2007-02-06 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 6, 2007 - - - 7:00 p.m.
Time: Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:00 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call - City Council
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources
Director
Employee Organizations: Alameda City Employees Association
and Police Association Non -Sworn
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment - City Council
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 6, 2007 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue
and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business
introduced by Board Members may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on
an agenda item.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL - Alameda Public Improvement Corporation
2. MINUTES
2 -A. Minutes of the Annual APIC Meeting of February 7, 2006. (City
Clerk)
3. AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Board in regard to any matter over
which the Board has jurisdiction or of which it may take
cognizance, that is not on the agenda.
5. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from the Board)
6. ADJOURNMENT - Alameda Public Improvement Corporation
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the
podium and state your name; speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 6, 2007 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, 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 7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT 7:27 P.M.
CORPORATION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation declaring the period of January 30, 2007 to April
4, 2007 as A Season for Nonviolence.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public
4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on January 16, 2007. (City Clerk)
4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance)
4 -C. Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call for
Bids for three marked police vehicles. (Police)
4 -D. Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Oakland to
participate in the California Task Force #4 Urban Search and
Rescue Team. (Fire)
4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney
for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2.
(Public Works)
4 -F. Adoption of Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney
for Maintenance Assessment District 01 -1 (Marina Cove).
(Public Works)
4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Approving Revised Memorandum of
Understanding Between the Alameda City Employees Association
and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing July 1, 2006
and Ending June 30, 2009. (Human Resources)
4 -H. Introduction of Ordinance to Repeal the Existing Time Limit
for Incurring Debt in the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project. (Development Services)
4 -I. Final Passage of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Property
Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street from
M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to MX, Mixed
Use Planned Development District (MX); and
• Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Master Plan MP05 -01
for a Mixed Use Development Including Single- Family
Residential, Recreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and
Open Space Uses, Located Within a Project Area Encompassing
Approximately 8.36 Acres of Land and Water at the
Intersection of Grand Street and the Oakland Estuary.
(Planning and Building)
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs for
Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan. (Development
Services)
5 -B. Consideration of an Appeal of the Transportation Commission's
decision to install new bus stops on Otis Drive at Pond Isle,
and authorization to install new bus stops at Otis Drive and
Sandcreek Way, and Otis Drive and Willow Street. (Public
Works)
5 -C. Recommendation to accept comprehensive Sidewalk Repair Program
and adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids
for the Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 repair of Portland Cement
Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway and minor street
patching, No. P.W. 08- 06 -18. (Public Works)
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended
7 -A. Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
League of California Cities East Bay Division representative.
(Continued from January 16, 2007)
7 -B. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Housing Commission.
8. ADJOURNMENT - City Council
* **
• For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a
written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk
at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please
contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at
least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter.
• Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use.
For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD
number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including
those using wheelchairs, is available.
• Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print.
• Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
• Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda
materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy
the benefits of the meeting.
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -7:25 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Boy Scout
Troup 6 led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
(06- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Public
Improvement Corporation (APIC) and Alameda Public Financing
Authority Meeting of February 17, 2004 and the Annual APIC Meeting
of February 1, 2005. Approved.
Board Member deHaan moved approval of the minutes.
Board Member Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual
Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Alameda Public Improvement
Corporation
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Annual Meeting
Alameda Public Improvement Corporation
February 7, 2006
WHEREAS,
Proc&amation
the City of Alameda, the State of California and our Nation continue to
confront the challenges of violence in the form of hate crimes, brutality,
domestic abuse, and other forms of inhumanity; and
WHEREAS, violence in actions, attitudes, and words is pervasive in our society; and
WHEREAS,
an awareness of nonviolent principles and practices is a powerful way to
heal and transform our lives and communities, to recognize the dignity
and worth of every human being, and to promote peace and harmony
among all people regardless of race, color, culture, class, language, faith,
age, gender, sexual orientation, or other apparent difference; and
WHEREAS, the principles and practices of nonviolence were epitomized in the lives
and work of Mahatma Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
an international campaign has been organized as the Season for
Nonviolence, to extend from January 30 through April 4 of each year,
the anniversaries of the assassinations of Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. King
and began in 1998 with observances at the United Nations and in
hundreds of cities and locales around the world; and
during the 2007 Season for Nonviolence, groups throughout the world
will sponsor projects and programs to create greater awareness and
consciousness of the principles and practices of nonviolence; and
in Alameda we have a great opportunity to focus our hearts and minds
on nonviolence in recognition and celebration of a Season for
Nonviolence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the
City of Alameda, do hereby declare the period of January 30, 2007 to April 4, 2007 as
A SEASON FOR NONVIOLENCE
and encourage all citizens of Alameda to participate in a celebration of our community's cultural
and ethnic diversity by being nonviolent in actions and interactions with each other in our
homes, schools, and society, and to su•.ort programs and projects conducted in the spirit of
acceptance and nonviolence.
