbors. He believed that part of the Planning Board's job was to act sensibly and reasonably, and he believed that approving this project would fit within those guidelines. Planning Board Minutes March 26, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Breuer noted that he had given this project considerable thought, and did not believe he could approve it and still stay within the Alameda Municipal Code and the Zoning Codes. He may feel in his heart that he would like to approve the project, but he believed that he must follow the Codes in the right way. He believed that he must disapprove the project, President Rossi noted that the Planning Board would have a discussion with the City regarding the possibility of changing some of the Zoning rules, but emphasized that applicants and the Board must follow the rules of the game as they currently stand. Mr. Matarrese noted that the Variance process was in place for a specific reason, and added that Mr. West made a.compelling case regarding this project. He believed that the smaller lot size did deprive the applicants of a substantial property right that other owners enjoyed. He did not believe the project would make a substantial impact on neighbors and adjoining properties. Mr. Piziali noted that it was fine to support a project, but added that the Board must have a legal finding for it. Mr. Connack advised that if the Board members could make a distinction that would make it unique and different from other properties in the area, they could make the findings for the Variance. Planning Director Colette Meunier advised that waterfront location and the size of the lot could be identified as extraordinary circumstances. In addition, the issue of detriment could be addressed by the support of the neighbors, and that finding could be made. Regarding the issue of hardship, the applicant had a reasonably -sized home, and he had reasonable use of his property. The question before the Board was whether a bigger home was a property right throughout the district. The size of the lot was less than 5,000 square feet, and shallower than the minimum 100 feet deep to meet the City's minimum standards. Mr. Bard agreed that the lot size was odd, and that finding could be made, however, the Board's job was to make all three findings. He could not make the other two findings, and he respectfully disagreed with the other comments that the project would just fix the existing structure. The structure was a patio, and the plans would transform it into a more significant structure. President Rossi noted that if the three findings could not be made to approve the Variance, the Major Design Review could not be approved. Mr. Matarrese believed that there were extraordinary circumstances associated with the lot, and that 14 other lots had the necessary depth in this. area. Three lots did not have that depth, and his was one of them. He believed the literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance standards would result in an unnecessary hardship, and that the insufficient lot depth deprived him of a property right possessed by others in the district. He believed that there was Board support for the "no detriment" finding. Vice President Gilmore was not sure whether the Variance could be made soispecific to this property that other property owners on the lagoon would not request the same exceptions. She did not wish to see the lagoons in Alameda built up in that manner. Planning Board Minutes March 26, 2001 Page 6 Mr. Breuer agreed with Vice President Gilmore, and believed that approval of this Variance would set a bad precedent. Mr. Matarrese was not concerned with setting a precedent, because of the findings necessary to grant a Variance. Vice President Gilmore noted that she did not wish to grant or not grant Variances on the basis of the number or lack of neighbor complaints. She believed that neighborhood input was very important, but she did not wish to turn a Variance hearing into a popularity contest. Mr. Fossum suggested finding some modification to the plans so that they could be in a position to review, and perhaps approve, the plans. M/S Bard/Breuer to uphold Planning Board Resolution No: PB -01 -17 and support Staff's recommendation to deny the Variance. AYES - 5; NOES - 2 (Fossum, Matarrese); ABSTAIN - 0 Mr. West noted that if the deck needed to be moved back, that would be acceptable to him. It was his understanding that similar structures had been permitted and constructed. Planning Board Minutes March 26, 2001 Page 7 ITEM NO: APPLICATION: CITY OF ALAMEDA . PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Major Design Review, DR00 -129, and Variance, V01 -06 -- John & Asa West -- 901 Delmar Avenue. The applicant requests a Major Design Review approval to demolish an existing nonconforming enclosed patio and replacing it with an approximately 176- square foot room addition. A Variance is required to permit the demolition and reconstruction of a nonconforming room to be constructed up to the rear property line, where a minimum 14.4 -foot rear yard setback is required. The site is located within an R -1, One - Family Residence Zoning District. GENERAL PLAN: Low Density Residential ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Categorically Exempt from CEQA, Guidelines, Section 15301 - Minor Alteration of Existing Structures. STAFF PLANNER: Dennis Brighton, Planner II RECOMMENDATION: Approve Variance and Design Review ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Planning Board Minutes of March 26, 2001 3. Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Eleiations (2 sheets) ABBREVIATIONS: 1. AMC.= Alameda Municipal Code 2. R-1 = One - Family Residence Zoning District L PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a Major Design Review approval to demolish an existing nonconforming habitable/conditioned room and replace it with an approximately 176 - square foot room which would closely match the exterior of the existing residence and would be built to current Uniform Building Code safety standards. A Variance is required to permit the reconstructed room to abut up to the rear property line, where a minimum 14.4 -foot rear yard setback is required. The rear yard setback is established by AMC., Subsection 30- 5.6(a)(3) for lots less than 5,000 square feet and less than 100 -feet deep. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 14, 2001 Attachment #4 This project would allow the applicant to add a conditioned room which closely matches the architectural character of the residence and which would also be built to current safety standards. The new room would replace an enclosed patio /room which had become conditioned/habitable space and which may have been built in 1964 and projects across the rear property line into the lagoon area. II. BACKGROUND A. Planning Board Review This project was originally submitted for public hearing and review at the March 26, 2001 meeting of the Planning Board. Based upon the results of this public hearing, the Planning Board denied the Major Design Review and Variances. However, the vote was not unanimous, with two board members issuing dissenting votes. The Board generally agreed that the findings could not be made to support the Variance for the second story deck. Several Board members, however, also expressed a desire to consider an amended project that could be supported through the Variance findings. During his presentation before the Board, Mr. West noted other examples of homes which have been built up to the rear property lines as original structures. It was also noted that many of the original structures with nonconforming rear yard setbacks were built prior to filling of the Bay in the 1950's. B. Site Conditions As shown on the attached site plan, the lot is irregular in shape with a total area of approximately 2,976 square feet. The maximum depth of the lot is 72 feet. The single- family structure is split level, with the second story above the single car attached garage. The existing and proposed building lot coverage are both approximately 45 percent, where 48 percent is the maximum allowed lot coverage. The existing yard setbacks are as follows: a) Front yard setback is 15 -feet (Minimum 20 -feet required). b) Rear yard setback varies from 0 -feet from the rear addition to 11.5 feet to the rear of the residence (minimum 14.4 -feet required). c) Easterly side yard setback is 4 -feet, 8- inches (minimum 5 -feet required). d) Westerly side yard setback is a conforming 5 -feet. C. Surrounding Land Use Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 14, 2001 Page 2 All adjacent . property uses are one and two- story, single - family residences which back upon the lagoon. The residences are of varying style, built within the last 60 years. D. Permits for the Existing Rear Addition Although City records show that permits were issued in 1964 for a patio cover, plans do not exist to show what was permitted to be constructed. However, neither building codes nor the Zoning Ordinance in 1964 would have permitted an enclosed patio to be built across the rear property line into the lagoon area. The 1962 Zoning Ordinance only permitted patio covers to encroach to within a minimum of 10 feet from the rear property line and were required to remain open on at least two sides. This structure is fully enclosed with walls and windows and finished to the extent that it may be considered as conditioned space under the definition of the Uniform Building Code. III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff evaluation is separated into a discussion regarding the nonconforming status of the existing room addition and the installation of patio covers on other similar properties and actions of the Planning Board, findings required for the Variances, and the findings regarding Design Review. A. Discussion: Prior staff review of the 630 Sand Hook Isle project had determined that it was common for enclosed patio structures to be built with permits between 1964 and 1974 as patio covers, although the Zoning Ordinance specifically defined the difference between an enclosed patio (classified as a room addition), and a patio cover. The Zoning Ordinance has allowed patio covers to encroach into required yards from 1964 to the present day. At the time of this construction of the patio enclosure, design review was not required for single - family residences; therefore, Planning staff did not review the plans prior to issuance of the building permit. In this case many room additions may have been approved as patio covers and it also appears that many of the permitted patio covers may have been converted into conditioned space without permit. Without clear evidence available in this case, staff can reasonably give this issue the benefit of doubt and define the room addition as nonconforming. Although the existing enclosed patio is nonconforming, the property owner may not expand the nonconforming character of the structure. However, Mr. West is proposing to make the structure more compatible with City Codes by eliminating the overhang across the rear property line without expanding the nonconforming structure. He is proposing to create a room addition which is more compatible with the architectural character of his residence, does not project across property lines, and would be constructed to current safety standards pursuant with the Uniform Building Code. It has been the practice of the Planning Board to approve structural alterations of nonconforming structures where the building envelope is not expanded. B. Variance: Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 14, 2001 Page 3 To grant the relevant Variances, the Planning Board must make all three of the following findings: 1. There are extraordinary circumstances applying to the property relating to the physical constraints of the parcel, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. Staff can make this finding. The extraordinary circumstance applying to this property is that the existing lot is very small and irregularly shaped, with an existing development pattern which would prevent the alternative use of the existing residential space in conformance with City Code. The existing room addition, which was built with permits, also maintains a nonconforming rear yard setback with a roof which extends across the rear property line. The project proposes to eliminate the overhang across the rear property line, bringing the property into greater compliance with City Code. 2. Because of extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance standards would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the applicants of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of the property in the same district. Staff can make this finding. The extraordinary circumstance which results in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship would require the applicant to continue to utilize a room addition which extends across the rear property line, is not compatible with the architectural character of the main residence, and does not meet current health and safety standards of the Uniform Building Code for conditioned space. As is the case with many properties within the general vicinity, the living space already exists under valid permits, loss of this existing living space would deprive the current property owner of established living space. 3. The granting of the Variance, under the circumstances of the particular case, will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to persons or property in the vicinity. Staff can make this finding. No change would occur which would affect the neighborhood because the habitable room area already exists and is being replaced without any expansion. Variance Conclusion: Staff is able to make all of the Variance findings for the rear yard setback for the room replacement. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the Variance. C. Design Review: The applicant is requesting a Major Design Review to construct a single story room replacement at the rear southwesterly corner of the single -family residence. All proposed wall and roof surfaces would match the original surfaces in texture and color. The overall result would be compatible with the scale and character of the original structure and the adjacent structures within the Planning Board Stan Report Meeting of May 14, 2001 Page 4 neighborhood. To approve the Design Review application, the Planning Board must make all three of the following findings: 1. The project will not have significant adverse effects on persons or property in the vicinity. Staff can make this finding. As mentioned above in finding #3 for the Variance, the proposed addition would not cause a specific detriment to adjacent residential properties because the habitable space already exists under valid permits. 2. The addition will be compatible and harmonious with the design and use of surrounding properties. Staff can make this finding. The addition is consistent in size and scale with the structure to which it is attached and will match the design of the existing residence and would be compatible with adjacent residential properties: 3. The addition will be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines. Staff can make this finding. All proposed wall and roof surfaces would match the original surfaces in texture and color. The overall result would be compatible with the scale and character of the original structure and the adjacent structures within the neighborhood. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the City's Design Review Guidelines. • Design Review Conclusion: Staff can support approval of the Design Review application because all of the required fmdings can be made. IV. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Board hold a public hearing, consider all available testimony and information, review the administrative record, and act to approve Variance, V01 -06, and Major Design Review, DR00 -129, for the proposed addition into the rear yard setback, based upon required findings and conditions set out in the draft Resolution. GA PLANNINGAPBAREPORTS1200144V0106 file: V01 -060R00 -129 Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of May 14, 2001 Page 5 • • 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: 8-A. V01- 06/DR00 -129 -- John & Asa West -- 901 Delmar Avenue (DB). Applicants request a Major Design Review approval to demolish an existing nonconforming enclosed patio and replace it with an approximately 176 square foot room addition. A Variance is required to permit the demolition and reconstruction of the nonconforming room to be constructed up to the rear property line, where a minimum 14.4 foot rear yard setback is required. The site is located within an R -1, One- Family Residence Zoning District. M/S Matarrese/Breuer and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB =01 -23 to approve a Major Design Review to demolish an existing nonconforming enclosed patio and replace it with an approximately 176 square foot room addition. A Variance is required to permit the demolition and reconstruction of the nonconforming room to be constructed up to the rear property line, where a minimum 14.4 foot rear yard setback is required. AYES - 6; NOES - 0; ABSTAIN - 0 Planning Board Minutes May 14, 2001 Page 3 Ms. Melody Bounds • City of Alameda Planning Department Dear Melody, Rc -arVEQ A PERMIT CENTER ALA EDA, CA 94501 As promised please find enclosed several pictures of the illegal patio cover / lanai that used to be on our property. As you can see from these pictures, the patio cover was as deep as the entire yard on the west side of our property i.e. 10.5 feet and as wide as the entire depth of the patio i.e. 17 feet. The roof was 8 feet in height (easy to see if you know that the eaves of the roof over the main residence are 9 feet above grade): The structure was enclosed on the west side by an 8 feet high back wall built of 2x4 studs and latticework on top of a 3 feet high former seawall. The north side was closed also with a partial wall and solid•door. A partial wall and glass windows enclosed the south side, facing the lagoon. The east side was the only side that was open. The roof was made of 2x6 beams, covered by lattice work, covered by fiberglass. Mr. Ron Curtis, at 902 Regent told me years ago that he, together with a former resident, built the Lanai `for a party" at some point in the past. In 2002 I learned that this was an illegal structure. After consulting with city permits department I was told I could either enroll in the amnesty program to the tune of $250, and apply for variance and permits to keep this in place (and fix the leaky roof). Alternatively I could just remove it for which no permit was required. I subsequently removed . the structure. I hope these pictures and the sketch prove to your satisfaction that there used to be an illegal patio cover / lanai structure here until 2002. Which obviously also happened to severely block any views from the windows and backyard area of 902 Regent. Best regards, Ronald Put 903 Delmar Attachment #5 2 2& ", a� .��r. 2.. \ \ ) . « a » ! _w photographs submitted by applicant (May 18, 2004) P. z Image submitted by applicant (May 18, 2004 ,> 1 c NEarargrO f IVIVAMMV.„ -i". V.M.Y.? $441 704 4^ 1 699VCO diNAW. bF ??S?'r.4VVH.AWAV.YeAvvi+t3Amtw. ,,,,,. Ms. Melody Bounds City of Alameda Planning Department Dear Melody, ED 6L' AL,PERMIT' ENTER '. A. ! A 94501 As promised please find enclosed several pictures of the illegal patio cover / lanai that used to be on our property. As you can see from these pictures, the patio cover was as deep as the entire yard on the west side of our property i.e. 10.5 feet and as wide as the entire depth of the patio i.e. 17 feet. The roof was 8 feet in height (easy to see if you know that the eaves of the roof over the main residence are 9 feet above grade). The structure was enclosed on the west side by an 8 feet high back wall built of 2x4 studs and latticework on top of a 3 feet high former seawall. The north side was closed also with a partial wall and solid door. A partial wall and glass windows enclosed the south side, facing the lagoon. The east side was the only side that was open. The roof was made of 2x6 beams, covered by lattice work, covered by fiberglass. Mr. Ron Curtis, at 902 Regent told me years ago that he, together with a former resident, built the lanai "for a party" at some point in the past. In 2002 I learned that this was an illegal structure. After consulting with city permits department I was told I could either enroll in the amnesty program to the tune of $250, and apply for variance and permits to keep this in place (and fix the leaky roof). Alternatively I could just remove it for which no permit was required. I subsequently removed the structure. I hope these pictures and the sketch prove to your satisfaction that there used to be an illegal patio cover / lanai structure here until 2002. Which obviously also happened to severely block any views from the windows and backyard area of 902 Regent. Best regards, Ronald Put 903 Delmar Attachment 6 Different views of 903 Delmar Ave View from the lagoon (left to right: 902 Regent, 903 Delmar, 901 Delmar): Correspondence Presented at the Planning Board Meeting of glf 405/ Re: Age da Item # View from "backyard" to the east also site of • ro • osed addition : and to the west: View of the "side yard ": View of the livin • room towards the west: The "front" of the house: And the real entrance to the house: Additions / Sunrooms / enclosed patio covers legal or illegal througout the Alameda lagoons West of Grand RECEIVED PERMIT CENTER ALAMEDA, CA 9450 Attachment 7 _____...,._._. .,..:;.';'";.'..;.:,.'';,,S':,",-.Z:' _ -,or; _ . *XI= c?'C S4 1 f ¶. Between Grand & Willow �y t • Between Willow & Park Between Park & Broadway East of Broadway CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. PB -04-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APPROVING THE VARIANCE, VO4 -0004, AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, DR04 -0007, AT 903 DELMAR AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was made on February 9, 2004, by Ronald and Myrna Put, for Major Design Review and Variance approval for structural expansion of a single - family residence into the required rear yard setback. The proposed addition will be located approximately four feet (4') from the rear property line, where the minimum required rear yard setback is fifteen feet six inches (15'6 "); and WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on March 9, 2004; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low- Density Residential in the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -1, Single- Family Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on May 24, 2004 and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board is able to make all of the following required findings in order to support approval for the Variance to permit the single -story addition to extend to within approximately four feet (4') from the rear property line, pursuant to Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) of the Alameda Municipal Code: 1. There are extraordinary circumstances applying to the property relating to the physical constraints of the parcel, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The Planning Board can make this finding. The flag lot is ari extraordinary circumstance and the lot is less than 5,000 square feet. In addition, the orientation and location of the property deprives it of views of the lagoon that are enjoyed by adjacent properties. Furthermore, the property is located on the north side of the lagoon, which originally had views of the Bay prior to the development of the adjacent property at 902 Regent Street and the development of the South Shore area. 2. Because of extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance standards would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship such as to deprive the applicants of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of the property in the same district. The Planning Board can make this finding. The orientation and location of the property prevents the property from enjoying views of the lagoon otherwise enjoyed by adjacent neighbors. Literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the property of its potential to take advantage of its location to the lagoon, as well as deprive the property of the ability to add additional living area. 1 Attachment 8 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby approves Variance, VO4-0004, and Major Design Review, DR04 -0007 to permit a first -floor addition to within approximately four feet (4') of the rear property line, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans submitted for the Building Permit shall be in substantial compliance with the plans prepared by Angie Klein, dated May 4, 2004 consisting of five (5) sheets, marked "Exhibit A ", on file in the office of the Planning and Building Department 2. This property at 903 Delmar Avenue shall conform to the following setbacks: a. Minimum four feet six inch (4'6 ") front yard setback for the main building. b. Minimum four feet (4') rear yard setback for the main building. c. Minimum ten feet six inch (10'6 ") side yard setback for the left (west) and five feet (5') side yard setback for the right (east) side of the main building. d. Standards not specified in this resolution shall be the standards specified in the underlying R -1, One Family Residence District regulations. 3. All Time and Material charges shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 4. The property owner shall request a Final Site Inspection by Planning Staff prior to Final Building Inspection. The applicant shall request the inspection two (2) business days in advance. 5. Pursuant to Section 30- 84.12, of the Alameda Municipal Code, new construction must not cause storm runoff to be diverted to any adjacent parcel. Please provide spot elevations or show directional arrows on Final Plans to verify that storm runoff will be properly channeled to Delmar Avenue (i.e. City right -of -way). Storm runoff may not be tied to the sanitary sewer system. 6. HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Alameda shall cooperate promptly, notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 7. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this approval to be exercised. VESTING. The Variance and Major Design Review approval shall expire one (1) year after the date of approval or by May 24, 2005, unless all of the above conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director prior to the date of .expiration or, alternatively, an 3 Acknowledgment of Conditions: I hereby acknowledge receipt of Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -36 for, the Planning Board's approval of VO4- 0004/DR04 -0007 approved on May 24th, 2004, and in accordance with Conditions herein, I hereby verify that I understand and agree to comply with the Conditions of approval of said Planning Board Resolution No. DRAFT and the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance). Executed at: By: Ci Date On: App Title APPLICANT MUST FILL OUT AND RETURN TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. G: IPLANN1NG1PB \RESO\2004\23DelmarAve903 VO4 -0004 2.doc 5 8 -A. VO4- 0004/DR04 -0007 — 903 Delmar Avenue—Ronald and Myrna Put (MB). The applicant proposes to construct a 230 square -foot, single -story addition to the rear of the residence. The height of the proposed addition will measure approximately thirteen feet five inches (13'5 ") from grade. A Variance is required to allow the addition to encroach approximately fourteen feet (14') into the required rear yard setback of fifteen feet five inches (15'5 "). A Major Design Review approval is also requested for the exterior changes to the residence. The project is located within the R -1, One - Family Residence Zoning District. (Continued from the meeting of May 10, 2004.) Ms. Bounds summarized the staff report, and reviewed the information presented at the last meeting. Staff recommended denial of this item because all three findings could not be made to support the Variance. In response to Ms. Cook's question, Ms. Bounds noted that the property owners at 901 Delmar Avenue had applied for and received a Variance to reconstruct the existing, nonconforming patio enclosure that extended across the rear property line. The permit history indicated that building permits were originally issued for a covered patio in October 1964, which was consistent with many of the patio structures built between 1964 and 1974 along the Lagoons. She noted that the May 14, 2001, staff report for the Variance explained that there was no clear evidence on record to indicate whether the existing covered patio was enclosed or not. Therefore, the structure was determined to be an existing, nonconforming room. The applicants had originally applied for a Variance, requesting the room to be legally enclosed with an added roof deck; that Variance was denied. A second Variance request was applied for, and the original proposal to construct the roof decks was rescinded, bringing the structure and the roof eaves back within the property line. She noted that Variance was approved on the May 14, 2001, Consent Calendar. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Angie Klein, project architect, 2622 Union, requested that her client be allowed to build the small, one -story addition on the lagoon side of the house. A bay window would be replaced with a family dining room which would follow the design of the existing Tudor home. She believed the new design would improve the appearance and the historic integrity of the home, particularly with respect to the windows. She noted that the odd- shaped lot was substandard, and that the building would cover 39% of the lot. She noted that converting the attached garage would reduce on -site parking spaces, which the applicant did not wish to do. She believed that the proposed addition would make the most sense while keeping the historic character of the house, as well as being the most sensitive to the neighbors. The applicants would like to stay in the house, and to enjoy the addition of a dining room/family room to their home, which was a benefit enjoyed by most residents in Alameda. Mr. Ronald Put, applicant, noted that he was approaching the Board with this project priorto building the addition. He wished to address the three findings, and noted that they would Planning Board Meeting Page 8 May 24, 2004 Attachment 9 never approach the maximum allowed lot coverage of 48 %. Mr. Put noted that they had considered other alternatives, and noted that building towards the west was not feasible; he noted that would not be economical to build out the entire side of the house by five feet. He added that the house could not be raised, which would exceed the stories limit and would block the neighbors' views from both sides. He believed that Finding 1 could be made because the lot was an extraordinary shape and depth, and because 25% ofthe [[banner]] portion was actually a sideyard. He noted that the lot was adjacent to a large body of water, creating a major open space element in the neighborhood. He noted that the setback requirements had been well developed for rectangular lots, but did not apply well to flag lots such as his. Mr. Put believed that the second finding could be made because his growing family made the lack of a family room or dining room a practical difficulty and an unnecessary hardship. He noted that virtually all of the homes in the neighborhood had a family and/or dining room. Staff compared his house to the smallest houses on the smallest lots in the neighborhood, and he noted that they had a family room. Mr. Put noted that staff was able to make Finding 3, because the project would have minimal impact to the neighbors and their properties along the lagoon. He had submitted a petition signed by 27 lagoon neighbors favoring the project at the last meeting. He noted that their home would have a very low profile, and would not be visible from Broadway at all. He noted that raising the house would make the house visible, and he did not wish to make an architecturally unsound addition to the home. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Ms. Marian noted that she had visited the property, which she agreed was unique. She did not see any damage or harm in building the addition, and believed that it would conform with the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. Ms. Cook advised that because of the adjacent properties, the subject property was at a disadvantage because of its relationship to the water. Before 902 Delmar was built, 903 Delmar had a good relationship to the water even if 901 Delmar had been built out. She noted that when 902 Delmar was built, 903 Delmar suffered a hardship in terms of its relationship to the water. She believed that it would be fair to allow the applicants to have the same advantage toward the lagoon as the two adjoining properties. Mr. Lynch noted that page 3, Section E, paragraph 2 of the staff report reflected the Board's attempt to establish compliance with the current Code. It appeared that some Board members could make the findings to support the Variance, and noted that the staff report stated, "Should the Planning Board determine findings could be made, staff recommends that the Board discuss the current regulations governing construction in the rear yards of properties Planning Board Meeting Page 9 May 24, 2004 on the lagoons." He differed with that recommendation, and did not care to delve into those issues at this time. He believed this hearing should focus on the merits of this particular application, not amending the Municipal Code, and whether the findings could be made or not. Vice President Bard concurred with Mr. Lynch's assessment of that recommendation. He noted that in the late -'60s through the late '70s, some design decisions were allowed to be made that are not allowed now. He was very concerned that some of the permitted sunrooms had become larger through the years, and noted that the City did not control them effectively. He believed that he could make the findings in this one case; he did not wish to set a precedent. Mr. Cunningham believed that the applicant had done a good job in presenting their case, and noted that it was the City's job to enforce the Code and zoning requirements. He noted that the intent of the Code was to ensure that there was open space in the back of these properties. He noted that while the lagoon was not designated as open space, it was in fact open space. He cautioned the Board to make very specific findings in this case. He could support this application as long as the house wasn't built all the way up to the waterfront, and if there was a landscaping buffer between the house and the water. Ms. McNamara noted that the sideyard was large enough to serve as the back yard, and felt comfortable with the application. President Piziali noted that the front and sideyard setback were compliant, and that the rear yard setback was at issue. Vice President Bard noted that he would be more comfortable making the findings based 011 the existing rear yard without trying to redefine the yard areas. Ms. Cook inquired whether the findings could be made based on the fact that the adjacent properties on both sides had been developed in such a way to substantially reduce the quality of this property's original relationship to the water. Ms. Bounds noted that the property had a number of unusual qualities, such as being a flag lot and its small size. Vice President Bard noted that the property had an irregular shape and was in an unusual location. He believed this lot was unique among flag- shaped lots, and was unique in its relative position to the other structures involved. He believed that the finding could be made with respect to extraordinary circumstances. He noted that the third finding had already been made by staff. He believed that the addition would not change the look of the house, which was already difficult to see. Planning Board Meeting Page 10 May 24, 2004 M/S Bard/McNamara and unanimous to adopt Planning Board Resolution No. PB -04 -36 to approve the construction of a 230 square -foot, single -story addition to the rear of the residence. The height of the proposed addition will measure approximately thirteen feet five inches (13'5 ") from grade. A Variance is required to allow the addition to encroach approximately fourteen feet (14') into the required rear yard setback of fifteen feet five inches (15'5 "). A Major Design Review approval is also requested for the exterior changes to the residence. AYES —7; NOES -0; ABSTAIN -0 Planning Board Meeting Page 11 May 24, 2004 PETITION FOR APPEAL TO: CITY OF ALAMEDA City Hall (Planning Board or City Council) Z263 Santa Clara Avenue #190 Alameda CA 94501 d This petition is hereby filed as an appeal of the decision of the P/. c n h•j .8p 1 (Planning Direct8r /Zoning. Administrator /Planning Board /Historical Advisory Board) which 6H0/ft7ic-oi for (Denied /Granted /Established Conditions)' 1/ o - 0 ©0 44/og - °at 2 9 c J J2 %h-, -�, ,evc for a (.Application Number) (Street Address) Design Review Use Permit 'Variance Subdivision Map Rezoning Plannned Development Planned Development /Amendment Other (Specify) on 4 /ge /G174 (Specify Date) The basis of the appeal is: Dc,1 a � h A.. J /f/ b y.5 g,7 Alt. IL 174' ad , 12i,., 11 f,). 4144D .40-c4-•1 04,..... 7 b2 04%.--,1- 0 (571rce <. • // L.s , / X/2 :,,./ ci b __ 76 O "L (If more space is needed, continue on the reverse side or additional sheets.) :7R C&-A-71; (Name) (� s74 (Address) A14 h c (City /State) 5 J -0 • attach Yr -.y�c J• /b (Telephone - Work) leeL, J� -.i 4>J 7 (Telephone - Home) ************************************* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (For Office Use Only) Received By Receipt No.: -c2coz G: \PLANNING \FORMS \APPEALO1.WPD Date R . RECEIVED rJUN-2 2OG PERM -F CENTER ALAMEDA, CA 94501 7 JL /y Attachment 10 za 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF VARIANCE VO4 -0004 AND MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR04 -0007 TO ALLOW A 230 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AT 903 DELMAR AVENUE WHEREAS, an application was made on February 9, 2004, by Ronald and Myrna Put, for Major Design Review and Variance approval for structural expansion of a single - family residence into the required rear yard setback. The proposed addition will be located approximately four feet (4') from the rear property line, where the minimum required rear yard setback is fifteen feet six inches (15'6 "); and WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on March 9, 2004; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Low Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -1, Single - Family Residential Zoning District; and Uu WHEREAS, additions to residential structures that are greater than eighty (80) square feet requires Major Design Review pursuant to AMC Subsection 30 -37.2 (a); and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda held two public hearings on this application on May 10, 2004 and May 24, 2004, and examined pertinent documents and conditionally approved the application; and WHEREAS, on July 20, 2004, the City Council of the City of Alameda held a public hearing for the appeal of the Planning Board's prior approval and examined pertinent documents as well as the record of the Planning Board hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered responses to the bases of the appellants' appeal and finds that there are no merits in the bases of appeal; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following fmdings with respect to the appellant's bases of appeal and relative to the Planned Development Amendment application: 1. There are extraordinary circumstances applying to the property relating to the physical constraints of the parcel, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. The City Council can make this finding. The flag lot is an extraordinary circumstance and the lot is less than 5,000 square feet. In addition, the orientation and location of the property deprives it of views of the lagoon that are enjoyed by adjacent properties. Furthermore, the property is located on the north side of the lagoon, which originally had views of the Bay prior to the development of the adjacent property at 902 Regent Street and the development of the South Shore area. 1 Resolution #5 -B 7 -20 -04 VESTING. The Variance and Major Design Review approval shall expire one (1) year after the date of approval or by July 20, 2005, unless all of the above conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director prior to the date of expiration or, alternatively, an extension request is filed and approved by the City Council prior to the date of expiration. * * * * ** 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 Page 4 City of Alameda Date: Memorandum July 8, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Council Members From: Re: James M. Flint, City Manager Public hearing to consider introduction of an Ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section 30 -17, Residential Density Bonuses and Incentives, to the City of 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. The development of a density bonus ordinance is an implementation measure within the Housing Element. The Planning Board initiated a zoning ordinance amendment on July 8, 2003 to create a density bonus ordinance. On March 8, 2004, the Planning Board recommended approval of the density bonus ordinance. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS A density bonus ordinance provides incentives to developers to develop affordable housing within a residential subdivision, planned development or condominium. A density bonus is an increase in the number of units that can be constructed on a site, up to 25%. The percentage of affordable housing and bonus is negotiated between the city and the developer, as are the incentives to be provided. Affordable units provided under such an ordinance are restricted in terms of income and resale. The General Plan Land Use Element currently recognizes the State authority in the description of Medium - Density Residential (page 11) as follows: Projects of five or more units with 20 percent of the units affordable to lower- income households earn a state - mandated density bonus permitting up to 26.1 units per net acre. Although the City does not presently have a density bonus ordinance, in the past Alameda has provided housing incentives for such developments as Marina Village and Heritage Homes on Bay Farm Island. Qualifications for a Density Bonus The ordinance reflects the minimum State requirements for what Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Public Hearing #5 -C 7 -20 -04 Honorable Mayor and Council Members July 8, 2004 Page 2 developments might qualify for a density bonus. These provisions are: a. Twenty percent (20 %) or more of the units reserved for "lower- income households," or b. Ten percent (10 %) or more of the units reserved for "very low- income households," or c. Fifty percent (50 %) or more of the units for qualifying residents, (i.e. senior citizens housing) or d. Twenty percent (20 %) or more of the units of a condominium project reserved for moderate income residents. Incentives The ordinance contains a menu approach for incentives in order to allow each development to customize the package necessary to make the project buildable in an economic manner. The list of proposed incentives includes: • Reduction of site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements; a reduced on -site parking requirement , including the number or size of spaces and garage requirements; a reduced minimum building - separation requirement; a reduced street standards, e.g., reduced minimum street widths. • Waived, reduced, or deferred planning, plan check, construction permitting, and/or development impact fees (e.g., capital facilities, park, or traffic fees). • Direct financial aid in the form of a loan or a grant to subsidize or provide low- interest financing for on- or off -site improvements, land, construction or other development costs. Measure A The proposed density bonus ordinance does not permit any waiver of any of the requirements of Article XVI of the Alameda Charter if the City has identified one or more alternative Additional Incentives, as identified above, that are of equal or greater financial benefit. If necessary, direct financial aid can be used to ensure there are no waivers of Article XVI. Process A developer of a housing development that qualifies for a density bonus may propose a package of concessions and incentives to the City. The applicant is obligated to show that these waivers or modifications are necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. Use of the density bonus provisions will be negotiated and set forth in an agreement between the City and developer. The agreement will spell out the terms and conditions including the incentives to be used, the timing of development and the management of the units reserved for affordable use. Similar to a development agreement, a density bonus agreement is recorded against the property and would be subject to annual review to ensure compliance. The application for a density bonus will be processed at the same time as the development proposal so that the agreement and the development proposal can be considered simultaneously. The standard zoning ordinance appeal procedures will apply to any density bonus agreement. Senate Bill 1818 There is proposed legislation that would change several sections of the State's density bonus provisions. Senate Bill 1818 would reduce the percentages of required affordable units to qualify for an increased density bonus based on a sliding scale up to 40% and would allow an additional density bonus for land donations of land suitable for multi- family development units amounting to 10% of the unit count of the base project. (A project that uses both bonuses cannot Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Council Members July 8, 2004 Page 3 exceed General Plan density standards by more than 40 %.) Should this legislation pass, the density bonus ordinance may need to be amended to incorporate these provisions. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT None; however, individual applications may have financial implications if fees are waived or financial assistance is provided. MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE The density bonus ordinance will become Section 17 of Chapter XXX, Development Regulations. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance adding Section 30 -17, Density Bonus Ordinance, to the City of Alameda Municipal Code. Bv: Respectfully submitted, Gregory L. Fuz Planning and Building Director Cyn is Eliason Planning Manager Attachments: 1. PB Resolution No. PB -04 -20 2. March 8, 2004 Planning Board Staff Report 3. March 8, 2004 Planning Board Minutes 4. SB 1818 Assembly Committee analysis (June 23, 2004) cc: Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope Eve Bach, ARC Ecology G: \PLANNING \CC\REPORTS \2004\n -July 200ensity Bonus.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. PB -04 -20 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 30 -17, RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUSES AND INCENTIVES, 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 March 8, 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 affect 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 in Alameda. 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: Attachment #1 1 Section 1. Code Adoption. Section 30 -17 is hereby added to the Alameda Municipal Code to read as follows: Section 30 -17 Residential Density Bonuses and Incentives Subsection 30 -17 -1 Title and Purpose The provisions of this section shall be known a s the Residential Density B onuses and Incentives Ordinance. The purpose of this section is to prescribe the procedure for the granting of density bonuses and incentives, under specified conditions, to encourage the provision of affordable housing. This section is intended to comply with the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Sections 65915 et seq. Subsection 30 -17 -2 Definitions The following definitions shall apply to the construction and interpretation of this section: "Additional Incentive" means those incentives identified in Subsection 30- 17 -4(c). "Affordable Sales Price" means a sales price at which a household of the income levels for which a unit is to be made affordable can qualify for the purchase of Target Units, calculated on the basis of underwriting standards of mortgage financing available for the development. "Applicable Use Restriction Period" i s the p eriod e stablished w ith r espect to a T arget Unit pursuant to subsection 30- 17 -3(e). "Density Bonus" means a density increase of at least twenty -five percent (25 %) in the number of units authorized for a site beyond the otherwise maximum allowable residential density, unless a lesser percentage is elected by the developer, except with respect to a condominium project eligible under Section 30- 17- 3(a)(4), in which case the density increase shall be at least ten percent (10 %). "Density Bonus Housing Agreement" means an agreement pursuant to subsection 30 -17 -5. "Density Bonus Units" means those residential units granted pursuant to the provisions of this section that exceed the number of residential units otherwise allowable for a development site pursuant to the maximum allowable residential density. "Developer" means a person who applies for approval of a Density Bonus under this section. "Equivalent Financial Incentive" means an incentive offered by the city in lieu of a density bonus pursuant to subsection 30- 17 -4(d). "Housing Cost" means the sum of actual or projected monthly payments for all of the following associated with for -sale Target Units: principal and interest on a mortgage loan, including any 2 loan insurance fees; property taxes and assessments; fire and casualty insurance; property maintenance and repairs; homeowner association fees; and, a reasonable allowance for utilities. "Housing Development" means construction pursuant to this section of a project consisting of five or more residential units, including single - family, multi - family, condominiums, or mobilehomes for sale or rent. Housing Development also includes a project to substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use or to substantially rehabilitate an existing multi - family development as defined in Government Code Section 65863.4(d). "Maximum allowable residential density" means the maximum number of residential units that may be constructed on a site under the charter, general plan, zoning and other ordinances of the c ity; i f a r ange o f d ensity i s p ermitted, t hen t he m aximum a llowable d ensity shall b e t he highest number in that range. "Non- Restricted Units" means units within a Housing Development other than Target Units. "Qualifying Resident" m eans senior citizens or other persons eligible to reside in a Senior Citizen Housing Development as those terms are defined in Section 51.3(b)(1) and (4) of the California Civil Code. "Senior Citizen Housing Development" means a housing development consistent with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12900 et seq.; including Section 12955.9 in particular), that has been "designed to meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens," and that otherwise qualifies as "housing for older persons" as that phrase is used in the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (P.L. 100 -430) and implementing regulations (24 CFR, part 100, subpart E), and as that phrase is used in California Civil Code Sections 51.2 and 51.3. "State Density Bonus Law" means Government Code Sections 65915 = 65918 as those sections now exist or may hereafter be amended. "Target Unit" means a dwelling unit within a Housing Development that will be reserved for sale or rent to, Very Low -, Lower- or Moderate - Income Households, or Qualifying Residents, as those terms are further defined in subsection 30- 17 -3(a) and in the State Density Bonus Law. Subsection 30 -17 -3 Implementation a. The City shall grant (i) a Density Bonus, (ii) a Density Bonus with Additional Incentive(s) or (iii) Equivalent Financial I ncentive(s), a s set forth in Subsection 30 -17 -4, to a developer w ho agrees to reserve housing for households of particular incomes or for Qualifying Residents in any of the following manners: 1. Twenty percent (20 %) or more of the units of a Housing Development are reserved for "lower- income households," as that phrase is defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. 