Beverly
Ma
Agenda Item #3 -A
02 -06 -07
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - JANUARY 16, 2007 - - - 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One.
(07- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54956.9); Name of case: Attari v. City of Alameda.
(07- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
Alameda City Employees Association and Police Association Non -
Sworn. Not discussed.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation,
Council received a briefing from the City Attorney and no action
was taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a
briefing and gave direction to the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
January 16, 2007
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - JANUARY 16, 2007- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:19 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07- ) Proclamation expressing appreciation to Rich Teske for
his twenty -six years of service on the Rent Review Advisory
Committee.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Rich Teske.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the proclamation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which passed by
consensus.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Joining the Statewide
Community Infrastructure Program [paragraph no. 07- ] was removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the
December 5, 2006 minutes.]
Councilmember deHaan thanked Alameda Power & Telecom and Fire
Department for the review and recommendation on the sale of
emergency generators [paragraph no. *07- ].
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 16, 2007
1
( *07- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on December 5, 2006, and the Special and Regular City
Council Meetings held on January 2, 2007. Approved.
[Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the December 5, 2006
minutes.]
( *07- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,619,985.25.
( *07- ) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment
Policy. Accepted.
( *07- ) Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk for
the Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 26, No. P.W.
03- 06 -08. Accepted.
( *07- ) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Crosswalk In- Pavement Lights at Various
Locations in the City of Alameda, No. P. W. 07- 04 -07, Federal ID:
STPLH -5014 (025). Accepted.
( *07- ) Recommendation to appropriate $157,000 in Sewer Enterprise
Funds and award a Contract in the amount of $562,000, including
contingencies, to Pacific Liners Pipeline Rehabilitation for the
Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, No. P.W. 10 -06-
21. Accepted.
( *07- ) Resolution No. 14057, "Authorizing and Approving Sale of
Emergency Generators and Associated Electrical Equipment to Cummins
West, Inc. for $832,000." Adopted.
( *07- ) Resolution No. 14058, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Tiburon, Inc. Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City
Charter for a Mobile Data System Upgrade in the Amount of
$66,545.00." Adopted.
(07- ) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14059, "Joining
the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and Authorizing the
California Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept
Applications from Property Owners, Conduct Special Assessment
Proceedings and Levy Assessments Within the Territory of the City
of Alameda and Authorizing Related Actions." Adopted.
The Business Development Division Manager gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Program would apply to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
January 16, 2007
small -scale development.
The Business Development Division Manager responded anyone could
participate; stated usually, a $250,000 to $300,000 threshold is
needed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City ever carried bonds
before.
The Business Development Division Manager responded the City has
never carried bonds for private development.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether other communities have a high
participation level.
The Business Development Division Manager responded the Program is
new; stated there is no cost; a lot of cities have joined because
the Program provides an economic tool for future development.
Mayor Johnson stated the Program is a financial tool that would
benefit the community.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *07- ) Public hearing to consider approval of Tentative Map
Tract 7846 (TM06 -0006) for the purpose of establishing eight
residential lots within four buildings located at 626 Buena Vista
Avenue within the R -4 -PD Neighborhood Residential Planned
Development Zoning District; and
( *07- A) Resolution No. 14060, "Approving Tentative Map Tract
7846, TM06 -0006, for the Purpose of Establishing Eight Residential
Lots within Four Buildings Located at 626 Buena Vista Avenue."
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07- ) Public Hearing to consider a proposal by Warmington
Homes, California for a General Plan Amendment (GP05 -002), Rezoning
(R05 -004), Master Plan (MP05 -001), Tentative Map (TM05 -002), and
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS05 -0003) for
development of forty new, detached single- family residences, and
related utilities, streets, open space and visitor parking; and an
appeal of certain Conditions of Approval on Development Plan and
Design Review permits (PD05 -02). The project site is located at the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
January 16, 2007
northwest corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way at 2051 -2099
Grand Street;
(07- A) Resolution No. 14061, "Adopting the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the
Grand Marina Village Development Located at the Northwest Corner of
Grand Street and Fortmann Way (State Clearinghouse #2006 -04- 2145)."
Adopted;
(07- B) Resolution No. 14062, "Approving General Plan Amendment
(GPA- 05 -02) for Grand Marina Village to Amend the General Plan Land
Use Diagram to Change the Designation of Approximately 8.3
Acres to Specified Mixed Use and Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6
and Associated Tables of the Land Use Element to Reflect the
Specified Mixed Use Designation." Adopted;
(07- C) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Property Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street
from M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to MX, Mixed
Use Planned Development District (MX). Introduced;
(07- D) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan MP05 -01
for a Mixed Use Development Including Single- Family Residential,
Recreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses,
Located Within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres
of Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the
Oakland Estuary. Introduced;
(07- E) Resolution No. 14063, "Approving Tentative Map, TM05-
0002, for Property Located Between Grand Street, Fortmann Way, and
the Oakland Estuary." Adopted; and
(07- F) Resolution No. 14064, "Upholding Planning Board Approval
of Planned Development PD05 -02 and Design Review DR05 -0126 for
Grand Marina Village." Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff recommends an asphalt
path.
The Supervising Planner responded staff recommends keeping the
asphalt as long as adequate width and good transitions exist
between the asphalt and other materials..
Mayor Johnson inquired who would be responsible for the
maintenance, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Grand
Marina.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether defined maintenance levels would be
required; stated the Planning Board might have thought that asphalt
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
January 16, 2007
would not last as long as concrete.
The Supervising Planner responded the existing asphalt path is on
the Grand Marina property; stated the Applicant would do all the
landscaping and improvements.
Mayor Johnson inquired who owns the Grand Marina, to which the
Supervising Planner responded the Grand Marina is under lease to
Peter Wang.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has the ability to require
Mr. Wang to maintain the area at a certain level, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ability is real, to which the
Supervising Planner responded he was not sure.
Mayor Johnson stated she could see where the Planning Board would
prefer concrete if the City does not have the ability to ensure
proper maintenance.
The Supervising Planner stated the property is subject to a Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the Kaufman and Broad
trail, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the Municipal
Services District.
The Public Works Director stated the trail is maintained by the
Recreation and Park Department; funding is through the Municipal
Services District.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board wanted to
replicate the Kaufman and Broad development pathway.
The Public Works Director responded maintenance is part of the
Grand Marina lease requirement; stated the Leasee would be required
to maintain the area at a level that is acceptable to the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wang is in compliance with every
lease condition, to which the Public Works Director responded
thathe did not know.
The Supervising Planner stated concrete would be easier to
maintain; the Master Plan covers the entire area; Council could
make maintenance recommendations and implement the recommendations
in the Grand Marina lease.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 16, 2007
5
Councilmember deHaan stated the Bridgeside gravel is starting to
erode; material and maintenance policies should be reviewed.
The Supervising Planner stated Council could impose a Master Plan
condition that would require that the Grand Marina residential
project be responsible for maintenance of the public triangular
parks; the condition could be expanded to include that the
Homeowners Association be responsible for the portions outside of
the parks.
Mayor Johnson stated the path is a public access and could become a
safety issue if the Grand Marina was not responsible for
maintenance; the path would become a problem for the City; inquired
whether agreements exist between Grand Marina and the Applicant.
The Supervising Planner responded agreements are between the City
and Mr. Wang, Warmington Homes and Mr. Wang, and Master Plan
entitlements.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant would have the ability
to pass on maintenance costs to the Grand Marina, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
The Supervising Planner continued with the presentation.
The Architect provided a video presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents: (In favor of project appeal): David Day, Applicant; Dan
Lachman, Alameda Development Corporation.
Opponent: (Not in favor of project appeal): Richard W. Rutter,
Alameda.
Neutral: Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Following the Applicant's comments, Mayor Johnson stated the
Bayport duplexes are very good; inquired why duplexes were not
considered for the proposed project.
The Applicant responded an attached product costs more to build
because of insurance; stated the proposed project has great
architectural quality; height diversity is good.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 16, 2007
6
Mayor Johnson stated that she likes the garages in the back.
Councilmember deHaan stated he has heard complaints that the
Bayport sidewalks are not wide enough; inquired whether the
proposed sidewalks would be wide enough.
The Supervising Planner responded public sidewalks have a five -foot
minimum width.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Bayport's sidewalks have a
five -foot minimum width, to which the Supervising Planner responded
some Bayport sidewalks are less than five feet wide.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the basic selling price for
the Bayport homes.
Mr. Lachman responded each phase has been different because of
income; the first sixteen homes sold for $273,000 based on 11O% of
area medium income; the other sixteen homes sold for $236,000 based
on 100% of area medium income; the new phase would be $212,00 based
on 90% of area medium income.