2. Ten percent (10 %) or more of the units of a Housing Development are reserved for "very low - income households," as that phrase is defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50105. 3. Fifty percent (50 %) or more of the units of a Housing Development are reserved for Qualifying Residents, as defined in Subsection 30 -17 -2. 4. Twenty percent (20 %) or more of the units of a condominium project as defined in Civil Coe Section 1351(f) are reserved for "moderate- income households," as that phrase is defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093. b. In determining the minimum number of Density Bonus Units to be granted pursuant to this section, the maximum residential density for the site shall be multiplied by 0.25; any fractional unit shall be rounded up to the next whole number. Density Bonus Units shall not be included when determining the total number of Target Units in a Housing Development. If a developer requests a density increase of less than twenty -five percent (25 %), no reduction in the number of Target Units required shall be permitted. If a density increase of more than twenty - five percent (25 %) is granted, that approval shall be an Additional Incentive pursuant to subsection 30 -17 -4. c. Target Units shall be constructed concurrently with Non - Restricted Units unless the Density Bonus Housing Agreement governing those Target Units provides otherwise. d. Target Units shall be built on the site of the project for which the density bonus is sought, if possible and, when practical, shall be dispersed within the Housing Development. e. 1. Target Units shall remain restricted and affordable to the households for which they are reserved for a period of 30 years or for such longer period required by any construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program utilized with respect to the Housing Development. 2. If the Housing Project is a condominium project eligible for a Density Bonus under subsection 30- 17- 3(a)(4), Target Units shall remain restricted and affordable for moderate - income households for at least ten (10) years or for such longer period required by any construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program utilized with respect to the Housing Development). 4 Subsection 30 -17 -4 Additional Incentives a. The City shall provide a Density Bonus and Additional Incentive(s) for qualified Housing Developments upon an application pursuant to subsection 30 -17 -6 unless the City makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that: 1. the Additional Incentive(s) is (or are) not required to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5, or for Targeted Units rents to be set as specified in Government Code Section 65915(c); 2. the Additional Incentive(s) would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low income households; 3. denial of the Density Bonus and/or the Additional Incentive(s) requested by the developer is otherwise authorized by law; or, 4. the Additional Incentive requested is a waiver of any of the requirements of Article XVI of the Alameda Charter in which case the City shall identify one or more alternative Additional Incentives that are of equal or greater financial benefit to the qualified Housing Development that the Article XVI waiver sought for that qualified Housing Development. The City's agreement to the alterative Additional Incentives justifies denial under subparagraph 1. of this paragraph (a) and be further authorized by paragraph (d) of this subsection. b. A Density Bonus and any Additional Incentives granted by the city shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of providing the Target Units. Applicants seeking a waiver or modification of development or zoning standards shall show that such waivers or modifications are necessary to make the Housing Development economically feasible in accordance with Government Code Section 65915(e). This requirement may be satisfied by reference to applicable sections of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. The need for incentives will vary for different Housing Developments. Therefore, the allocation of Additional Incentives shall be determined on a case -by -case basis. c. Except as provided in subparagraph (a)(4) of this subsection, Additional Incentives may include, but need not be limited to, one or more of the following: 1. A reduction of site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards provided in the California Building Standards Law, Health and Safety Code Sections 18901 et seq. including: (a) Reduced minimum lot sizes and/or dimensions. (b) Reduced minimum lot setbacks. (c) Reduced on -site parking requirements, including the number or size of spaces. 5 2. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by a developer or the City that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions or cost avoidance. 3. A Density Bonus of more than twenty -five percent (25 %). 4. Waived, reduced, or deferred planning, plan check, construction permitting, and/or development impact fees (e.g., capital facilities, park, or traffic fees). 5. Direct financial aid in the form of a loan or grant to subsidize or provide low - interest financing for on- or off -site improvements, land, construction or other development costs. d. The City may offer an Equivalent Financial Incentive in lieu of granting a Density Bonus and an Additional Incentive(s). The value of the Equivalent Financial Incentive shall equal at least the savings in land cost per dwelling unit that would result from a Density Bonus and must contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of providing the Target Units pursuant to this section. `Economically feasible" means that a Housing Development can be built with a reasonable rate of return. A developer's financial ability to build the project shall not be a factor in determining whether an Equivalent Financial Incentive does or does not make a Housing Development economically feasible. Subsection 30 -17 -5 Density Bonus Housing Agreement a. A Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall required for any Housing Development subject to this section and shall be made a condition of the approval of any discretionary permits for that Housing Development otherwise required by this chapter. A Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall be consistent with this section and shall be recorded as a restriction on the parcel or parcels on which Target Units resulting from the application of this section to a Housing Development are to be constructed. b. In the case of for -sale Housing Developments, a Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall provide for the following conditions governing the Target Units during the applicable use restriction period: 1. Target Units shall be initially sold to eligible Very Low -, Lower - Income or Moderate - Income Households at an Affordable Sales Price and Housing Cost or to Qualified Residents (i. e., maintained as senior or disabled housing). 2. Target Units shall be initially owner- occupied by eligible Very -Low -, or Lower - Income or Moderate - Income Households, or by Qualified Residents. 3. The initial purchaser of each Target Unit shall execute and record an instrument or agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney to ensure continued compliance with this section and with the State Density Bonus Law. The instrument or agreement shall provide that the Target Unit may not be solid other than in accordance with this section or without the city's prior written approval during the applicable use restriction period. 6 c. In the case of a rental Housing Development, a Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall provide for the following conditions governing the Target Units during the applicable use restriction period: agent. 1. Target Units shall be managed or operated by the developer or by his, her or its 2. The developer or the managing or operating agent of the developer shall submit annual reports to the city that include the name, address, and income of each person occupying Target Units; and which identify the Target.Units, the bedroom size, monthly rent or cost of each Target Unit, vacancy information, and other information required by the city. Such reports shall be maintained by the city so as to ensure the privacy of tenants' financial information. d. A Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall provide for a fee to be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a building permit for each Target Unit in an amount reasonably calculated to recover the city's cost to monitor compliance with the Density Bonus Housing Agreement, this section and the State Density Bonus Law by the developer (including his, her or its agents), and the owner or tenant of any Target Unit during the applicable use restriction period. Subsection 30 -17 -6 Application Requirements and Review a. An application pursuant to this section shall be processed concurrently with any other application(s) required for a Housing Development and shall be accompanied by an application fee in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The planning board shall approve or disapprove an application if no direct financial assistance is requested and its decision may appealed to, or called for review by, the city council pursuant to section 30 -25. The failure of the city council to call for review of an application shall constitute the city council's approval of the means of compliance with the State Density Bonus Law for purposes of Government Code Section 65915(d). If direct financial assistance is requested, the planning board shall make a recommendation to the city council, which shall approve or disapprove the application. The decision of the city council shall be final. b. A developer proposing a Housing Development pursuant to this section may submit a preliminary application prior to any formal application for approval of a Housing Development. c. Applicants are encouraged to schedule a pre - application conference with the planning and building director or his or her designee to discuss and identify potential application issues, including possible Additional Incentives pursuant to subsection 30 -17 -4. No charge will be required for a pre - application conference. A preliminary application shall include: 1. A brief description of the proposed Housing Development, including the total number of units, Target Units, and Density Bonus Units proposed. 2. The zoning and general plan designations and assessor's parcel number(s) of the project site(s). 3. A vicinity map and preliminary site plan, drawn to scale, including building footprints, driveway and parking layout for each site. 4. If an Additional Incentive(s) is or are requested, the application shall, in accordance with Subsection 30 -17 -4, demonstrate why the Additional Incentive(s) is or are necessary to provide the Target Units. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda on March 8, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: (6) Mariani, Bard, Cook, Cunningham, Lynch, Piziali NOES: (0) ABSENT: (1) McNamera ATTEST: 11P y— r ego ity 'lanning Board Fuz, Secreta 8 City of Alameda Inter - department Memorandum To: President Piziali Members of the Planning Board From: Cynthia Eliason Planning Manager Re: ZTA -03 -0007 - City of Alameda — Ordinance amending Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code relating to the creation of a Density Bonus Ordinance (Citywide) and continuation of ZTA -03 -0005 (Second Unit Ordinance) March 4, 2004 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. The development of a density bonus ordinance is an implementation measure within the Housing Element. The Planning Board initiated a zoning ordinance amendment on July 8, 2003 to create a density bonus ordinance. On November 10, the Planning Board held a public workshop to receive input on the proposed ordinance. This is the first public hearing on the proposed density bonus ordinance. Staff requests that ZTA03 -0005, the Second Unit Ordinance, be continued until April in order to perform additional research on spacing requirements and to review recent ordinances of other jurisdictions. ANALYSIS A density bonus ordinance provides incentives to developers to develop affordable housing within a residential subdivision, planned development or condominium. The percentage of affordable housing is negotiated between the City and the developer, as are the incentives to be provided. Affordable units provided under such an ordinance are restricted in terms of income and resale. Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of March 8, 2004 Attachment #2 Page 1 Qualifications for a Density Bonus Staff is proposing to follow the minimum State requirements for what developments might qualify for a density bonus. While the City could include more projects (ie. those which provide less affordable housing), it cannot exclude projects that qualify under State law. These provisions are: a. Twenty percent (20 %) or more of the units reserved for "lower- income households, or b. Ten percent (10 %) or more of the units reserved for "very low- income households," or c. Fifty percent (50 %) or more of the units for qualifying residents, (i.e. senior citizens housing) or d. Twenty percent (20 %) or more of the units of a condominium project reserved for moderate income residents. Incentives Staff proposes a menu approach for incentives in order to allow each development to customize the package necessary to make the project buildable in an economic manner. The list of proposed incentives includes: • Reduction of site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements; a reduced on -site parking requirements, including the number or size of spaces and garage requirements; a reduced minimum building - separation requirements; a reduced street standards, e.g., reduced minimum street widths. • Waived, reduced, or deferred planning, plan check, construction permitting, and/or development impact fees (e.g., capital facilities, park, or traffic fees). • Direct financial aid in the form of a loan or a grant to subsidize or provide low - interest financing for on- or off -site improvements, land, construction or other development costs. Measure A The proposed density bonus ordinance does not permit any waiver of any of the requirements of Article XVI of the Alameda Charter if the City has identified one or more alternative Additional Incentives, as identified above, that are of equal or greater fmancial benefit. If necessary, direct financial aid will be used to ensure there are no waivers of Article XVI. Process Use of the density bonus provisions are proposed to be negotiated and set forth in an agreement between the City and developer. The agreement will spell out the terms and conditions including the incentives to be used, the timing of development and the . management of the units reserved for affordable use. Similar to a development Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 9, 2004 Page 2 agreement, a density bonus agreement recorded against the property and would be subject to annual review to ensure compliance. The application for a density bonus will be processed at the same time as the development proposal so that the agreement and the development proposal can be considered simultaneously. The standard zoning ordinance appeal procedures will apply to any density bonus agreement. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Board hold a public hearing, review pertinent information and documents, then act to: • Recommend to the City Council the approval of Zoning Text Amendment, ZTA- 03 -0007, based upon the findings contained in the attached Draft Resolution; and • Continue ZTA -03 -0005 (Second Unit Ordinance) until the Planning Board meeting of April 13, 2004. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution — Density Bonus Ordinance G:\PLANNING\PB\REPORTS\2004 \e -Mar 08 \density bonus.DOC Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of February 9, 2004 Page 3 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NO. DRAFT RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 30 -17, RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUSES AND INCENTIVES, 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 March 8, 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 affect 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 in Alameda. 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: 1 Attachment #1 Section 1. Code Adoption. Section 30 -17 is hereby added to the Alameda Municipal Code to read as follows: Section 30 -17 Residential Density Bonuses and Incentives Subsection 30 -17 -1 Title and Purpose The provisions of this section shall be known as the Residential Density Bonuses and Incentives Ordinance. The purpose of this section is to prescribe the procedure for the granting of density bonuses and incentives, under specified conditions, to encourage the provision of affordable housing. This section is intended to comply with the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Sections 65915 et seq. Subsection 30 -17 -2 Definitions The following definitions shall apply to the construction and interpretation of this section: "Additional Incentive" means those incentives identified in Subsection 30- 17- 4(c). "Affordable Sales Price" means a sales price at which a household of the income levels for which a unit is to be made affordable can qualify for the purchase of Target Units, calculated on the basis of underwriting standards of mortgage financing available for the development. "Applicable Use Restriction Period" is the period established with respect to a Target Unit pursuant to subsection 30- 17 -3(e). "Density Bonus" means a density increase of at least twenty -five percent (25 %) in the number of units authorized for a site beyond the otherwise maximum allowable residential density, unless a lesser percentage is elected by the developer, except with respect to a condominium project eligible under Section 30- 17- 3(a)(4), in which case the density increase shall be at least ten percent (10 %). "Density Bonus Housing Agreement" means an .agreement pursuant to subsection 30 -17 -5. "Density Bonus Units" means those residential units granted pursuant to the provisions of this section that exceed the number of residential units otherwise allowable for a development site pursuant to the maximum allowable residential density. "Developer" means a person who applies for approval of a Density Bonus under this section. "Equivalent Financial Incentive" means an incentive offered by the city in lieu of a density bonus pursuant to subsection 30- 17 -4(d). "Housing Cost" means the sum of actual or projected monthly payments for all of the following associated with for -sale Target Units: principal and interest on a mortgage loan, including any 2 loan insurance fees; property taxes and assessments; fire and casualty insurance; property maintenance and repairs; homeowner association fees; and, a reasonable allowance for utilities. "Housing Development" means construction pursuant to this section of a project consisting of five or more residential units, including single - family, multi - family, condominiums, or mobilehomes for sale or rent. Housing Development also includes a project to substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use or to substantially rehabilitate an existing multi - family development as defined in Government Code Section 65863.4(d). "Maximum allowable residential density" means the maximum number of residential units that may be constructed on a site under the charter, general plan, zoning and other ordinances of the city; if a range of density is permitted, then the maximum allowable density shall be the highest number in that range. "Non- Restricted Units" means units within a Housing Development other than Target Units. "Qualifying Resident" means senior citizens or other persons eligible to reside in a Senior Citizen Housing Development as those terms are defined in Section 51.3(b)(1) and (4) of the California Civil Code. "Senior Citizen Housing Development" means a housing development consistent with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12900 et seq., including Section 12955.9 in particular), that has been "designed to meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens," and that otherwise qualifies as "housing for older persons" as that phrase is used in the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (P.L. 100 -430) and implementing regulations (24 CFR, part 100, subpart E), and as that phrase is used in California Civil Code Sections 51.2 and 51.3. "State Density Bonus Law" means Government Code Sections 65915 — 65918 as those sections now exist or may hereafter be amended. "Target Unit" means a dwelling unit within a Housing Development that will be reserved for sale or rent to, Very Low -, Lower- or Moderate - Income Households, or Qualifying Residents, as those terms are further defined in subsection 30- 17 -3(a) and in the State Density Bonus Law. Subsection 30 -17 -3 Implementation a. The City shall grant (i) a Density Bonus, (ii) a Density Bonus with Additional Incentive(s) or (iii) Equivalent Financial Incentive(s), as set forth in Subsection 30 -17 -4, to a developer who agrees to reserve housing for households of particular incomes or for Qualifying Residents in any of the following manners: 1. Twenty percent (20%) or more of the units of a Housing Development are reserved for "lower- income households," as that phrase is defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. 3 2. Ten percent (10 %) or more of the units of a Housing Development are reserved for "very low - income households," as that phrase is defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50105. 3. Fifty percent (50 %) or more of the units of a Housing Development are reserved for Qualifying Residents, as defined in Subsection 30 -17 -2. 4. Twenty percent (20 %) or more of the units of a condominium project as defined in Civil Coe Section 1351(f) are reserved for "moderate- income households," as that phrase is defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093. b. In determining the minimum number of Density Bonus Units to be granted pursuant to this section, the maximum residential density for the site shall be multiplied by 0.25; any fractional unit shall be rounded up to the next whole number. Density Bonus Units shall not be included when determining the total number of Target Units in a Housing Development. If a developer requests a density increase of less than twenty -five percent (25%), no reduction in the number of Target Units required shall be permitted. If a density increase of more than twenty - five percent (25 %) is granted, that approval shall be an Additional Incentive pursuant to subsection 30 -17 -4. c. Target Units shall be constructed concurrently with Non- Restricted Units unless the Density Bonus Housing Agreement governing those Target Units provides otherwise. d. Target Units shall be built on the site of the project for which the density bonus is sought, if possible and, when practical, shall be dispersed within the Housing Development. e. 1. Target Units shall remain restricted and affordable to the households for which they are reserved for a period of 30 years or for such longer period required by any construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program utilized with respect to the Housing Development. 2. If the Housing Project is a condominium project eligible for a Density Bonus under subsection 30- 17- 3(a)(4), Target Units shall remain restricted and affordable for moderate - income households for at least ten (10) years or for such longer period required by any construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program utilized with respect to the Housing Development). 4 Subsection 30 -17 -4 Additional Incentives a. The City shall provide a Density Bonus and Additional Incentive(s) for qualified Housing Developments upon an application pursuant to subsection 30 -17 -6 unless the City makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that: 1. the Additional Incentive(s) is (or are) not required to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5, or for Targeted Units rents to be set as specified in Government Code Section 65915(c); 2. the Additional Incentive(s) would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low income households; 3. denial of the Density Bonus and/or the Additional Incentive(s) requested by the developer is otherwise authorized by law; or, 4. the Additional Incentive requested is a waiver of any of the requirements of Article XVI of the Alameda Charter in which case the City shall identify one or more alternative Additional Incentives that are of equal or greater financial benefit to the qualified Housing Development that the Article XVI waiver sought for that qualified Housing Development. The City's agreement to the alterative Additional Incentives justifies denial under subparagraph 1. of this paragraph (a) and be further authorized by paragraph (d) of this subsection. b. A Density Bonus and any Additional Incentives granted by the city shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of providing the Target Units. Applicants seeking a waiver or modification of development or zoning standards shall show that such waivers or modifications are necessary to make the Housing Development economically feasible in accordance with Government Code Section 65915(e). This requirement may be satisfied by reference to applicable sections of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. The need for incentives will vary for different Housing Developments. Therefore, the allocation of Additional Incentives shall be determined on a case -by -case basis. c. Except as provided in subparagraph (a)(4) of this subsection, Additional Incentives may include, but need not be limited to, one or more of the following: 1. A reduction of site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards provided in the California Building Standards Law, Health and Safety Code Sections 18901 et seq. including: (a) Reduced minimum lot sizes and/or dimensions. (b) Reduced minimum lot setbacks. (c) Reduced open space. 