The Supervising Planner stated that the Homeowners Association
would cover all maintenance, including the path.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she dislikes the third story pop -
ups; she appreciates Mr. Rutter's and Mr. Buckley's research; she
prefers the Murano project roofline; the Planning Board does not
like slider windows in developments; windows that have dividers
between two slabs of glass do not provide the detail and definition
for the project's caliber; she would like to add a condition that
would require windows to have dividers raised outside of the glass.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore;
stated that he does not see the need for the east /west paseo that
cuts from the alleyway through Hibbard Street to the parkway; every
house could be considered waterfront property; the market rate and
affordable houses are dispersed; the development is better than
previous developments; staff could work with the Applicant on the
third floor design; the existing asphalt path does not touch the
Marina Cove development because of the wooden dock; the paseo
condition is not needed as long as the asphalt is maintained and
matches the proposed treatments in the round areas at the foot of
Hibbard Street.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;
stated she wants to ensure that there is consistent width; the path
narrows at certains points; she is concerned with pedestrian
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
January 16, 2007
safety.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the 430 square -foot third story has
any functionality beyond architectural diversity.
The Supervising Planner responded the third story provides two
additional rooms.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Buckley proposed incorporating the third
story into the roofline.
The Supervising Planner stated staff could work with the Applicant
on roof design.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council needs to help modify the
third -story condition to be more explicit in terms of what staff is
directed to do.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Gilmore suggested using Mr.
Buckley's examples.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether direction needs to be explicit in
the condition.
Mayor Johnson responded the condition should be revised to make the
changes explicit; stated the design changes are significant;
inquired whether the design changes should go back to the Planning
Board for review.
The Supervising Planner responded staff could work with the
Applicant; stated residential guidelines do not address new three -
story buildings, only additions.
Mayor Johnson stated the changes are not small.
The Applicant stated Mr.Buckley referenced a Centax project where
the third floors go from side to side; one side has a three -story
wall and the other side has a two -story wall in the current design;
the third -floor pop -up would be closer to the street.
Mayor Johnson stated she likes the Murano project design better.
The Applicant stated a jewel box design was used.
Councilmember deHaan stated more space could be gained with the
Murano project design.
The Applicant stated he would prefer to work with staff and not go
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
January 16, 2007
back to the Planning Board.
Councilmember deHaan stated he is concerned with the material used
at Bridgeside; staff needs to look at material consistency;
inquired whether the common area is part of the 2,000 square -foot
lot, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the project is contrary to
Measure A.
The Supervising Planner responded the project is consistent with
Measure A, the City Charter, and the General Plan; stated every
parcel is at least 2,000 square feet; all forty parcels have some
form of public access easement; the overall project is well within
Measure A density requirements.
Councilmember deHaan stated the project is breaking new ground.
The Supervising Planner stated the project design is intended to
maximize public open space; the tradeoff is smaller lots.
Councilmember deHaan stated the paseos work because of lot
configurations but is not something he would highly recommend.
The Supervising Planner stated the project provides an opportunity
to try a small lot subdivision; the project was completely
redesigned after the Planning Board study sessions.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why palm trees are planned for
Hibbard Street instead of full trees.
The Supervising Planner responded palm trees need to be removed;
stated the plan is to reuse the trees and align Hibbard Street to
eventually come through the Pennzoil site and connect with the
Marina Cove development.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the plan for the rest of the
street.
The Supervising Planner stated the trees can be extended down
Hibbard Street; a decision would need to be made about whether or
not to continue the palm trees to the Pennzoil site.
Councilmember deHaan stated past Planning Board discussions have
addressed palm trees not providing enough shade; he would prefer
not to have palm trees.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she would like to have staff review
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 16, 2007
9
how the houses front Grand Street; staff and the Applicant should
ensure the design is detailed, not bland.
The Supervising Planner stated Council could modify the condition
to include the Grand Street elevations.
Mayor Johnson inquired what type of landscaping would be provided
on Grand Street.
The Supervising Planner responded the Homeowners Association would
provide new sidewalks and landscaping; big trees are not proposed
because of utilities.