5 (d) Increased maximum lot coverage. (e) Increased maximum building height and/or stories. (f) Reduced on -site parking requirements, including the number or size of spaces and garage requirements. (g) Reduced minimum building - separation requirements. (h) Reduced street standards, e.g., reduced minimum street widths. 2. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by a developer or the City that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions or cost avoidance. 3. A Density Bonus of more than twenty -five percent (25 %). 4. Waived, reduced, or deferred planning, plan check, construction permitting, and/or development impact fees (e.g., capital facilities, park, or traffic fees). 5. Direct financial aid in the form of a loan or grant to subsidize or provide low - interest financing for on- or off -site improvements, land, construction or other development costs. d. The City may offer an Equivalent Financial Incentive in lieu of granting a Density Bonus and an Additional Incentive(s). The value of the Equivalent Financial Incentive shall equal at least the savings in land cost per dwelling unit that would result from a Density Bonus and must contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of providing the Target Units pursuant to this section. "Economically feasible" means that a Housing Development can be built with a reasonable rate of return. A developer's financial ability to build the project shall not be a factor in determining whether an Equivalent Financial Incentive does or does not make a Housing Development economically feasible. Subsection 30 -17 -5 Density Bonus Housing Agreement a. A Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall required for any Housing Development subject to this section and shall be made a condition of the approval of any discretionary permits for that Housing Development otherwise required by this chapter. A Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall be consistent with this section and shall be recorded as a restriction on the parcel or parcels on which Target Units resulting from the application of this section to a Housing Development are to be constructed. b. In the case of for -sale Housing Developments, a Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall provide for the following conditions governing the Target Units during the applicable use restriction period: 6 1. Target Units shall be initially sold to eligible Very Low -, Lower - Income or Moderate - Income Households at an Affordable Sales. Price and Housing Cost or to Qualified Residents (i.e., maintained as senior or disabled housing). 2. Target Units shall be initially owner - occupied by eligible Very -Low -, or Lower - Income or Moderate - Income Households, or by Qualified Residents. 3. The initial purchaser of each Target Unit shall execute and record an instrument or agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney to ensure continued compliance with this section and with the State Density Bonus Law. The instrument or agreement shall provide that the Target Unit may not be solid other than in accordance with this section or without the city's prior written approval during the applicable use restriction period. c. In the case of a rental Housing Development, a Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall provide for the following conditions governing the Target Units during the applicable use restriction period: 1. Target Units shall be managed or operated by the developer or by his, her or its agent. 2. The developer or the managing or operating agent of the developer shall submit annual reports to the city that include the name, address, and income of each person occupying Target Units; and which identify the Target Units, the bedroom size, monthly rent or cost of each Target Unit, vacancy information, and other information required by the city. Such reports shall be maintained by the city so as to ensure the privacy of tenants' financial information. d. A Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall provide for a fee to be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a building permit for each Target Unit in an amount reasonably calculated to recover the city's cost to monitor compliance with the Density Bonus Housing Agreement, this section and the State Density Bonus Law by the developer (including his, her or its agents), and the owner or tenant of any Target Unit during the applicable use restriction period. Subsection 30 -17 -6 Application Requirements and Review a. An application pursuant to this section shall be processed concurrently with any other application(s) required for a Housing Development and shall be accompanied by an application fee in an amount established by resolution of the city council. The planning board shall approve or disapprove an application if no direct financial assistance is requested and its decision may appealed to, or called for review by, the city council pursuant to section 30 -25. The failure of the city council to call for review of an application shall constitute the city council's approval of the means of compliance with the State Density Bonus Law for purposes of Government Code Section 65915(d). If direct financial assistance is requested, the planning board shall make a recommendation to the city council, which shall approve or disapprove the application. The decision of the city council shall be final. 7 b. A developer proposing a Housing Development pursuant to this section may submit a preliminary.application prior to any formal application for approval of a Housing Development. c. Applicants are encouraged to schedule a pre - application conference with the planning and building director or his or her designee to discuss and identify potential application issues, including possible Additional Incentives pursuant to subsection 30 -17 -4. No charge will be required for a pre - application conference. A preliminary application shall include: 1. A brief description of the proposed Housing Development, including the total number of units, Target Units, and Density Bonus Units proposed. 2. The zoning and general plan designations and assessor's parcel number(s) of the project site(s). 3. A vicinity map and preliminary site plan, drawn to scale, including building footprints, driveway and parking layout for each site. 4. If an Additional Incentive(s) is or are requested, the application shall, in accordance with Subsection 30 -17 -4, demonstrate why the Additional Incentive(s) is or are necessary to provide the Target Units. 8 8. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 8 -A. ZTA03 -0007 — City of Alameda (CE). Ordinance amending Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code relating to the creation of a Density Bonus Ordinance and continuance of ZTA03 -0005 (Second Unit Ordinance). (Continued from the Planning Board meeting of February 23, 2004.) Mr. Fuz advised that Ms. Eliason was not yet in attendance to present the staff report, and suggested that Item 8 -A could be trailed after Item 8 -B. He noted that public testimony may also be taken at this time, and the rest of the item be continued. Staff recommended that the Second Unit Ordinance be continued. M/S Bard/Cook and unanimous to hear Item 8 -A after Item 8 -B. AYES — 6 (McNamara absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 President Piziali called for a ten - minute recess. President Piziali advised that Item 8 -B would be heard before Item 8 -A. Mr. Fuz summarized the staff report, and provided an overview of the Ordinance. In response to Vice President Bard's question, Mr. Fuz explained the details of the Density Bonus Ordinance, and added that in the past 25 to 30 years, only one request for a Density Bonus was made under State law. He noted that was done in conjunction with development at Bay Farm/Harbor Bay. In response to President Piziali's question regarding the effect of the waiver on Measure A, Mr. Fuz stated that it was described in Section 30- 17- 4(a)4. He noted that it was a two -part method of addressing consistency with Measure A, and cited the specific language: "The Additional Incentive requested is a waiver of any of the requirements of Article XXVI of the Alameda Charter in which case the City shall identify one or more alternative Additional Incentives that are of equal or greater financial benefit to the qualified Housing Development that the Article XXVI waiver sought for that qualified Housing Development." Mr. Fuz advised that four exceptions were listed in which the City was allowed to not grant an Additional Incentive under the Density Bonus Ordinance, and advised that one of the specific exceptions pertained to Measure A. He noted that Measure A would take precedence in those cases, and noted that parking requirements would be a pertinent consideration in this case. The public hearing was opened. Planning Board Minutes Page 10 March 8, 2004 Attachment #3 Mr. Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope, noted that as written, the Ordinance was not truly a Density Bonus Ordinance, and that density would not be increased. He noted that affordable housing has been easily granted in the past. He noted that the Housing Element contained financial analysis in terms of what it would take to develop the number of affordable units that the Housing Element called for as single - family homes or duplexes, or as multifamily units. It indicated that the City would be required to subsidize $37 million to accomplish that goal, and he did not know where that money would come from. He suggested that the Planning Board rethink the Ordinance to be more in line with the State's original intent. He did not believe it was an incentive for development. Mr. Christopher Buckley distributed markups of the Ordinance to staff and the Planning Board. He noted that there were a number of ambiguities in the State law as written. He understood that if a developer had a project that provided the targeted levels of affordable housing, and the developer requested a waiver of local zoning standards to make those goals economically feasible, the City was obligated either to grant the waivers or to offer equivalent financial incentives. He noted that the Ordinance expanded the standards available for waiver from the original list of standards in State law. He noted that page 7 of the Ordinance included the sentence: "The failure of the City Council to call for review of an application shall constitute the City Council's approval of the means of compliance with the State Density Bonus Law for purposes of Government Code Section 65915(d)." He did not believe that sentence was appropriate, and suggested that if no one on the City Council issued a call for review, the Planning Board's decision was not appealable to the City Council. He inquired whether his interpretation was correct, and believed that Planning Board decisions should always be appealable to the Council. He requested that that sentence be deleted. Mr. William Smith, Sierra Club, noted that the Sierra Club supported the Density Bonus Ordinance. He noted that it promoted affordable housing, kept people from moving to the suburbs, enabled people to live closer to where they work, and promoted transit, flexibility, and more walkable neighborhoods. He did not believe that City had the $37 million to pay for alternatives, and did not believe the Ordinance, as written, would be credible with the State. Ms. Pat Bail noted that she disagreed with Mr. Smith's position on the Density Bonus Ordinance. She strongly opposed the Density Bonus Ordinance, and supported the Measure A ad hoc committee. She hoped that condominium projects would be composed of only duplexes, and that they would remain restricted and affordable for moderate income for at least ten years, or a longer term as required by any construction mortgage or other financing. She believed that ten years was too short a period, and recalled the projects built with federal monies as affordable housing, but became market rate after 25 years. She expressed concern that the same situation would be repeated. She believed the affordable housing units should be retained in the public offering for longer than 30 years. She noted that when the Harbor Bay development was built, some of the streets were so narrow that a fire truck could not pass through. She believed that the spirit of Measure A should be preserved in the community. Planning Board Minutes Page 11 March 8, 2004 Mr. Ed Murphy spoke in opposition to this item. He noted that Article XXVI was incorrectly typed as Article XVI, and asked that it be corrected. He noted that when Measure A was passed, no one anticipated that people would be paid for obeying it. Mr. Michael Krueger believed that because some residents believed the Ordinance didn't go far enough, and that others believed it went too far, that a reasonable compromise has been struck. He did not believe that quality of life and high density were not necessarily diametrically opposed, and that a low quality of life could be the result of low density in some cases. He noted that his home was within walking and biking distance to shopping and his workplace, and he appreciated the quality of life that it provided. He believed that the issue should be depoliticized, and that the City and residents should concentrate on building neighborhoods that work. Mr. Jim Sweeney agreed with Mr. Buckley's comments, and agreed that the strict requirements of the State statutes should be adhered to. He was pleased that provisions to protect Measure A were included. He noted that as a member of the Sierra Club, Mr. Smith did not speak for him on this issue. He believed that Alameda already had too many apartments, including the apartments on Alameda Point. He believed that single - family and duplex housing should be integrated into the neighborhoods containing apartments. Ms. Jean Sweeney encouraged the Planning Board to raise the bar on the Density Bonus standards so that no one could qualify. She did not want smaller setbacks or open space to be granted in Alameda. She noted that parking availability was at a critical stage in the City, and disagreed with parking waivers. She disagreed with the State's attempts to change the City's laws, and did not believe that there should be a separate Ordinance for language that was detailed in the Housing Element. Ms. Eve Bach, ARC Ecology, agreed with the opinion of Pat Bail with respect to extending the period of affordability beyond ten years. She believed that if the City made a policy to make a concession to a developer to encourage affordable housing, that housing should remain affordable for a longer period of time. She believed the best way to integrate affordable housing into the existing housing stock would be to allow a small increase in density. She believed that including affordable housing in the City was a great strength for the community. Mr. Jon Spangler noted that although he served on the Transportation Commission, he was speaking as an individual. As a member of the Sierra Club, he agreed with Bill Smith with respect to the housing issue; he also signed Jean Sweeney's petition for the Beltline Open Space. He endorsed Michael Krueger's comments on density and transportation, as well as those made by Tom Matthews and Pat Bail with respect to longevity of affordable housing. He noted that the reductions in the loosening of requirements should have nothing to do with energy efficiency in building construction, with open space, or with any relaxation in the requirements or other covenants for using or reusing recycling building materials. He inquired why this particular plan was being taken when Measure A was already in place. He did not believe that action was necessary, and objected to seeing City being required to spend $37 million that it did not have. He did not believe a builder should be paid to do Planning Board Minutes Page 12 March 8, 2004 what it should do in the first place. He believed that quality of life did not necessarily have anything to do with density. He believed that Measure A should be amended so the residents may have a continued choice of mixed uses and housing. He believed there were other ways of protecting Victorian housing stock, and to restrict the destruction of neighborhoods. He believed there was a dearth of affordable housing and intelligently designed, energy- efficient multifamily units in Alameda. Mr. Bob Sakora noted that the density in Alameda had increased considerably since the droughts of the 1970s, and added that the water supply has not increased. He expressed concern about the City's ability to manage any future water shortages. Mr. Bill Smith noted that he supported reuse of materials in the City. He noted that one representative from a manufactured home company stated that they put up 2,000 homes a year, and that many were infill housing. He believed that the Planning Board should be committed to maintaining the City's housing stock. The public hearing was closed. In response to an inquiry by President Piziali with respect to appeal of Planning Board decisions, Mr. Fuz advised that the wording was clearly intended to allow for an appeal process, and would not take any discretion away from the City Council; a determination may be appealed to the City Council, In response to an inquiry by President Piziali with respect to Mr. Sweeney's question about conflict with the City Charter, Mr. Fuz stated that the City's position was that the Charter was paramount. It would be a policy of the City Council to proceed in either direction with respect to the legislation's consistency with the Charter. Ultimately, the courts would make a determination as to whether the Charter or State law prevailed. In response to an inquiry by President Piziali with respect to condominiums or duplexes, Mr. Fuz confirmed that the term condominium was taken from State law. In Alameda, that would be constrained by Measure A to a duplex. Mr. Cunningham expressed concern that eventually, a zero setback would be allowed as a result of these incentives. Mr. Fuz advised that may occur, but only if it were to be approved by the Board and/or City Council. There would still be full discretion of reject any concession or incentive. He noted that if it were rejected, the City had the obligation to allow a different incentive or substitute an equivalent financial incentive. Mr. Cunningham expressed concern that the City would be obligated to compensate the developers for the incentives. Planning Board Minutes Page 13 March 8, 2004 Mr. Fuz advised that under State law, the City would be limited to considering a Density Bonus and one additional incentive, or a financial equivalent subsidy. He advised that the public health and safety would not be impacted. He noted that the $37 million figure came from a study commissioned by the City in conjunction with the Housing Element to analyze the amount of money the City might hypothetically have to subsidize housing in order to "offset" the effects of Measure A in terms of providing affordable housing. He noted that study was done at the request of the State and housing advocates. The City's response in the Housing Element process that the City believed that it proposed sufficient sites for affordable housing in the City at a density referred to as the median density of 15 units per acre, not relying on the maximum density allowed under Measure A of 21 units per acre. Mr. Cunningham believed the City needed affordable housing, and that it should be careful about the broad issues that could be raised. He did not believe that density was necessarily bad, and could benefit the City in many ways. In response to an inquiry by President Piziali, Mr. Lynch advised that a ten -year limit of affordable housing may be restricted by the funding source. Mr. Fuz noted that the ten -year limit was taken from the specific government code with respect to condominium projects. He concurred with Mr. Lynch's identification of funding sources as the restricting factor. Mr. Lynch believed that the public had raised valid concerns about the longevity of affordable housing stock. Mr. Fuz advised that the moderate income category was the least stringent category. State law recognized that it may have .a shorter period of guaranteed affordability for that category. Lower - income categories have longer periods of time for required affordability. He noted that the Ordinance stated ten years or a longer period of time. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Bard with respect to reducing parking spaces, Mr. Fuz replied that State legislation was vague on that point, but described the incentives as "including, but not limited to, a reduction in setback and square footage requirements, and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer, or City, or County, etc., that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions." He noted that the developer must demonstrate that that particular incentive would result in a particular cost reduction that would match the necessary cost reduction to make the project economically feasible. He noted that was a difficult burden to meet, and must be met to the City's satisfaction. The City had the option of allowing for an alternative concession that would achieve the same cost reduction, but in a different way that the Planning Board believed would be appropriate for the community. Planning Board Minutes Page 14 March 8, 2004 Vice President Bard expressed concern about many of the incentives on the list, and did not see why it be given to the developer up front. He believed that the developer should think of the incentives and approach the City instead. Ms. Mariani agreed with Mr. Bard and believed that the City had gone to great lengths to allow for affordable housing. She believed that the City should not go beyond what was required by the State. Ms. Cook suggested voting on the item if the Board wished to conform with State law. Vice President Bard was deeply opposed to the reduction in parking spaces. Mr. Fuz advised that any typographical errors would be corrected. Mr. Lynch wished to clarify that the City already had certain ordinances by which targets were reached. He noted that this Ordinance was in addition to those targets, and that the focus should be on the delta, not the actual numbers. Mr. Lynch noted that he had some difficulty with page 6 (Items d and e), with respect to the building height and lot coverage. He noted that people could only build up or out, and that if one was restricted, the building would be pushed in the other direction. He would like to see well- designed buildings move forward, and believed that within the architectural community, there will be times where the height must be increased to achieve a certain goal. He encouraged creative architectural design that was tasteful and met the needs of the community. He would like that section to be deleted, and for the section on page 173 to read verbatim. He suggested that an additional sentence stating that review . would be based upon the merits of the entirety of the project. Vice President Bard noted that page 2, section D (Density Bonus Housing) referred to providing fees to the City, and inquired about the process. Mr. Fuz advised that that section dealt with the City covering the cost of monitoring compliance with the Density Bonus Housing Agreement. If the Housing Agreement had a number of concessions in it that related to setbacks, parking, building design, etc., a City staff member would evaluate the project in the field for conformance. He confirmed that would be a funding source to ensure that affordable housing remained very low, low, or moderate income. M/S Mariani/Bard and unanimous to revise the sections that name the specific incentives that can be considered, and delete those that are not specifically noted in State law, replacing them with what was noted by State law in the Ordinance amending Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code relating to the creation of a Density Bonus Ordinance. AYES — 6 (McNamara absent); NOES — 0; ABSTAIN — 0 Planning Board Minutes Page 15 March 8, 2004 SB 1818 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 1 of 8 SB 1818 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 23, 2004 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT Simon Salinas, Chair SB 1818 (Hollingsworth) - As Amended: June 15, 2004 SENATE VOTE : 38 -0 SUBJECT Density bonuses. SUMMARY Lowers qualifying standards and increases benefits for developers seeking to make use of the Density Bonus Law. Specifically, this bill . 