Mr. Day stated Warmington Homes has agreed to design the third
story as close to the Murano project as possible.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not see a distinction
between the market rate and affordable home designs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he sees the potential for forty
new Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) customers; inquired whether an
AP &T marketing plan and hookup installation could be added to the
conditions, to which the City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions and
introduced ordinances with the following exceptions: 1) the
Planning Director is to work with the Applicant to redesign the
third floor pop -ups to look like the examples of the Murano project
in Cupertino, 2) directed staff to work with the Applicant and
Christopher Buckley on the Grand Street elevations, 3) eliminate
slider windows, and 4) AP &T be installed and marketed similar to
the Alameda Landing project.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07- ) Consideration of an appeal of the Public Works Director's
decision to deny a request to remove eight street trees along 2101
Shoreline Drive in accordance with City's Master Tree Plan.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the
eight trees, to which the Public Works Director responded
approximately ten to twenty units.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired when the trees were last pruned.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
January 16, 2007
The Public Works Director responded approximately seven years ago;
stated the Tree Pruning Program funding was reduced.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal): Robert Matz, The Directly Affected
Homeowners, Don Patterson, Alameda. Betty Snider, Alameda and
Charles Moneder, Alameda (time yielded to Mr. Matz).
Opponent (Not in favor of appeal): Karen Stern, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the
eight trees, to which Mr. Matz responded twenty.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the units are two - story.
Mr. Matz responded in the affirmative; stated the entrance is on
the second story; the bedrooms are downstairs.
Councilmember deHaan stated Shoreline Drive has a variety of trees;
some Grand Street trees have been replaced by the homeowners;
inquired whether the replanted trees are proper.
The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated he has
been working with the City Attorney's office on drafting a letter
to the homeowners.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what type of trees would be planted.
The Public Works Director responded the Tree Master Plan allows for
three different types; stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is the
preferred tree.
Councilmember deHaan stated the trees vary in height and fullness;
inquired whether the Tree Trimming Program is in force.
The Public Works Director responded the Tree Trimming Program
allows for tree pruning every five years when funding is available;
stated recently Council restored the funding; catch -up needs to be
done; residents are required to get tree trimming permits; not all
residents obtained permits; enforcement is difficult.
Councilmember deHaan stated some of the Shoreline Drive trees have
been pruned severely.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 16, 2007
11
The Public Works Director stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is
very hardy and comes back rapidly.
Councilmember deHaan stated unauthorized tree pruning is concerning
because trees are important to the City.
The Public Works Director stated that he does not have the staff to
police tree pruning; residents deny knowledge of tree trimming.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether tree infill plans are
underway, to which the Public Works Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the rest of Alameda would be impacted
by how trees are infilled.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Ms. Guthrie invited her to view the trees and
visit Mr. Matz's unit; some residents have chopped the trees;
inquired whether the trees could be moved.
The Public Works Director responded he was not sure whether the
trees would remain healthy; stated the move would be very
expensive.
Councilmember Gilmore stated trees grow; questioned whether the
same issue would come up in twenty years if the trees are replaced;
she does not want to get into a cycle of replacing healthy trees
periodically; the City has higher uses for money than replacing
trees cyclically.
The Public Works Director stated Mr. Matz's Master Tree Plan
reference is not the section that addresses when trees should be
removed; the section addresses how trees are selected.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a trimming and pruning option has
been suggested to increase the view line and preserve mature trees;
the Tree Master Plan needs some updating; carbon sequesters are of
greater inmportance; view restoration can be accomplished; now is
the time to take a second look at the Tree Master Plan.
Councilmember deHaan stated sometimes mistakes are made when trees
are planted; the intent is to add more trees down Shoreline Drive
and help the eco system; street trees should be uniform; tree
infilling opportunities exist throughout the City; he is not sure
whether views would improve if the trees are replaced.
Mayor Johnson stated many trees have died and have not been
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 16, 2007
12
replaced; inquired whether trees are planted in existing planting
areas.
The Public Works Director responded sometimes planting cannot be
done at the same location because of the root ball; stated the Tree
Master plan has restrictions regarding planting locations.
Mayor Johnson stated the goal is to plant as many trees as
possible; Westline Drive and Harbor Bay waterfront areas have
existing trees; Council needs to be very careful in setting a
precedent regarding removing trees in areas with a view; concurred
with Councilmember Matarrese regarding reviewing and updating the
Master Tree Plan; inquired whether the City would do the pruning
every year at the expense of the Homeowners Association.
The Public Works Director responded the City would prune the first
and fifth year; the City would prune in the intervening years at
the homeowner's expense.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the five -year pruning policy would
be reinstituted starting this year; the City would prune the trees
down to the 25% crown with an arborist's consultation and City
funds; the City and arborist would be involved if the homeowners
wants the trees pruned within the five year interim; the cost would
be born by the homeowners.
Councilmember deHaan requested than an arborist review topping the
trees to bring the trees back into proportion.