1)Lowers the number of housing units required to be provided at below market rate in order to qualify for a density bonus as follows: a) From 20% to 10% of the total units of a housing development for lower income households; b) From 10% to 5% of the total units of a housing development for very low income households; c) From 50% of the total units of a housing development for seniors to any senior citizen housing development as defined in specified sections of the Civil Code; and d) From 20% to 10% of the units in a condominium project or in a planned development for moderate income households. 2)Lowers the density increase from 25% to 12.5% in the number of extra units that may be built over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the local zoning ordinance. 3)Requires that the density bonus increase incrementally according to the following: a) For each 1% increase above 10% for lower income households, the density bonus shall increase by 1.5% to a maximum of 40 %; b) For each 1% increase above 5% for very low income households, the density bonus shall increase by 2.5% to a SB 1818 Page 2 maximum of 401; c) For each 1% increase above 25% for senior households, the density bonus shall increase by 1% to a maximum of 40 %; Attachment #4 http:// www. leginfo.ca.gov /pub/bill/sen/sb_ 1801 - 1850 /sb_ 1818_cfa_20040622_ 130920_asm... 7/7/2004 SB 1818 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 2 of 8 and d) For each 1% increase above 10% for moderate income households, the density bonus shall increase by one percent to a maximum of 40 %. 4)Requires that the local government ensure that the initial occupants of the moderate income units are actually moderate income. 5)Allows, upon sale of the unit, the seller to keep the value of any improvements, the down payment, and the seller's proportionate share of appreciation. 6)Provides that the local government shall recapture its proportionate share of appreciation, which shall be used within three years for promotion of affordable homeownership. 7)Provides a 15% density bonus to the developer of any market rate housing project who irrevocably agrees to donate land to a local government that could accommodate housing for very low income households equal to at least 10% of the number of units in the market rate development, in addition to any increase in density otherwise provided for in this section, up to a maximum combined mandated density increase of 40 %. 8)Provides that to be eligible for the bonus allowed above, all of the following conditions must be met: a) The applicant must offer the land within 60 days after project approval; b) The land being donated is suitable to accommodate at least 10% of the number of residential units of the proposed development; c) The donated land is appropriately zoned for affordable housing and served by adequate infrastructure; d) The land is subject to deed restrictions ensuring continued affordability as otherwise provided in this section; SB 1818 Page 3 e) The land is donated to the local agency or to a housing developer approved by the local agency; and f) Donated land shall be either within the boundary or one mile of the proposed development. 9)Requires that incentives or concessions offered by the local government result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions. EXISTING LAW . 1)Requires a city or county to grant a density bonus or other http:// www. leginfo.ca.gov /pub/bill/sen/sb_ 1801- 1850/ sb_ 1818_cfa_20040622_130920_asm... 7/7/2004 SB 1818 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 3 of 8 housing incentive of equivalent value to a developer who agrees to construct housing with 20% or more of the units reserved for occupancy by low income households (household income less than or equal to 80% of the area median income), or 10% of the units affordable for persons of very low income (household income less than or equal to 50% of the area median income), or 50% of the units affordable to seniors, or 20% of the units in condominium development affordable for moderate income residents (household income less than or equal to 110% of the area median income), unless the city finds that the density bonus or housing incentive is unnecessary for specified reasons. 2)Prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based upon age, but provides that a business may establish housing for senior citizens where accommodations are provided to meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens. 3)Requires local governments to grant a density bonus and at least one identified incentive or concession, unless it makes written findings that the additional incentive is not necessary in order for the rents to be affordable, or if the development would have an adverse effect on health, safety, environment or an adverse impact on any property listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. 4)Specifies that development concessions or incentives may include the following: a) A reduction in site development standards; SB 1818 Page 4 b) A modification of zoning code requirements, including a reduction in setbacks, square footage requirements, or parking spaces, or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards; c) Approval of mixed use zoning in conjunction with the housing project if commercial, office, industrial, or other land uses will reduce the cost of the housing development, and if such nonresidential uses are compatible with the project; or. d) Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer or the city or county that result in identifiable cost reductions. 5)Provides that the density bonus must be at least 25% over the existing maximum density for the site. FISCAL EFFECT Unknown COMMENTS . 1)California's current housing shortage is well documented. Lack of available affordable housing poses a danger to the http:// www. leginfo.ca.gov /pub/bill/sen/sb_ 1801 - 1850/ sb_ 1818_cfa_20040622_130920_asm... 7/7/2004 SB 1818 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 4 of 8 state's economy. Employers find it increasingly difficult to attract and retain a qualified workforce if workers are unable to find affordable housing near their jobs. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reported in 2000 that about 2.4 million California households needed some form of housing assistance. HCD projects that the number of households needing housing assistance could rise to 3.7 million by 2020. 2)To help address the affordable housing shortage, the Legislature enacted the density bonus law to encourage development of more low and moderate income housing units. Under existing law, a local government is required to grant a density bonus or other housing incentive or concession of equivalent value to a developer who agrees to construct housing that is affordable for persons of very low or low income, unless the city finds that the density bonus or housing incentive or concession is unnecessary for specified reasons. SB 1818 Page 5 3)According to the sponsors of this measure, density bonus law has the potential to play a significant role in meeting the state's housing needs, but the law is not as effective as it could be and needs to be strengthened. They maintain that SB1818 increases the flexibility and usefulness of density bonus law by both reducing the minimum percentage of targeted units needed to obtain a density bonus and by increasing the amount of density bonus that can be obtained when the percentage of targeted units is increased. Current law provides a flat 25% density bonus if the applicant includes 20% low, 10% very low or 50% senior housing in the development and a flat 10% density bonus if the applicant includes 20% moderate income units in a condominium development. 4)SB 1818 reduces most of those percentages by half, providing a 12.5% density bonus for 10% low, 5% very low and a 5% density bonus for 10% moderate. Any senior citizen housing development as defined in specified sections of the Civil Code would qualify for a density bonus. The bill also expands density bonus law by incrementally increasing the amount of the density bonus, from 25% up to a maximum of 40 %, if the applicant increases the percentage of targeted units. 5)Current law limits the moderate income density bonus to condominium developments. SB 1818 expands that to include moderate income planned unit developments. This, according to the sponsors, adds flexibility to the law by requiring the first occupant of such units to be moderate income rather than requiring a 10 -year term of affordability by moderate income households. 6)Current law requires local governments to provide applicants for density bonuses with incentives and concessions in addition to a density bonus, but the law does not quantify the value of the incentives and concessions that must be offered. http:// www. leginfo.ca.gov /pub/bill/sen/sb_ 1801 - 1850/ sb_ 1818_cfa_20040622_130920_asm... 7/7/2004 SB 1818 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 5 of 8 SB 1818 requires that the incentives and concessions "result in identifiable, financially sufficient and actual cost reductions." 7)SB 1818 creates a new land donation density bonus that provides an incentive for donation of land to local governments for affordable housing and reduces the cost to market rate developments of providing affordable units. For SB 1818 Page 6 example, if an applicant for a 1,000 unit development donates five acres of land within that development sufficient to permit construction of 100 very low or low income units, the applicant would be entitled to a 15% density bonus, or 150 additional units. The land donation density bonus could be increased incrementally up to a maximum of 40% if the applicant increases the amount of land donated, and could be used in conjunction with the general density bonus, up to a combined maximum of 40 %. 8)Serious concerns have been raised over the potential impact of SB 1818 on existing and future inclusionary zoning ordinances. A developer might comply with the lowered percentages of affordable housing created by SB 1818 and claim a density bonus even though the percentage of affordable housing is well below the standard established by the local inclusionary zoning ordinance. The Committee may with to ensure that SB 1818 does not create a means to evade or undermine local inclusionary zoning by seeking amendments to specify that if the developer plans to include a percentage of affordable units that meets the requirements of SB 1818 but is less than a locally adopted inclusionary zoning ordinance requires, the local inclusionary ordinance would take precedence. 9)Opponents assert that the requirement in the density bonus law to provide one additional incentive requested by the developer, in addition to the density bonus, should not apply if the lowered percentages are requested. Either lower percentages should result in fewer incentives or, if a lower percentage of affordable housing is provided in the project, the city or county could provide the corresponding density bonus and one other concession from the list that the local agency, not the developer, determines is appropriate to assist the developer. Current law allows the developer to request a concession and take the city or county to court if they do not receive the concession it requested, even though many other concessions that would be more acceptable to the local government would work equally well. 10)According to opponents, the land donation section of the bill is very difficult to understand and will be difficult to administer, and does not guarantee that affordable units are actually built in exchange for a density bonus. Finally, local agencies suggest that the definition of "development standards" be clarified. As currently written, this http:// www .leginfo.ca.gov /pub/bill/sen/sb_ 1801 - 1850/ sb_ 1818_cfa_20040622_130920_asm... 7/7/2004 SB 1818 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 6 of 8 SB 1818 Page 7 definition prohibits a city or county from imposing any "ordinance, general plan element, specific plan, charter amendment, or other local condition, law, policy, resolution, or regulation ", no matter what it is, if the developer disagrees that it should be imposed, or the city or county can be taken to court. This is extremely broad, and could include anything from inclusionary zoning requirements to oak tree preservation ordinances. 11)This bill has been double- referred to both the Committees on Housing and Community Development, where it passed with an 8 -0 vote on June 9, 2004, and to Local Government. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION . Support CA Association of Realtors [Cosponsor] CA Rural Legal Assistance Foundation [Cosponsor] Western Center on Law and Poverty [Cosponsor] Agora Group Beacon Housing Bet Tzedek Legal Services Cabrillo Economic Development Corporation CA Affordable Housing Law Project CA Alliance for Retired Americans CA Apartment Association CA Church IMPACT CA Labor Federation, AFL -CIO CA Legislative Council for Older Americans CA Partnership, Downey CA Reinvestment Coalition Center for Community Advocacy Central City SRO Collaborative Chicano Consortium Civic Center Barrio Housing Corporation Coalition for Economic Survival Community Housing Improvement Program Congregations Building Community Support (continued) Council of Churches of Santa Clara County East Palo Alto Council of Tenants Education Fund Emergency Housing Consortium Enterprise Foundation SB 1818 Page 8 Esperanza Community Housing Corporation Fair Housing Council of Riverside County Father Joe's Villages http:// www. leginfo.ca.gov /pub/bill/sen/sb_ 1801- 1850/ sb_ 1818_cfa_20040622_130920_asm... 7/7/2004 SB 1818 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 7 of 8 First Community Housing, Inc., Fisher Sehgal Yanez Architects, Inc. Fresno Interdenominational Refugee Ministries Fresno West Coalition for Economic Development Golden State Mobilehome Owners League, Chapter 24 Gray Panthers CA Greenlining Institute, Oakland Hillview Mental Health Center, Inc. Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco Human Rights /Fair Housing Commission of the City and County of Sacramento Inclusive Homes, Inc. Inquilinos Unidos Jericho La Raza Centro Legal, Inc. Loaves and Fishes Los Angeles Housing Law Project Los Angeles Housing Partnership, Inc. Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc. Mid - Peninsula Housing Coalition Neighborhood Housing Services of Orange County New Directions, Inc. Opportunities for Neighborhood Empowerment Company, Inc. Orange County Community Housing Corporation Partners in Housing, Inc. People of Progress Planning for Elders Protection and Advocacy, Inc. Public Law Center Rubicon Programs, Inc. Rural Communities Housing Development Corporation Sacramento Neighborhood Housing Services San Francisco Homeless Senior Task Force Barbara Sanders and Associates Santa Cruz Affordable Housing Advocates Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights Senior Action Network Shelter Inc. of Contra Costa County Shelter Partnership, Inc. Skid Row Housing Trust Support (continued) SB 1818 Southern CA Association of Non - Profit Housing Southern California Housing Development Corporation Southern California Indian Center, Inc. Strategic Actions for a Just Economy Tenderloin Housing Clinic Valley Housing Foundation Women Organizing Resources, Knowledge and Services West Hollywood Community Housing Corporation WRJ Group, Inc. Opposition American Planning Association, CA Chapter Page 9 http:// www. leginfo.ca.gov /pub/bill/sen/sb_ 1801 - 1850/ sb_ 1818_cfa_20040622_130920_asm... 7/7/2004 SB 1818 Senate Bill - Bill Analysis Page 8 of 8 CA State Association of Counties Cities of Arcadia, Lakewood, and Moreno Valley League of CA Cities Analysis Prepared by : J. Stacey Sullivan / L. GOV. / (916) 319 -3958 http:// www. leginfo.ca.gov /pub/bill/sen/sb_ 1801 - 1850/ sb_ 1818_cfa_20040622_130920_asm... 7/7/2004 W CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTION 30 -17 (RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BONUSES AND INCENTIVES) TO CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) WHEREAS, the Planning Board initiated an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance on July 14, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on March 8, 2004 to consider the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and testimony from all interested parties and recommended approval of the ordinance; 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; and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment will not affect 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 0 low =, low- and moderate- income households. 3. The proposal is equitable because it will apply to all properties in Alameda. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby determines 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. NOW, THERFORE, 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 -17 (Residential Density Bonuses and Incentives) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) thereof to read: Introduction of Ordinance #5 -C 7 -20 -04 1 30 -17 Residential Density Bonuses and Incentives 30 -17.1 Title and Purpose The provisions of this section shall be known as the Residential Density Bonuses and Incentives Ordinance. The purpose of this section is to prescribe the procedure for the granting of density bonuses and incentives, under specified conditions, to encourage the provision of affordable housing. This section is intended to comply with the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code Sections 65915 et seq. 30 -17.2 Definitions The following definitions shall apply to the construction and interpretation of this Section: Additional Incentive shall means those incentives identified in Subsection 30- 17 -4(c). Affordable Sales Price shall mean a sales price at which a household of the income level for which a unit is to be made affordable can qualify for the purchase of Target Units, calculated on the basis of underwriting standards of mortgage financing available for the development. Applicable Use Restriction Period is the period established with respect to a Target Unit pursuant to Subsection 30- 17 -3(e). Density Bonus shall mean a density increase of at least twenty -five percent (25 %) in the number of units authorized for a site beyond the otherwise maximum allowable residential density, unless a lesser percentage is elected by the developer, except with respect to a condominium project eligible under Section 30- 17- 3(a)(4), in which case the density increase shall be at least ten percent (10 %). 17 -5. Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall mean an agreement pursuant to subsection 30- Density Bonus Units shall mean those residential units granted pursuant to the provisions of this section that exceed the number of residential units otherwise allowable for a development site pursuant to the maximum allowable residential density. Developer shall mean a person who applies for approval of a Density Bonus under this section. Equivalent Financial Incentive shall mean an incentive offered by the city in lieu of a density bonus pursuant to Subsection 30- 17 -4(d). 2 Housing Cost shall mean the sum of actual or projected monthly payments for all of the following associated with for -sale Target Units: principal and interest on a mortgage loan, including any loan insurance fees; property taxes and assessments; fire and casualty insurance; property maintenance and repairs; homeowner association fees; and, a reasonable allowance for utilities. Housing Development shall mean construction pursuant to this section of a project consisting of five or more residential units, including single - family, multi - family, condominiums, or mobilehomes for sale or rent. Housing Development also includes a project to substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing commercial building to residential use or to substantially rehabilitate an existing multi - family dwelling as defined in Government Code Section 65863.4(d). Maximum allowable residential density shall mean the maximum number of residential units that may be constructed on a site under the charter, general plan, zoning and other ordinances of the city; if a range of density is permitted, then the maximum allowable density shall be the highest number in that range. Units. Non - Restricted Units shall mean units within a Housing Development other than Target Qualifying Resident shall mean senior citizens or other persons eligible to reside in a Senior Citizen Housing Development as those terms are defined in Section 51.3(b)(1) and (4) of the California Civil Code. Senior Citizen Housing Development shall mean a housing development consistent with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12900 et seq., including Section 12955.9 in particular), that has been "designed to meet the physical and social needs of senior citizens," and that otherwise qualifies as "housing for older persons" as that phrase is used in the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (P.L. 100 -430) and implementing regulations (24 CFR, part 100, subpart E), and as that phrase is used in California Civil Code Sections 51.2 and 51.3. State Density Bonus Law shall mean Government Code Sections 65915 — 65918 as those sections now exist or may hereafter be amended. Target Unit shall mean a dwelling unit within a Housing Development that will be reserved for sale or rent to, Very Low -, Lower- or Moderate - Income Households, or Qualifying Residents, as those terms are further defined in Subsection 30- 17 -3(a) and in the State Density Bonus Law. 3 30 -17.3 Implementation a. The City shall grant (i) a Density Bonus, (ii) a Density Bonus with Additional Incentive(s) or (iii) Equivalent Financial Incentive(s), as set forth in Subsection 30 -17 -4, to a Developer who agrees to reserve housing for households of particular incomes or for Qualifying Residents in any of the following manners: 1. Twenty percent (20 %) or more of the units of a Housing Development are reserved for "lower- income households," as that phrase is defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5. 2. Ten percent (10 %) or more of the units of a Housing Development are reserved for "very low- income households," as that phrase is defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50105. 3. Fifty percent (50 %) or more of the units of a Housing Development are reserved for Qualifying Residents, as defined in Subsection 30 -17 -2. 4. Twenty percent (20 %) or more of the units of a condominium project as defined in Civil Coe Section 1351(f) are reserved for "moderate- income households," as that phrase is defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093. b. In determining the minimum number of Density Bonus Units to be granted pursuant to this section, the maximum residential density for the site shall be multiplied by 0.25; any fractional unit shall be rounded up to the next whole number. Density Bonus Units shall not be included when determining the total number of Target Units in a Housing Development. If a developer requests a density increase of less than twenty -five percent (25 %), no reduction in the number of Target Units required shall be permitted. If a density increase of more than twenty - five percent (25 %) is granted, that approval shall be an Additional Incentive pursuant to Subsection 30 -17 -4. c. Target Units shall be constructed concurrently with Non - Restricted Units unless the Density Bonus Housing Agreement governing those Target Units provides otherwise. d. Target Units shall be built on the site of the project for which the density bonus is sought, if possible and, when practical, shall be dispersed within the Housing Development. e. 1. Target Units shall remain restricted and affordable to the households for which they are reserved for a period of 30 years or for such longer period required by any construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program utilized with respect to the Housing Development. 4 2. If the Housing Project is a condominium project eligible for a Density Bonus under subsection 30- 17- 3(a)(4), Target Units shall remain restricted and affordable for moderate - income households for at least ten (10) years or for such longer period required by any construction or mortgage financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program utilized with respect to the Housing Development). 30 -17.4 Additional Incentives a. The City shall provide a Density Bonus and Additional Incentive(s) for qualified Housing Developments upon an application pursuant to Subsection 30 -17 -6 unless the City makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that: 1. the Additional Incentive(s) is (or are) not required to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5, or for Targeted Units rents to be set as specified in Government Code Section 65915(c); 2. the Additional Incentive(s) would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low income households; 3. denial of the Density Bonus and/or the Additional Incentive(s) requested by the developer is otherwise authorized by law; or, 4. the Additional Incentive requested is a waiver of any of the requirements of Article XVI of the Alameda Charter in which case the City shall identify one or more alternative Additional Incentives that are of equal or greater financial benefit to the qualified Housing Development that the Article XVI waiver sought for that qualified Housing Development. The City's agreement to the alterative Additional Incentives justifies denial under subparagraph 1. of this paragraph (a) and is further authorized by paragraph (d) of this subsection. b. A Density Bonus and any Additional Incentives granted by the city shall contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of providing the Target Units. Applicants seeking a waiver or modification of development or zoning standards shall show that such waivers or modifications are necessary to make the Housing Development economically feasible in accordance with Government Code Section 65915(e). This requirement may be satisfied by reference to applicable sections of the Housing Element of the City's General Plan. The need for incentives will vary for different Housing Developments. Therefore, the allocation of Additional Incentives shall be determined on a case -by -case basis. c. Except as provided in subparagraph (a)(4) of this subsection, Additional Incentives may include, but need not be limited to, one or more of the following: 5 1. A reduction of site development standards or a modification of zoning code or architectural design requirements that exceed the minimum building standards provided in the California Building Standards Law, Health and Safety Code Sections 18901 et seq. including: (a) Reduced minimum lot sizes and/or dimensions. (b) Reduced minimum lot setbacks. (c) Reduced on -site parking requirements, including the number or size of spaces. 