Mayor Johnson stated the 25% crown pruning is quite substantial.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she would never vote to remove a tree
unless other options were considered; the trees are behind in the
normal pruning schedule; concurred that the Master Tree Plan needs
updating; stated coastal areas need attention; suggested reviewing
avenues for having coastal trees pruned more frequently and
involving the Homeowners Association with the pruning in the
intervening years.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of upholding the Public Works
Director's decision with direction for staff to work with a
certified arborist to prune the trees and reduce the height and
fullness without jeopardizing the trees and to work on updating the
Master Tree Plan.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she has lived in the area for a long time;
her front tree grew to two and a half inches in diameter in thirty
years; the City needs to be more conscious in maintaining and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
January 16, 2007
pruning trees.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with additional
direction that the Master Tree Plan be reviewed by the Climate
Protection Campaign Task Force.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the Harbor Bay Bay
Trail and Marina Village waterfront homes have no trees; clustered
trees are in park areas; he is concerned with the infill proposed
for Shoreline Drive.
Mayor Johnson stated trees are scattered throughout the Harbor Bay
Bay Trail area; questioned whether the Tree Master Plan review and
update would occur before or after the proposed infill.
The Public Works Director stated carbon sequester trees would be
reviewed as part of tree placement.
Mayor Johnson stated Council should review whether fines should be
imposed if a homeowner removes a tree.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07- ) Recommendation to approve funding request for Alameda Big
Box Study Support not to exceed $50,000 from General Fund Reserves.
The Business Development Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation): David Howard,
Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports spending reserve
funds for infrastructure improvements; he has a hard time spending
reserve money on a study; inquired whether the study could be
funded with money budgeted elsewhere; stated that he would not
support taking the money from the General Fund Reserves.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Business
Development Manager responded all outside consultant fees have been
encumbered.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether money could be used from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
January 16, 2007
funds that are not encumbered yet, to which the Business
Development Manager responded in the negative.
The City Manager stated the Development Services Director is in the
process of re- evaluating the budget; opportunities do not exist to
fund the study in the current fiscal year.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Towne Center, Alameda
Landing or Alameda Point funds are available; stated said areas are
relevant to the big box study.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether money could be taken from the
Planning Department impact fees.
The City Manager responded money was not budgeted for the study.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is not whether money
was budgeted; the question is whether $50,000 can be taken from
another source.
The Business Development Manager responded the issue would need to
be reviewed; stated the proposed study would not be just for
Alameda Point, but the whole Island; a portion might be
appropriate, but not one hundred percent.
Councilmember Matarrese stated funds must have been budgeted to
support the projects.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the City
has full cost recovery for the Alameda Landing project; all staff
salaries are paid by the developer; the developer funded a retail
impact analysis as part of the entitlement process for
approximately $35,000; the study led to the retail mix
recommendations.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is required
for proposals, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is different
from a big box study; stated she is surprised by the cost. •
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded some
goals and objections may be captured; stated the measurement would
address whether the proposed project competes with or is compatible
with existing retail.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail study would include other
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
January 16, 2007
impacts, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the first question is whether there
should be big box at all; a retail impact fee would help answer the
question; he does not approve of using General Fund Reserves for a
study.
Councilmember deHaan stated alternate funding sources should be
reviewed; the June 2006 study replicates retail for the Towne
Center; leakage needs to be understood and impacts analyzed; it is
unknown how the proposed Borders would impact Books, Inc.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval to direct staff to identify
alternate funds and bargain the price down at the same time.
Councilmember Gilmore agreed that General Fund Reserves should not
be used for the study; stated the study should not duplicate
previous studies; all studies should be pulled together for a
complete picture.
Mayor Johnson stated the City has a City -wide Retail Strategic
Plan.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Economic Development Commission
was requested to update said plan.
Mayor Johnson questioned whether any additional information would
come out of the study.
Councilmember Gilmore questioned whether the study would provide
any new information; stated that she only wants to do a new study
if it is needed.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she had an opportunity to review the 2004
Citywide Retail policy; the County's examination of the Community
Impact analysis adds value with respect to impacts on workers,
health benefits, City services, and nearby merchants; it is hard
for a financially struggling City to justify spending reserve funds
for the study; stated she supports Councilmember Matarrese's
motion.
Councilmember Matarrese amended the motion to direct staff to
convene the Task Force and use existing studies to formulate
conclusions and recommendations that may include an additional
study if needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City's retail leakage requirements
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
January 16, 2007
need to be in proportion to big boxes; the public should be
involved in discussions.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07- ) Ordinance No. 2960, "Approving Development Agreement DA-
06 -0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition
Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development
Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet
of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; and 300,000
Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space
and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space." Finally
passed.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief
presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the amendment is good and fair and
is easily understood; he appreciates the time and thought that
staff put into the amendment; proper recognition has been given to
funding the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether TDM measurements have been
determined.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
success criteria would be developed and submitted as part of the
TDM Program that would go back to the Transportation Commission and
Planning Board; stated the Transportation Commission is scheduled
to begin discussions on January 31.
Councilmember deHaan stated different traffic patterns are set with
entitlement changes; most mitigations are not just for people in
Alameda but for visitors; inquired whether the TDM would address
the issue.
The Base Reuse and Community Development. Manager responded the
minimum TDM Phase One components were all developed as part of the
new, mixed -use project.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether certain mitigations could be
resolved before developments are in place.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
developer has stated that the minimum Phase One components would
cost more than what would be collected; stated Condition 11 lays
out the Phase One TDM components and has not changed since the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
January 16, 2007
project was approved on December 5.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has not heard any discussion
regarding taking care of visitors coming into Alameda or Alameda
Point.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam echoed Councilmember Matarrese's
commending staff.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(07- ) David Howard, Alameda, discussed transportation and
submitted a handout on a parking institute policy brief.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07- ) Vice Mayor Tam provided a brief report on the League of
California Cities conference and orientation for new
Councilmembers; stated approximately 440 people attended; the
sessions provided a good overview of best practices in City
governance, the Brown Act, updates on emerging legislation, and
land use policies; the Governor's newly released budget seems to be
favorable for local governments; AB 2511 compliance is an issue;
encouraged Council to participate in the July conference.
Mayor Johnson stated she has encouraged Councilmembers to attend
the July conference every year; requested that the City Clerk try
to schedule Councilmembers to attend.
The City Manager stated the conference is scheduled for July 25
through 28.
(07- ) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
League of California Cities East Bay Division representative.
Continued to February 6, 2007.
Vice Mayor Tam volunteered to serve as the League's representative.
Councilmember deHaan stated he would like the opportunity to serve
also.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 16, 2007
18
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she was interested in serving on the
Environmental Quality Policy Committee, which deals with emerging
regulations such as global warming.
Mayor Johnson stated former Vice Mayor Daysog also served on the
Airport Operating Committee; requested that Councilmembers let her
know their areas of interest before the next Council meeting.
(07- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated an Alameda Power and
Telcom (AP &T) consultant report was published in the newspaper;
requested that Council receive a briefing on decisions and
recommendations after the public workshops.
The City Manager stated the process would begin this week; the
public is invited to attend two public forums scheduled for
Thursday and Saturday; a voice over Internet protocol is one of the
consultant's recommendations; updates will be provided to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the update be provided in the
first quarter.
(07- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated he has heard concerns that
Alameda does not have a Cultural Arts Center; he would like to have
the matter reviewed by the Public Arts Commission.
(07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated webcasting is available but
is only utilized in the Chambers; suggested that the AP &T workshop
meetings be available to the public through webcasting.
(07- ) Councilmember deHaan requested that Closed Session
information be released on Alameda Point negotiations.
(07- ) Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a
mechanism for requiring shopping carts to have boots; stated the
boots would be helpful in limiting stray shopping cart problems at
Alameda Landing, Bridgeside, and Alameda Towne Center.
Mayor Johnson stated the Police Department has been requested to
review the issue in the past; suggested that a phone number be
placed on the shopping carts for stores to pick up carts within a
certain number of hours.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:50 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 16, 2007
19
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
January 16, 2007
20
February 1, 2007
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the
City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers Amount
155949 - 156516
EFT 295
EFT 296
EFT 297
EFT 298
EFT 299
EFT 300
EFT 301
EFT 302
EFT 303
EFT 305
EFT 306
EFT 307
EFT 308
EFT 309
EFT 310
EFT 311
EFT 312
Void Checks:
$3,026,718.59
$56,066.65
$24,848.02
$26,933.16
$12,943.50
$42,091.77
$1,456.04
$12,943.50
$52,795.44
$519,514.60
$82,396.63
$28,673.64
$585,865.49
$540,263.85
$98,505.00
$26,872.24
$241,850.12
$245,800.00
155622
155581 ($276.56)
156000 ($104.00)
155164 ($1,088.21)
122434 ($1,500.00)
($852.50)
GRAND TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
mela J. Sibley
Council Warrants 02/06/07
4
$5,622,716.97
BILLS #4 -B
2/6/2007
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 6, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt Specifications and Authorize Call for
Bids for Three Marked Police Vehicles
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2006, City Council adopted Resolution No. 13951 establishing guiding
principles for the management of the City's fleet. In compliance with the fleet
replacement criteria, the Public Works Director has recommended the
replacement of three marked police vehicles.