2. Other regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by a developer or the City that result in identifiable and actual cost reductions or cost avoidance. 3. A Density Bonus of more than twenty -five percent (25 %). 4. Waived, reduced, or deferred planning, plan check, construction permitting, and/or development impact fees (e.g., capital facilities, park, or traffic fees). 5. Direct financial aid in the form of a loan or grant to subsidize or provide low - interest financing for on- or off -site improvements, land, construction or other development costs. d. The City may offer an Equivalent Financial Incentive in lieu of granting a Density Bonus and an Additional Incentive(s). The value of the Equivalent Financial Incentive shall equal at least the savings in land cost per dwelling unit that would result from a Density Bonus and must contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of providing the Target Units pursuant to this section. "Economically feasible" means that a Housing Development can be built with a reasonable rate of return. A Developer's financial ability to build the project shall not be a factor in determining whether an Equivalent Financial Incentive does or does not make a Housing Development economically feasible. 30 -17.5 Density Bonus Housing Agreement a. A Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall required for any Housing Development subject to this section and shall be made a condition of the approval of any discretionary permits for that Housing Development otherwise required by this chapter. A Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall be consistent with this section and shall be recorded as a restriction on the parcel or parcels on which Target Units resulting from the application of this section to a Housing Development are to be constructed. b. In the case of for -sale Housing Developments, a Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall provide for the following conditions governing the Target Units during the applicable use restriction period: 1. Target Units shall be initially sold to eligible Very Low -, Lower - Income or Moderate - Income Households at an Affordable Sales Price and Housing Cost or to Qualified Residents (i.e., maintained as senior or disabled housing). 6 2. Target Units shall be initially owner- occupied by eligible Very -Low, or Lower - Income or Moderate - Income Households, or by Qualified Residents. 3. The initial purchaser of each Target Unit shall execute and record an instrument or agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney to ensure continued compliance with this section and with the State Density Bonus Law. The instrument or agreement shall provide that the Target Unit may not be sold other than in accordance with this section nor without the city's prior written approval during the applicable use restriction period. c. In the case of a rental Housing Development, a Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall provide for the following conditions governing the Target Units during the applicable use restriction period: 1. Target Units shall be managed or operated by the Developer or by his, her or its agent. 2. The Developer or the managing or operating agent of the developer shall submit annual reports to the city that include the name, address, and income of each person occupying Target Units; and which identify the Target Units, the number of bedrooms, monthly rent or cost of each Target Unit, vacancy information, and other information required by the city. Such reports shall be maintained by the City so as to ensure the privacy of tenants' financial information. d. A Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall provide for a fee to be paid to the city prior to the issuance of a building permit for each Target Unit in an amount reasonably calculated to recover the City's cost to monitor compliance with the Density Bonus Housing Agreement, this section and the State Density Bonus Law by the Developer (including his, her or its agents), and the owner or tenant of any Target Unit during the applicable use restriction period. 30 -17 -6 Application Requirements and Review a. An application pursuant to this section shall be processed concurrently with any other application(s) required for a Housing Development and shall be accompanied by an application fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council. The Planning Board shall approve or disapprove an application if no direct financial assistance is requested and its decision may appealed to, or called for review by, the City Council pursuant to Section 30 -25. The failure of the City Council to call for review of an application shall constitute the City Council's approval of the means of compliance with the State Density Bonus Law for purposes of Government Code Section 65915(d). If direct financial assistance is requested, the Planning Board shall make a recommendation to the City Council, which shall approve or disapprove the application. The decision of the City Council shall be final. b. A Developer proposing a Housing Development pursuant to this section may submit a preliminary application prior to any formal application for approval of a Housing Development. 7 c. Applicants are encouraged to schedule a pre - application conference with the Planning and Building Director or his or her designee to discuss and identify potential application issues, including possible Additional Incentives pursuant to Subsection 30 -17 -4. No charge will be required for a pre- application conference. A preliminary application shall include: 1. A brief description of the proposed Housing Development, including the total number of units, Target Units, and Density Bonus Units proposed. 2. The zoning and general plan designations and Assessor's parcel number(s) of the project site(s). 3. A vicinity map and preliminary site plan, drawn to scale, including building footprints, driveway and parking layout for each site. 4. If an Additional Incentive(s) is or are requested, the application shall, in accordance with Subsection 30 -17 -4, demonstrate why the Additional Incentive(s) is or are necessary to provide the Target Units. Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda 8 Presiding Officer of the City Council I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 13, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's Decision Regarding Abatement of Cited Vehicles and Trailers at 1617 Central Avenue BACKGROUND The Alameda Police Department (APD) received a report from Code Compliance that 13 vehicles located on the property at 1617 Central Avenue were a public nuisance and in violation of Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Sections 8 -22 -1 and 8- 22 -16. Technician Karen Timney #442 mailed out a "Notice of Intention to Abate and Remove" to the owner of the vehicles on February 10, 2004, in accordance with the AMC. On May 12, 2004, Transportation Technical Team (TTT) held a public meeting on the abatement notice and provided Mr. Doherty, the owner, an opportunity to address the situation. Mr. Doherty provided a description of the 13 vehicles cited and the recent actions he had taken and planned to take to remedy the situation. Public Works staff made their presentation on the matter and the TTT decided that Mr. Doherty had vehicles that were in violation of the AMC. These violations included non - functioning trailers that were also deemed a public nuisance because they were not stored properly. The TTT recommended that Mr. Doherty be given the opportunity to resolve the remaining citations before the next TTT meeting or risk having the vehicles abated. At the June 9, 2004, TTT meeting, Mr. Doherty updated the vehicle registration status. Although some of the vehicles were now registered, they were still on the property and not in compliance with the AMC. The TTT unanimously voted to begin the abatement process by scheduling a meeting with Technician Timney at the residence of Mr. Doherty at 10:00 a.m. the following morning. Either Mr. Doherty was to move the vehicles himself or the City was to begin the process of removing the vehicles at Mr. Doherty's expense. Mr. Doherty submitted a letter on June 10, 2004, to appeal the TTT's decision to begin the process of abatement of the cited vehicles located at 1617 Central Avenue. GtyafAlameda ubIicWorks Department Public W 1 Work%fru Ywr! Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Re: Appeal #5 -D 7 -20-04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS Page 2 July 13, 2004 The APD uses the following sections of the AMC when issuing a "Notice of Intention to Abate and Remove." Alameda Municipal Code Section 8 -22.1 specifies: In addition to and in accordance with the determination made and the authority granted by the State of California under Section 22660 of the Vehicle Code to remove abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof as public nuisances, the City Council hereby makes the following findings and declarations: The accumulation and storage of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled, or inoperative vehicles or parts thereof on private or public property not including highways is hereby found to create a condition tending to reduce the value of private property, to promote blight and deterioration, to invite plundering, to create fire hazards, to constitute an attractive nuisance creating a hazard to the health and safety of minors, to create a harborage for rodents and insects and to be injurious to the health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, the presence of an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicle or parts thereof, on private or public property not including highways, except as expressly hereinafter permitted, is hereby declared to constitute a public nuisance which may be abated as such in accordance with the provisions of this section. Alameda Municipal Code Section 8 -22 -16 specifies: It shall be unlawful for any person to abandon, park, store, or leave or permit the abandonment, parking, storing or leaving of any vehicle or parts thereof which is in an abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or physically or legally inoperative condition upon any private or public property not including highways within the City for a period in excess of five (5) days unless such vehicle is completely enclosed within a building in a lawful manner where it is not plainly visible from the street or other public or private property, or unless such vehicle is stored or parked in a lawful manner on private property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler, licensed vehicle dealer or a junkyard. For purposes of this section, legally inoperative condition shall mean any condition, such as expired or absent vehicle registration, which would render the operation of the vehicle on a public street unlawful. In Mr. Doherty's letter to appeal the decision for abatement, he did not state the basis of the appeal. He did contend at the June TTT meeting that he did not realize that the trailers were an issue. However, Police Department staff has always stated the trailers needed to be abated. It was included in the notice mailed in February 2004, and explained at the May and June TTT meetings. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GNofAlameda QUblicWoil s apartment Public Worn !Y *ifor Yu! Honorable Mayor and Page 3 Councilmembers July 13, 2004 APD's position remains that Mr. Doherty has had sufficient time to resolve the issues with the cited vehicles on his property since his initial notification on February 10, 2004. Although Mr. Doherty has taken several steps to resolve registering some of the vehicles, they still remain on his property in violation of the AMC. APD continues to support the recommendation to abate the vehicles promptly. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact to the General Fund for this item. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, deny the appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's decision regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue. Respectfully submitted, Burnham Ma rows Chief of Police aCri crtr� -r= .a-c- Res, lly submitted Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: Philip Lee Junior Engineer \l MTN/PL:gc G:\PUB WORKSOP WADMIN\ COUNCIL\ 2004\072004\abatementappeal.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtvofAlameda blicW01ks apartment Public Wale Wwfafar Youl CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM Date: July 13, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: James M. Flint City Manager Re: Recommendation to Authorize Fuel Surcharge on the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service and Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service BACKGROUND In response to dramatic increases in diesel fuel prices, Blue & Gold Fleet (B &GF), Harbor Bay Maritime (HBM), and other vessel common carriers asked the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to give operators authority to adjust their fares within a certain range without specific commission approval ( "Fuel Surcharge "). On June 9, 2004, the CPUC passed Resolution TL -19042 approving the Fuel Surcharge. The resolution restricts the Fuel Surcharge to an upper limit of 15% above current authorized fare. For City ferry services, this limits the maximum increase on a $5.25 ticket to $0.75. With this approval, the City has the option of not raising fares at all or of raising them by any amount less than or equal to $0.75. The City Council implemented a fuel surcharge of $0.25 in the summer of 2001. Unless extended by the CPUC, the Fuel Surcharge will expire on December 6, 2004. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS For both City ferry services, actual diesel costs have exceeded budgeted amounts since February 2004 (see attached tables). Harbor Bay Maritime: HBM operates the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF) under a fixed subsidy agreement. Under the HBM agreement, unusually large fuel price increases have been considered by the City to be extraordinary expenses beyond the control of the ferry operator. Consequently, the City has in the past worked with HBM to provide a form of financial relief when fuel prices remain at elevated levels. During the four -month period from February through May 2004, HBM paid an average of $1.58 per gallon of diesel compared to the budgeted amount of $1.20 per gallon. During this period, HBM purchased 43,712 gallons of diesel at a cost of $69,085. This is $16,630 more than the $52,454 anticipated in the annual operating budget. Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service (AOFS): B &GF operates the AOFS under a Cost Plus Fixed Fee agreement (Cost Plus). Under a Cost Plus agreement, fuel cost is passed through to the City for Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtpofAlameda ubIicWorks Department Public Wmks WxAvfor Yale Report #5 -E 7 -20 -04 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 13, 2004 payment. The AOFS FY 2003/04 pro forma budget assumed a cost of $1.10 per gallon while the FY 2004/05 budget assumes a cost of $1.20 per gallon. During the period from February through May 2004, B &GF paid an average of $1.45 per gallon of diesel compared to the $1.10 budgeted for the period. During this period, B &GF purchased 95,034 gals of diesel at a cost of $137,970. This is $33,432 more than the $104,538 anticipated in the annual operating budget. Fuel Surcharge: Implementation of a $.25 one -way across the board fuel surcharge will enable the ferry services to recoup a portion of unanticipated diesel fuel costs (proposed fare table attached). Under the proposal, all one -way fares with the exception of that charged to school groups would increase by $.25 each way. If approved, the fuel surcharge will be implemented on Monday, August 2, 2004. Unless extended by the CPUC, the Fuel Surcharge will expire on December 6, 2004. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL ANALYSIS There is no impact to the General Fund associated with ferry operations. The AOFS and the AHBF are budgeted under CIP 621.20 and CIP 621.10 respectively. Increasing fares may have an impact on ridership. The last fare increase of $.25 one -way was implemented in October 2003. RECOMMENDATION The City Manager recommends that Council, by motion, authorize fuel surcharge on the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service and Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. MTN /ES : gc Respe, fully submitte Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director 5.4 Sa,»el y By: Ernest Sanchez Ferry Manager Attachment cc: Julie Braun, Port of Oakland G:\ PUBWORKS\ PWADMIN\COUNCIL\2004\072004\Ferry Fule surcharge.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service GtyofAlan,da PpubIicWorks apartment Public Works iw„ f,,ru! Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Alameda Ferries — Proposed Fares Alameda Ferries TYPE Current One -Way Fare Proposed One -Way Fare Adult $5.25 $5.50 Junior (5 -12) $2.50 2.75 Child (under 5) FREE FREE Seniors (65, +)/ Disabled $3.00 $3.25 Active Military $4.00 $4.25 Short Hop $1.25 $1.50 Ticket Books: Current Price Proposed Price 10- Ticket Book $42.50 $45.00 20- Ticket Book $75.00 $80.00 40- Ticket Book (AOFS) /Monthly pass (AHBF) $140.00 $150.00 School Groups Current Roundtrip Fare Proposed Roundtrip Fare Student, teacher or chaperon $3.00 $3.00 Angel Island TYPE Current Roundtrip Fare* Proposed Roundtrip Fare* Adult $12.00 $12.50 Junior (13 to 18) $9.00 $9.50 Child (5 to 12) $6.00 $6.50 Child (under 5) FREE FREE Seniors (62, +)/ Disabled $9.00 $9.50 * Includes park admission Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Page 3 July 13, 2004 GtyafAlmeda uubIicWorks Department PublicWork W *cf You! CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum Date: July 8, 2004 To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers From: Lara Weisiger City Clerk Re: Calling for a Consolidated Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 2, 2004 for the purpose of submitting to the electors a proposal to amend the City of Alameda Charter by deleting references to the Board of Education and proposing said Charter Amendment; directing the City Attorney to prepare an Impartial Analysis; and designating Councilmember(s) to write a Ballot Argument Background On July 1, 2004 the Alameda Unified School District submitted a letter to Council requesting that the Council place a measure amending the Charter to delete references to the Board of Education on the November 2, 2004 ballot. At the July 6 Council Meeting, the Council accepted the School District's request and directed staff to prepare a ballot measure. Discussion Deleting all Charter references to the Board of Education would be accomplished by amending or repealing Section 2 -7 (D), amending Section 10 -12, repealing Article XI and amending Section 23 -5. Section 2 -7 was amended in 1989. Section 2 -7 (D) states: "In the event that vacancies exist in a majority of the offices of Councilmember, such vacancies shall be filled by the two members of the Alameda School Board receiving the highest number of votes at the last election and the President of the Board of Library Trustees." Options regarding Section 2 -7 (D): 1) Repeal the section, which would result in the Charter no longer specifying how vacancies would be filled in the event there is a majority of the vacancies on the Council. 2) Choose not to repeal the section of the Charter, which would result in no change but would not remove the Board of Education entirely from the Charter. 3) Propose an alternate method for filling a majority of vacancies. For example, the 1937 Charter regulation reads: "In the event that vacancies exist in a majority of the offices of Councilmen, such vacancies shall be filled by a board consisting of the remaining Councilmen, if any, and the following officers, selected in the order named, sufficient to constitute a board of three, to -wit, Auditor, Treasurer and President of the Board of Library Trustees. After any vacancy in the office of councilman has continued for twenty -one days, Re: Resolution #5 -F 7 -20 -04 the three officers last mentioned in the foregoing sentence, acting as a board, shall have the sole power acting by a majority vote, to fill such vacancy." 4) Adopt an alternative based on California State Government Code Section 36512 (d), applicable to General Law cities, which addresses a majority of Council vacancies and does not allow a majority of Councilmembers to be appointed. It reads: "(1) Notwithstanding subdivision (b) and Section 34902, an appointment shall not be made to fill a vacancy on a city council if the appointment would result in a majority of the members serving on the council having been appointed. The vacancy shall be filled in the manner provided by this subdivision. (2) The city council may call an election to fill the vacancy to be held on the next regularly established election date not less than 114 days after the call. (3) If the city council does not call an election pursuant to paragraph (2), the vacancy shall be filled at the next regularly established election date." A version of this language suitable for inclusion in the Charter is as follows: "Notwithstanding paragraph (C) of this Section 2 -7, an appointment shall not be made to fill a vacancy on the City Council if the appointment would result in a majority of the members serving on the Council having been appointed. The vacancy shall be filled at the next general municipal election occurring not less than 114 days after the vacancy occurs unless the City Council calls an earlier special municipal election for that purpose on not less than 114 days' notice." Section 10 -12 has been in place since 1937, giving the Board of Education the ability to establish positions of employment. Deleting reference to the Board in said section would have no impact as this subject is already governed by state law. Repealing Article XI would delete the portion of the Charter that specifically addresses the School Board. Section 11 -1 speaks to the Board's duties and has not been amended since adoption of the 1937 Charter. Section 11 -2 addressing the number of Board members, election of members, terms and vacancies on the Board was added in 1968 and amended in 1982 and 1992. Deleting Article XI would result in the Board no longer being governed by the Charter and the City Clerk's office would no longer be responsible for handling the nomination process for Board of Education candidates. Instead these matters would be governed by state law and nominations would be handled by the County Registrar of Voters. Section 23 -5 was adopted in the 1937 Charter. Deleting reference to the Board in said section would have no impact as provision for payment of School Board Members for service on the Board is governed by State law. In order to place the proposed revisions to the Charter on the November 2, 2004 ballot, the City Council must approve the exact wording for the question that will appear on the ballot. The recommended language is: "Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be amended to delete references to the Board of Education, resulting in the Board no longer being subject to, controlled and/or governed by the Charter but instead governed by State law ?" The City Council may direct changes in the wording as long as the resulting language is a fair and accurate description of the question being put to the voters and does not exceed 75 words. Budget Consideration The cost of printing, translating and mailing the ballot measure will be approximately $6,800. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Resolution placing the Charter Amendment on the November 2, 2004 ballot, direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and designate Councilmember(s) to write a ballot argument pursuant to Resolution No. 12317 (attached). Ballot arguments cannot exceed 300 words and would be due in the office of the City Clerk by Tuesday, August 3, 2004. Rebuttal arguments cannot exceed 250 words and would be due on Wednesday, August 11, 2004. Respectfully Isubmitted, t,,t„_o A)a 7 I %� Lara Weisiger City Clerk Attachment —1 (Resolution No. 12317) CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12317 ESTABLISHING POLICY FOR CITY COUNCIL BALLOT MEASURE ARGUMENTS WHEREAS, at the11.Regular City Council meeting of September 1, 1992, City Council considered setting policy for City Council Ballot Measure Agruments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: The City Council, on its own motion, hereby establishes policy for City Council Ballot Measures to read as follows: a) Council may designate Councilmember(s) to write a Ballot Measure Argument; b) Council may request the City Manager to provide } staff report; w cc c) Council designee(s) will circulate Ballot Measure 0 Argument among Council for review; d) Any revisions will require Council action at a } Council meeting; and e) The Ballot Measure Argument is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the established deadlines. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of September , 1992, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmemb.ers Arnerich, Camicia, Lucas, Roth and President Withrow - 5. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 16th day of September , 1992. U /di Dian W B. Felsch, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. CALLING A CONSOLIDATED MUNICIPAL ELECTION IN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA ON NOVEMBER 2, 2004 FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORS A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE CITY OF ALAMEDA CHARTER BY DELETING REFERENCES TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION; AND PROPOSING SAID CHARTER AMENDMENT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes to submit to the voters of said City an amendment to the City of Alameda Charter deleting references to the Board of Education at the Consolidated General Municipal Election to be held on November 2, 2004; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT: Section 1. The Council of the City of Alameda hereby proposes on its own motion that an amendment of the Alameda City Charter be submitted to the voters of said City at said election to read as follows: CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT Sec. 2 -7 (D). of Councilmember, such vacancies shall be filled by the two members of the Alameda School as Library Trustees. 0 0 0. Sec. 10 -12. No position of employment with any right of compensation attached �'► thereto shall be established under the jurisdiction of any said boards, except the Board of Education, the Public Utilities Board and the Library Board, except by action of the Council. ARTICLE XI Board of Education • -... . . - the City in accordance with the Constitution and general law of the State of California and is Resolution #5 -F 7 -20 -04 Board, as the case may be, shall be elected for four year terms to fill the vacancies caused by tho expiration of the terms of the members. elected and continue for four years thereafter and until his or her successor is elected and shall be filled by appointment by said Board, said appointee to hold office for the term provided by this section. Sec. 23 -5. The Boards and members thereof named in the first column following shall be deemed to be the successors to the Boards and members thereof named in the second column following. All incumbents and members of Boards in the second column at the time this Charter takes effect shall immediately assume and continue to hold the successor office for the remainder of their unexpired terms. Library Board, successor to Board of Library Trustees. Public Utilities Board, successor to Board of Public Utilities Commissioners. Social Service Board, successor to Board of Social Service. Section 2. The City Council hereby proposes to and does hereby on its own motion, pursuant to the authorization provided by Section 9255 (a) (2) and Section 10201 of the Elections Code, submit the proposal to the qualified electors of the City of Alameda in a municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 2, 2004. The City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors to consolidate this election with the November 2, 2004, statewide general election to be held on that date. Section 3. The proposal shall be designated on the ballot as "Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda" and the aforementioned statement of the measure shall read as follows: MEASURE: Proposed Ballot Measure of the City of Alameda Shall the Charter of the City of Alameda be amended to delete references to the Board of Education resulting in the Board no longer being subject to, controlled and/or governed by the Charter but instead governed by State law? YES NO Section 4. The City Council adopts the provisions of subdivision (a) of section 9285 of the Elections Code to permit rebuttal arguments, if arguments have been filed in favor of or against the measure that is being submitted to the voters of the City at this Consolidated General Municipal Election. Section 5. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 9280, the City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such impartial analysis to the City Clerk within ten (10) days of the adoption of this Resolution. Section 6. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Alameda County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County Registrar of Voters in sufficient time so that the measure may be included in the November 2, 2004 Consolidated General Municipal Election ballot. Section 7. Notice of the time and place of the election on this proposed charter amendment is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda City of Alameda Memorandum Date: To: From: Re: 13 July 2004 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers James M. Flint, City Manager Consideration of an interim urgency ordinance establishing a forty -five day moratorium on the issuance of zoning or use permits for the establishment of work/live studios under Alameda Municipal Code section 30 -15 BACKGROUND On 6 July 2004, the City Council upheld the Planning Board's approval for a Use Permit for the first work/live studios in Alameda. At that meeting, the Council requested that an item be placed on the next available Council agenda for consideration of a moratorium on further action on work/live studios. If the moratorium is approved, applications for work/live studios could be submitted and processed by the City, but could not be approved. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS The Council requested the moratorium in order to provide time to discuss possible modifications to the existing work/live ordinance. A number of issues were raised by Council members and the public. These include: ❑ The relationship of reuse of existing historical buildings and work/live uses. One express purpose of the work/live ordinance is to protect historic resources by permitting the recycling of vacant or under - utilized buildings as work/live studios. This issue may be of particular importance for historic buildings at Alameda Point. The existing ordinance limits work/live uses to a specified geographic area along the northern waterfront. However, there are a number of buildings in the Alameda Point Historic District that may be excellent candidates as work/live studios which might otherwise be difficult to reuse. Re: Urgency Ordinance #5 -G 7 -20 -04 Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers Page 2 July 13, 2004 ❑ The impact of work/live studios on continuing industrial and commercial operations in areas where work/live studios may be developed. A concern was raised by the attorney for Allied Engineering because of a possible conflict between future residents of the approved work/live project and noise generated by the current 24 hour operation of Allied Engineering, in particular night time truck deliveries. ❑ The basis for designating work/live studios as commercial/ industrial uses. The appellants expressed their belief that work/live studios did not comply with the City Charter, although Health and Safety Code section 17958.11 classifies work/live units primarily a place of work with all residential use of such space as an accessory use. ❑ More precise identification of buildings which may be amenable to work/live conversions. The Council requested information on the number of buildings which could be converted within the geographic area where work/live studios are permitted. It should be noted that a complete application for the possible reuse of the Del Monte building for approximately 100,000 square feet of retail, 60 work/live studios and interior parking is being processed. An Environmental Impact Report for this project as well as several others in the Northern Waterfront Area is being prepared. This project has been the subject of discussion by the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan Committee which found the proposal to be consistent with its vision for the building. The Historical Advisory Board also has held a study session on the proposal to rehabilitate the building which is a City Monument and supports the rehabilitation plan submitted by the property owner. The Planning Board has also held a study session on the proposal and provided positive feedback on the plans. Next Steps During the 45 effective days of the moratorium, the next steps would include a hearing before the Planning Board to consider possible changes to, or the repeal of, the work/live ordinance. The Board's recommendations would then reported back to the City Council. After the Planning Board hearing, the Council could take action on any proposed changes or could repeal the ordinance. The Council can also extend the moratorium for up to 10 months and 15 days after a publicly noticed hearing. BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT None. Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION Page 3 July 13, 2004 The City Manager recommends adoption of the Interim Ordinance contained in the Council packet to implement an immediate 45 -day moratorium on the approval of work/live Use Permits as defined in Section 30 -15 of the Alameda Municipal Code. Four affirmative votes are required to adopt this ordinance. Respectfully Submji Gregory Fuz, Planning and Building Director Judith Altschuler Supervising Planner G: \PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2004\n -July 20 \worklive- moratorium.doc Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLSIH NG A FORTY - FIVE DAY MORITORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF ZONING OR USE PERMITS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF WORK/LIVE STUDIOS UNDER ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 30 -15 WHEREAS, a primary intent of Section 30 -15 Work/Live Studios is in part to promote the preservation and reuse of commercial or industrial buildings that contribute to the historic character of the community and to ensure that the exterior design of structures converted to work/live use reflects the predominant industrial or commercial character of such buildings; and WHEREAS, the implementation of Section 30 -15 Work/Live Studios, as currently enacted, could permit the development of work/live studios which do not promote the preservation and reuse of commercial or industrial buildings that contribute to the historic character of the community and could permit the design of work/live studio buildings in a manner that is inconsistent with the predominant industrial or commercial character of the existing buildings; and WHEREAS, Section 30 -15 Work/Live Studios was intended in part to limit or avoid the promotion of activities within the City's industrial zones which compromise or interfere with the existing and future industrial activity within those districts; and WHEREAS, the implementation of Section 30 -15 Work/Live Studios, as currently enacted, could promote activities that compromise or interfere with existing and future industrial activity within existing industrial zones; and WHEREAS, the City needs to address any unintended harmful consequences of Section 30 -15 Work/Live Studios; and WHEREAS, the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) have been satisfied, and in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3), of the California Code of Regulations, this project is exempt from CEQA; and WHEREAS, because of the forgoing, it is both urgent and essential to the general health, safety and welfare of the community and its citizens and the promotion of proper landuse, to immediately prohibit for a limited time the issuance of zoning or use permits for the establishment of Work/Live Studios, to allow time to study the issue so that appropriate revisions to Section 30 -15 of the Municipal Code can be considered and, if appropriate, enacted; and Ordinance #5 -G 7 -20 -04 WHEREAS, the City Council expressly finds and determines that the public safety, health, convenience, comfort, prosperity and general welfare will be furthered by the proposed moratorium. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The City Council finds and determines the foregoing recitals to be true and correct and hereby makes them part of this Ordinance. Section 2. This moratorium shall remain in place for a period of forty-five days which may be extended by ordinance or until the date a decision by the City Council to adopt permanent revisions to the Section 30 -15 Work/Live Studios takes effect, whichever occurs earlier. Section 3. From the effective date of this Ordinance and extending for its entire term, no zoning approval, use permit, or other applicable zoning approval shall be granted for the establishment of a Work/Live Studio development. Section 4. A review of the provisions of Section 30 -15 Work/Live Studios and its impacts on the historic industrial buildings within the City shall be completed by the Planning Board within 45 days. Section 5. The immediate public peace, health and safety of the community will be furthered by this urgency ordinance. Section 6. This ordinance will be effective immediately upon its adoption by four - fifths vote of the City Council pursuant to Section 3 -12 of the City Charter. Section 7. If any provisions of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance and the application of such provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2004 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , of 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 2 -8.2 (MEMBERSHIP; TERM OF OFFICE; REMOVAL) AND 2 -8.3 (QUALIFICATIONS; QUORUM; VOTING) OF SECTION 2 -8 (TRANSPORTATION) OF CHAPTER II (ADMINISTRATION) TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM NINE TO SEVEN MEMBERS; ALLOW FOR STAGGERED TERMS AND TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE QUORUM FROM FIVE TO FOUR MEMBERS BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 2 -8.2 (Membership, Term of Office; Removal) of Section 2 -8 (Transportation Commission) of Chapter II (Administration) to read as follows: 2 -8.2 Membership; Term of Office; Removal. The Transportation Commission shall consist of seven (7) voting members nominated by the Mayor and approved by Council. The voting members shall be selected to represent a diversity of transportation modes and be balanced between commuter, business, and recreational use. The term of the appointed representative shall be four (4) years. Terms shall be staggered so that one -third of the terms expires in three consecutive years, which shall be implemented by a one -time term of two years for two seats and three years for two seats. Appointed representatives shall serve a maximum of two full terms plus any unexpired term. Any appointed member may be removed by majority vote of the City Council. A vacancy in the office of any such member shall be filled and appointed in the manner hereinabove set forth and shall be for the unexpired portion of the term of office vacated. Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 2 -8.3 (Qualification; Quorum; Voting.) of section 2 -8 (Transportation Commission) of Chapter II (Administration) to read as follows: 2 -8.3 Qualifications; Quorum; Voting. The seven (7) appointed representatives of the Transportation Commission shall, at the time of their appointment and continuously during their incumbency, either be residents of the City of Alameda or employed by a business operating within the City. A maximum of two (2) appointees can be non - residents of Alameda. A quorum will consist of four (4) members of the Transportation Commission. The vote of four (4) members shall be necessary for any action of the Transportation Commission. Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -H 7 -20 -04 Section 3. 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. 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 CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING SECTION 21 -1 (DEFINITIONS) OF ARTICLE I (DEFINITIONS) AND SUBSECTION 21 -20 -04 (CHARGES FOR SERVICE) OF SECTION 21 -20 (FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS) OF ARTICLE III (FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS); AND ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 21 -2 -7 (INTEGRATED WASTE COLLECTION REQUIRED) TO SECTION 21 -2 (COLLECTION AND REMOVAL) OF ARTICLE II (GENERAL REGULATIONS) OF CHAPTER XXI (SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING) BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending Subsection 21 -1 (Definitions) of Article I (Definitions), Chapter XXI (Solid Waste and Recycling) to read as follows: 21 -1 Definitions As used in this section: Appliances shall mean discarded household appliances such as refrigerators, stoves, clothing washers \ and dryers, water heaters, dishwashers, etc., and similar items discarded by occupants of residential \V z premises. .■1&,c Bin shall mean a container with capacity of one (1) to eight (8) cubic yards, with hinged lid and wheels. �:_ Bulky items shall mean discarded appliances, furniture, tires, carpets, mattresses, and similar large items that require special collection due to their size, but can be collected without the assistance of special 4 >- loading equipment (such as forklifts- or cranes) and without violating vehicle load limits. Bulky items do f= not include abandoned automobiles. C&D Applicant means any person that undertakes a Project subject to WMP requirements p ursuant to subsection 21 -24.1 of this chapter. Can shall mean a ten (10) gallon plastic container with a lid. Cart shall mean a recycled - plastic container with a hinged lid and wheels serviced by an automated or semi- automated loading truck with varying capacities of twenty (20), thirty-two (32), sixty-four (64) or ninety-six (96) gallons, or another size approved by the Public Works Director. City Manager shall mean the City Manager of the City of Alameda or his/her designated representative; Public Works Director shall mean the Public Works Director of the City of Alameda or his/her designated representative; Building Official shall mean the Building Official of the City of Alameda or his/her designee; Risk Manager shall mean the Risk Manager of the City of Alameda or his/her designee. Commercial shall mean of, from, or pertaining to any property upon which business activity is conducted, including, but not limited to, retail sales, services, wholesale operations, manufacturing and industrial operations, but excluding businesses conducted upon residential property which are permitted under applicable zoning regulations and are not the primary use of the property. Compactor shall mean a mechanical apparatus that compresses materials. Compactors include two (2) to four (4) cubic yard bin compactors serviced by front -end loader collection trucks and six (6) to fifty (50) cubic yard debris boxes serviced by collection trucks. Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -I 7 -20 -04 Construction or construction and demolition shall mean construction, erection, enlargements, alteration, renovation, conversion, or movement of any building, structure, paving, or land and any other demolition attendant thereto. Construction and demolition debris or C&D debris shall mean used or discarded materials removed from residential, commercial, or industrial premises as a consequence of construction. Conversion Rate means a rate set forth in the standardized Conversion Rate Table approved by the Public Works Director pursuant to Section 21 -24 for use in estimating the volume or weight of materials identified in a Waste Management Plan. Container shall mean cans, bins, carts, compactors, and debris boxes. Curb (or curbside) shall mean the placement of a container for pick -up, where such container is placed within the public right of way but not within the public street, or sidewalk, in a manner that would obstruct vehicular, pedestrian, or bicycle travel. Where no curb exists, the container shall be placed in the location agreed upon by the City and the Franchisee in the franchise agreement. Customer shall mean the person to whom franchisee and/or permittee shall submit billing invoices and from whom it shall collect payment for collection services provided to a premises generating solid waste, recyclable materials, organic materials and receiving collection services from the franchisee and/or permittee. The customer may be the occupant or owner of the premises, provided that the owner of the premises shall be responsible for payment of collection services in the event an occupant of a premises, who is identified as the customer with respect to the owner' s premises, fails to make such payment. Debris box shall mean an open -top container with a capacity of six (6) to fifty (50) cubic yards that is serviced by a roll -off truck. Decibel (dB) shall mean a unit for measuring the amplitude of sounds, equal to twenty (20) times the logarithm to the base ten (10) of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is twenty (20) micropascals. Disposal site shall mean a facility for ultimate disposal of solid waste. Diversion Requirement means the diversion of at least fifty percent (50 %) of the total construction and demolition debris generated by a project via reuse or recycling, unless a C &D Applicant has been granted an Infeasibility Exemption pursuant to Section 21 -24, in which case the Diversion Requirement shall be the maximum feasible diversion rate established by the Public Works Director for the project. E -scrap item or electronic scrap item shall mean discarded electronic equipment including, but not limited to, television sets, computer monitors, cathode ray tubes, central processing units (CPUs), laptop computers, external computer hard drives, computer keyboards, computer mice, computer printers, DVD players, CD players, stereos, radios, and VCRs. Food Waste shall mean solid food wastes that will decompose and/or putrefy and includes, but is not limited to, all kitchen and table food wastes and animal or vegetable waste that attends or results from the storage, preparation, cooking or handling of food stuffs, and paper wastes contaminated with food waste. Franchise Agreement means an agreement with a Franchisee as defined in subsection 21 -20.1 of this chapter. Franchisee shall mean the person to whom the City shall have granted a franchise to collect, receive, carry, haul or transport solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials within the City, and shall include the agents or employees of the Franchisee. Hazardous waste shall mean all substances defined as hazardous waste, acutely hazardous waste, or extremely hazardous waste by the State of California in Health and Safety Code §25110.02, §25115, and §25117 or in future amendments to or recodifications of such statutes and all substances identified and listed as Hazardous Waste by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC §6901 et seq.), all future amendments thereto, and all rules and regulations promulgated thereunder Hazardous waste excludes minimal quantities of waste of a type and amount normally found in residential solid waste after implementation of programs for the safe collection, recycling, treatment and disposal of household hazardous waste in compliance with Sections 41500 and 41802 of the California Public Resources Code, as amended from time to time. Integrated Waste Management shall mean all materials defined as, including but not limited to all materials defined as solid waste, recyclable materials, organic materials, and food waste as defined in California Public Resources Code § 40191. Medical waste shall mean all materials defined as medical waste in the California Health and Safety Code Section 25023.2, excluding waste identified as not being medical waste in Section 25023.5 and 25023.8, or the regulations promulgated thereunder, as amended from time to time. Multi family shall mean any residential complex, with five (5) or more units used for residential purposes irrespective of whether residence therein is transient, temporary or permanent. Multi family premises includes yacht harbors and marinas where residents live aboard boats. Multi family premises include condominiums and cooperative apartments with five (5) or more units. Such premises shall have centralized solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection service for all units on the premises, which service shall be billed to one (1) customer at one (1) address. Multiplex shall mean any residential complex, with two (2) to four (4) units used for residential purposes irrespective of whether residence therein is transient, temporary or permanent. Multi -plex premises include condominiums and cooperative apartments with two (2) to four (4) units. Such premises shall have individual solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection service for each unit on the premises, but may be billed to one (1) customer at one (1) address or to each individual unit. Occupant shall mean a person who occupies a premises. Owner shall mean the person or persons holding record title to the premises as reflected in the latest property tax assessment roll made available by the Alameda County Assessor' s Office. Organic materials shall mean solid wastes originated from living organisms that will decompose and/or putrefy. Organic materials which have been approved for collection by the Public Works Director include both yard waste, and food waste such as, but not limited to, green trimmings, grass, weeds, leaves, prunings, branches, dead plants, brush, tree trimmings, dead trees, small wood pieces, other types of organic yard waste, vegetable waste, fruit waste, grain waste, dairy waste, meat waste, fish waste, facial tissue, paper contaminated with food waste or otherwise not accepted in the recyclable materials collection program, pieces of unpainted and untreated wood, and pieces of unpainted and untreated wallboard. No discarded material shall be considered to be organic materials, however, unless such material is separated from solid waste and recyclable materials. Organic materials such as, but not limited to, grass cuttings, weeds, leaves, prunings, branches, dead plants, brush, tree trimmings, dead trees may not exceed six (6 ") inches in diameter and four (4') feet in length. Organic materials are included within the term recyclable materials. Permittee shall mean any person authorized by a City permit to collect construction and demolition debris, recyclable materials, or organic materials pursuant to Article W of this chapter. Person shall mean a person, firm, association, partnership, joint venture, corporation or any entity, public or private in nature. Premises shall mean any land or building in the City where solid waste, recyclable materials, or organic materials are generated or accumulated including each single- family unit, multi -plex unit, multi- family complex, and business establishment. Project means any activity involving construction that requires issuance of a permit under the zoning, building and other ordinances of the City. Recyclable materials shall mean non - hazardous residential, commercial or industrial materials or by- products which have been approved for collection by Public Works Director and which are set aside, handled, packaged, or offered for collection in a manner different than solid waste, for the purpose of being reused or processed and then returned to the economy in the form of commodities. Recyclable materials include, but are not limited to, newspaper (including inserts, coupons, and store advertisements), mixed paper (including office paper, computer paper, magazines, junk mail, catalogs, brown paper bags, brown paper, paperboard, paper egg cartons, phone books, grocery bags, colored paper, construction paper, envelopes, legal pad backings, shoe boxes, cereal and other similar food boxes); chipboard; corrugated cardboard; paper milk cartons, glass containers (including brown, clear, and green glass bottles and jars); aluminum (including beverage containers, foil, food containers, small pieces of scrap metal); small pieces of scrap metal weighing less than ten (10) pounds and fitting into the recyclable materials collection container; steel, tin or bi -metal cans; plastic containers (nos. 1 to 7), aseptic beverage boxes; empty steel paint cans (previously used for latex paint), used motor oil, used oil filters, small appliances, and aerosol cans. Recycling shall mean the process of sorting, cleansing, treating, and reconstituting recyclable materials that would otherwise be disposed of at a disposal site and returning them to the economy in the form of raw materials for new, reused or reconstituted products. Residential shall mean of, from, or pertaining to a single- family premises, multi -plex premises, or multi- family premises. Reuse means further or repeated use of any material without reconstitution or treatment. Salvage means the controlled removal of Construction and Demolition Debris from a permitted construction site for the purpose of recycling or reuse. Single-family shall mean any detached house or residence designed or used for occupancy by one (1) household, provided that collection service can be and is provided to such premises as an independent unit. Solid waste shall mean and include all putrescible and non - putrescible solid, semisolid and liquid wastes, including garbage, trash, refuse, rubbish, ashes, industrial wastes, manure, vegetable or animal solid and semisolid wastes and other discarded solid and semisolid wastes as defined in California Public Resources Code § 40191 , as that section may be amended from time to time. Solid waste does not include abandoned vehicles and parts thereof, hazardous waste or low -level radioactive waste, medical waste, unacceptable wastes, construction and demolition debris, source separated recyclable materials or source separated organic materials. Source separated shall mean recyclable materials or organic materials that have been segregated from solid waste by or for the generator thereof, on the premises at which they were generated, for handling separate from solid waste. This does not require that different types of recyclable commodities be separated from each other, except organic materials shall be separated from recyclable materials. Specialty recyclable materials shall mean high - value, presorted recyclable materials generated by construction and demolition activities on residential or non - residential premises and by the operation of non - residential uses. Specialty recyclable materials include scrap metal, construction and demolition debris, high -grade paper (including office mixed paper), pallets, and plastic film and other segregated recyclable materials which the Public Works Director reasonably determines are meaningfully distinct from the mixed recyclable materials collected from residential premises in the City. Unacceptable waste shall mean any and all waste including, but not limited to, hazardous waste and medical waste, the acceptance and handling of which by franchisee or permittee would cause a violation of any permit condition, legal or regulatory requirement; substantial damage to franchisee' s or permittee' s equipment or facilities; or present a substantial danger to the health or safety of the public or franchisee' s or permittee' s employees. Waste Management Plan means a plan for compliance with Article N of this chapter, as approved or conditionally approved by the City. Yard Waste shall mean those discarded vegetation materials approved by the Public Works Director that will decompose and/or putrefy, including but not limited to, green trimmings, grass, weeds, leaves, prunings, branches, dead plants, brush, tree trimmings, dead trees, small pieces of unpainted and untreated wood, and other types of organic waste. Yard waste is a subset of organic materials. Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Subsection 21 -2.7 (Integrated Waste Collection Required) to Section 21 -2 (Collection and Removal), Article II (General Regulations) of Chapter XXI (Solid Waste and Recycling) to read as follows: 21 -2 -7 Integrated Waste Collection Required. Unless the occupant of the premises demonstrates, as described below, that he or she qualifies for an integrated waste service exception, the owner of any premises in the City in, upon, or from which integrated waste is created, produced or accumulated, shall dispose of the integrated waste through the regular integrated waste collection service of the collector and shall pay, therefore, the rate or rates set by the City. Arrangements with the collector shall be made by each such owner for the required collection of integrated waste, and such arrangements shall specify the location of the premises, integrated waste receptacle type and sizes, and the frequency of collection. Section 3. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending subsection 21 -20 -04 (Charges for Service) of Section 21 -20 (Franchise Agreements) of Article III (Franchise Agreements) of Chapter XXI (Solid Waste and Recycling) to read as follows: 21 -20 -4 Charges for Service a. Establishing Charges. The City shall establish rate - setting policies and rate ceilings through City Council resolution or through the franchise agreement. Prior to establishing rate policies or rate ceilings, the City Council shall hold a public hearing. b. Payment. Every person receiving integrated waste collection service for solid waste, and/or recyclable materials, and/or organic materials shall pay the rate for the service established by the franchisee in accordance with City- established policies, whether used in whole or in part. If an occupant of a premises fails to pay, the owner shall be responsible for payment to the franchisee. c. Special Rate Programs. 1. Low Income Residents and Senior Residents Discount. Franchisee shall provide low income and senior discounts for residents provided that a customer may not obtain both a low income resident and a senior resident discount. Franchisee shall determine that a customer qualifies for the low income discount by obtaining documentation that the customer's household qualifies as a very -low- income household under the Section 8 eligibility guidelines as determined by the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) formula. Franchisee shall determine that a customer qualifies for the senior resident discount by verifying that the head of household of the residential premises is sixty -five (65) years of age or older. Senior Discount shall not apply to any solid waste container greater than 32- gallons. d. Service Exemptions. 1. Continuation of Prior Exemptions. With the exception of the Special Rate Program established in 21 -20.4 and those customers who have prior approval for a 10- gallon solid waste container, all service exemptions granted by the City prior to the effective date of the ordinance that enacted this provision shall be terminated. 4. Integrated Waste Collection Exemption. A complete exemption from mandatory integrated waste collection shall be granted if the customer demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Public Works. Director that no solid waste, recyclable materials and organic material of any kind is generated on the premises. The occupants of a residential structure may be completely exempted from mandatory integrated waste collection only upon proof that they are regularly self - hauling integrated waste generated on the property to a lawful disposal site, Department of Conservation approved Reclamation Center or transfer station by providing monthly receipts or other evidence satisfactory to the Public Works Director. 5. Vacancy Exemption. An owner of residential premises may receive a temporary exemption from the requirement to subscribe to and to pay for solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials collection services if he or she can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that the premises are vacant for at least thirty (30) days. Evidence that either water or power was not consumed on the premises shall be sufficient evidence of vacancy. 6. Service Location Exemption for Disabled Persons. Franchisee shall collect containers from the backyard of a single- family or multi -plex premises occupied by an owner or occupant with a disability within the meaning of the American Disabilities Act at no additional cost. e. Application Process. 1. Filing of Application. A customer may file an application with the franchisee for a special rate or service exemption pursuant to subsections 21- 20 -4(c) and 21- 20 -4(d). The occupant must consent to an unscheduled on -site inspection by the City of Alameda Public Works Department and/or the franchisee of occupant' s integrated waste (solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials) in order to qualify for or any service exemption. 2. Review of Application. The franchisee shall inspect each applicant's property, and the applicant's integrated waste (solid waste, recyclable materials, and organic materials). Franchise shall complete this review within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of an application. 3. Notification of Acceptance or Denial of Application. Franchisee . shall notify an applicant of the acceptance or denial of his or her application within twenty (20) business days of receipt of that application. Upon approval of a special rate or service exception, the franchisee shall notify the Public Works Director in writing. 4. Duration of Special Rate or Service Exemption. Any special rate or service exemption shall be effective for one (1) year from approval, unless service is stopped and new service is started at the premises or the circumstances that justified the special rate or service exception change. The Public Works Director may extend a special rate or service exemption for additional periods of one (1) year without further application upon receipt of certification from Customer that the circumstances justifying the special rate or service exemption have not changed. If those circumstances change, it shall be the responsibility of the owner or occupant to notify franchisee of changed circumstance and to initiate regular solid waste, recyclable materials, or organic materials collection service in accordance with the provisions of subsection 21 -2.1. The Public Works Director or franchisee may review any special rate or service exemption upon receipt of evidence that such special rate or service exemption is no longer justified. In all cases where an exception is granted, the premises must at all times be kept in a sanitary condition which does not cause a nuisance to others. Upon a determination that the integrated waste service exception should be granted, the collector shall immediately notify the owner and the City of Alameda Public Works Department in writing. If the circumstances which allowed the exception should change, the owner or occupant shall then initiate regular integrated waste collection in accordance with the provisions of this section. The Public Works Department or the Collector may require reauthorization of such exception from time to time. Occupant must consent to on -site inspection of solid waste, recyclable materials and organic materials disposal facilities by the City of Alameda Public Works Department and/or the Collector in order to qualify for the integrated waste service exemption. 5. Appeals. An applicant may appeal a denial of a special rate or service exemption as described in subsections 21- 20.4(c) and 21- 20.4(d) by filing a notice of appeal with the City Clerk not later than ten (10) business days after the applicant was provided written notice of the decision. The notice of appeal shall be in a form prescribed by the, Public Works Director and shall state why the applicant believes the denial does not comply with this section. The Public Works Director shall decide the appeal within thirty (30) calendar days of its filing, unless he or she continues that decision for good cause. The Public Works Director shall notify the applicant in writing of his or her decision within three (3) business days. f. Violations. Violation of any provision of this section other than by the franchisee, the City or its employees, shall be punishable as an infraction pursuant to subsection 1 -5.1 of the Alameda Municipal Code. Section 4. 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. 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 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 official seal of said City this day of , 2004. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series APPROVING MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT MPA04 -0002 TO THE CATELLUS MASTER PLAN AND CATELLUS SITE -WIDE LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A STORMWATER TREATMENT AND DETENTION POND, PUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN ALONG THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK AND A STORMWATER OUTFALL INTO THE ESTUARY AT THE FORMER FISC SITE, NORTH OF TINKER AVENUE, TRACT 7179 FOR THE BAYPORT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30 -4.20 of the Alameda Municipal Code, Master Plan MPA04 -0001, as shown on Exhibit 13 and Exhibit B amended by the amendments contained in Exhibit C is hereby adopted for all the real property within the 215 - acre site situated within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, located generally south of the Oakland- Alameda Estuary, west of the Mariner Square commercial area, north of the College of Alameda and Atlantic Avenue, and east of Main Street, exclusive of the Alameda Gateway Center, U.S. Coast Guard Housing, and Miller Elementary School. Section 2. The above Master Plan Amendment MPA04 -0001 shall be known as and referenced to, as the Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan (hereinafter Catellus Master Ems— Plan) dated October 2001, as amended. Section 3. 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, subject to the signature of the Development Agreement. Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Presiding Officer of the City Council Final Passage of Ordinance #5 -J 1 7 -20 -04 Exhibit A — Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) Exhibit B — Catellus Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan Amendment (on file in the Office of the City Clerk) Exhibit C — Catellus Master Plan and Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan Amendment, MPA04 -0002 2 EXHIBIT C CATELLUS MASTER PLAN AND SITE -WIDE LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT MPA04 -0002 The specific portions of the Catellus Master Plan and Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan that would be amended include the following (revisions are shown in bold face type): A. Catellus Master Plan, page 6, third paragraph: The Master Plan would be amended to include the stormwater improvements as an allowable use, as follows: "In the area north of Tinker Avenue is a Business Park encompassing 77 acres which will house up to 1.3 million gross square feet of flex -tech office and research & development uses, with supporting retail and related uses, including a stormwater treatment and detention pond, pump station, force main, outfall and associated landscaping along the western edge of the proposed business park." B. Catellus Master Plan, page 60, seventh bullet: The Master Plan would be amended to add an item to the purpose and intent of the business park that would include the preservation of open spaces, as follows: "Preserve open spaces surrounding the stormwater pond and a five foot planter strip above the force main." C. Catellus Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan, page 8, first paragraph right side of page: The proposed project would amend the Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan to add an item to the Commercial District of the business park that would include the preservation of open spaces surrounding the stormwater pond and a five foot planter strip above the force main to serve as landscape buffer areas, as follows: "Landscape buffer areas which include eastern and western boundaries of the Business Sub - District, including open spaces surrounding the stormwater pond and a five foot planter strip above the stormwater force main." CONDITIONS EFFECTIVE DATE 1. The Master Plan Amendment shall not be in force and effect, unless and until, the following conditions have been satisfied: a. The City Council first approves the Master Plan Amendment (MPA04 -0002) and it is in effect.. RESPONSIBILITY 2. Catellus and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda shall be responsible for the costs associated with obtaining, implementing, and defending any necessary amendments of the Mitigation Measures and Project Approvals and any required environmental review related thereto. 3 HOLD HARMLESS 3. The applicant, or its successors in interest, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning this project, which action is brought within the time period provided for in the Government Code. The City of Alameda shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the subdivider shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. APPROVED PLANS 4. The Project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the document titled Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan, prepared by Catellus Development Corporation, as amended on January 2, 2002, on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department, except as modified by the Master Plan conditions approved herein. 5. The above ground pump station enclosure shall be screened from view with a wood or wood slat fence. No barbed wire or razor fences shall be allowed. The enclosure shall be coated with stucco and the roof be constructed of a material similar to one of the roof options used on the Bayport project to the south. VESTING 6. These conditions run with the land and shall apply to the life of the Project, except as satisfied pursuant to their express terms. DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 7. All regulations of the Alameda Municipal Code shall apply to MPA04 -0001 except where express provisions have otherwise been made in this Master Plan approval or in any Development Agreement between the City and the applicant. 8. The Master Plan shall include the following specific limitations and exceptions to the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC): a. Within the business park, no outdoor storage of materials is approved as part of this Master Plan Amendment. Any such storage may be permitted subject to an approved Use Permit. AMENDMENTS 9. Any amendments to this Master Plan Amendment shall be subject to the provisions established in the Master Plan (page I -10) and the Development Agreement (article 6.4). Major amendments to this Master Plan shall remain within the authority of the City Council. The determination of minor and major amendments shall be processed in accordance with the Development Agreement. 4 f ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS 10. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the permittee shall acknowledge in writing all of the conditions of approval of the Master Plan Amendment and must accept this Master Plan Amendment subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for the Master Plan, as approved herein, Planned Development and Design Review to be exercised. MASTER PLAN, TENTATIVE MAP AND MMRP COMPLIANCE 11. The Master Plan Amendment shall be in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Catellus Alameda Project Master Plan (January 2, 2002), Amended Tentative Map (November 19, 2001), Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, and other entitlements, as amended; City infrastructure design standards, as revised by the City Engineer; as well as the mitigations contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as amended, prepared for the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project. 5 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 Headquarters Southern California Office 1400 K STREET 602 East Huntin4doii Dr., Ste, C SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Monrovia, CA 91016' f PH: (916) 658 -8200 rx: (626) 305 -1315. Ex: (916) 658 -8240 rx: (626) 305 -1345 June 30, 2004 LEAGUE OF CALIFIRNIA CITES WWW. CACITI ES. ORG To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Ron Loveridge, League President, Mayor, Riverside Re: Designation of Voting Delegate for 2004 League Annual Conference The League's 2004 Annual Conference is scheduled for Friday, September 17 through Sunday, September 19 in Long Beach. One very important aspect of the annual conference is the annual business meeting where the membership takes action on conference resolutions. Annual conference resolutions guide cities and the League in our efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government in California. It is important that all cities be represented at the Annual Business Meeting on Sunday, September 19, at 10:15 a.m. at the Long Beach Convention Center. To expedite the conduct of business at this important policy- making meeting, each city council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be registered at the conference and present at the Annual Business Meeting. A voting card will be given to the city official that is designated and indicated on the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form." Please complete and return the enclosed form to the League's Sacramento office at the earliest possible time (not later than Friday, August 20, 2004), so that proper records may be established for the conference. The city's designated voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Card desk located in the League registration area. The Desk will be open on September 17, 18, and 19. Voting cards should be picked up before the Annual Business Meeting on September 19. The voting procedures to be followed at this conference are printed on the reverse side of this memo. Your help in returning the attached "Voting Delegate Form" as soon as possible is appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Lorraine Okabe at (916) 658 -8236. Re: Council Communication #7 -A 7 -20 -04 'F LEAGUE CITIES Annual Conference Voting Procedures 1. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. 2. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. 3. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city should designate a voting delegate and an alternate and return the Voting Delegate Form to the League Credentials Committee. 4. The voting delegate, or alternate, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting card desk in the conference registration area. 5. Free exchange of the voting card between the voting delegate and alternate is permitted. 6. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Business Meeting, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange. Prior to the Business Meeting, exchanges may be made at the "Voting Card" table in the League Registration Area. At the Business Meeting, exchanges may be made at the "Voting Card" table in the front of the meeting room. Exchanges may not be made while a roll call vote is in progress because the Credentials Committee will be conducting the roll call. 7. Qualification of an initiative resolution is judged in part by the validity of signatures. Only the signatures of city officials who are authorized to use the city's voting card, and who have left a sample of their signature on file for the Credentials Committee, will be approved. 8. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting. CITY: oEAGUE CITIES 2004 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE FORM 1. VOTING DELEGATE: (Name) (Title) 2. VOTING ALTERNATE: (Name) (Title) ATTEST: (Name) (Title) PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN TO: League of California Cities Attn: Lorraine Okabe 1400 K Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Cai Fax: (916) 658 -8240 Deadline: Friday, August 20, 2004 G:\LEGISLTV\POLICY\ACRES \04 Annual Conference \letter, VoteDel 04.doc