DISCUSSION
City staff seeks approval to adopt specifications and authorize calling for bids for
three marked Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors. This particular model
continues to be the State of California standard in marked police vehicles, due
primarily to its size, overall responsiveness and safety crash test performance.
City Staff reviewed the functional requirements of a marked police vehicle and
have collectively determined that utilizing an alternative fuel vehicle does not
meet the department's needs. The specifications for the Ford Crown Victoria
Police Interceptor are attached.
The replaced vehicles will be removed from the fleet inventory, sold at auction
and revenues returned to the fleet replacement fund in accordance with
Resolution No. 13951.
With Council authorization, the City Clerk will publish a public notice announcing
the open bid. Bids proposals will be received until 2:00 P.M. on Friday, February
27, 2007.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The cost for these three vehicles, $96,300, is included in the FY 06/07 managed
vehicle replacement program fund. Whenever possible, existing safety
equipment will be recycled.
Agenda Item #4 -C CC
02 -06 -07
Honorable Mayor and February 6, 2007
Councitmembers Page 2 of 2
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt specifications and authorize Call for Bids for three marked police vehicles.
Respectfully submitted,
Walter B. Tibbet
Chief of Police
DK/VVBT: jsb
Attachment A
Attachment A
SPECIFICATIONS FOR POLICE VEHICLE PURCHASE
The City of Alameda is seeking proposals for the purchase of three new 2007
Ford Crown Victoria Interceptor (P71) including all standard equipment and
the following options:
Factory Codes
Description
730A
Base Package
41A
Comfort and Convenience Package
153
License Plate Bracket
177
Silicone Hoses with Aircraft Clamps
185
Lateral Bow Reinforcement
423
California Emissions Systems not required
432
Keyed alike
478
Courtesy Lamp Disable
936
California Public Service /emergency Vehicle Exemption
948
Windows, Rear Power Delete
955
Tu -Tone paint, #3, Accent color is applied on the roof and front doors
14T
Trunk Pack
45C
3.27 Axle/Traction lock
51Y
Lamp, Dual Spot Assembly
53M
Radio Suppression Package
58F
AM /FM Stereo
59C
Pedal, Power Adjustable
59M
Air Bags, side (driver and passenger)
60S
Automated Fire Suppression System w /Manual Override
61 H
Deck lid Release on Door & Ignition Powered
67R
Locks /Handles inoperable, Rear Door
68P
Complete Police Prep Package
90B
Ballistic Door Panels- Driver & front doors
96B
Front body side molding
99W
4.6L SEFI OHC V8 Engine
IN
Interior trim - Dark Charcoal Cloth Front Bucket Seats, vinyl rear
UA/WT
Exterior trim - Black Clearcoat with Vibrant White Clearcoat Accent
Color
EXTENDED WARRANTY
Easy Care Powertrain Extended Warranty, 5 year, 75,000 miles, with $100
deductible, to begin when the unit is placed in service. Dealer will be responsible
for registering the vehicles as Exempt vehicles with the Department of Motor
Vehicles and have the plates sent or delivered directly to the Police Department.
VENDOR DELIVERY DATE:
Vehicles must be delivered within thirty days of award of contract.
Attachment A
Agenda Item #4 -C CC
02 -06 -07
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
February 6, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor
and Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Authorize the Fire Chief to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with
the City of Oakland to participate in the California Task Force #4 Urban
Search and Rescue Team
BACKGROUND
Urban search - and - rescue (USAR) involves the location, rescue (extrication), and initial
medical stabilization of victims trapped in confined spaces. Structural collapse is most
often the cause of victims being trapped, but victims may also be trapped in
transportation accidents and collapsed trenches.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has developed a national
program to organize existing local agencies' search and rescue capability into a national
program in order to efficiently deploy these local teams to a national event. These
teams have additional training, and must be able to deploy within six hours and to
sustain themselves for 72 hours. To receive the FEMA certification, the team must be
approved by a USAR oversight board that includes leaders in the field and FEMA
officials.
DISCUSSION
Currently, there are eight Task Force Teams in California with a total of 28 across the
nation. California Task Force Four (CATF -4) operates out of Alameda County and is
sponsored by the Oakland Fire Department. As the sponsor, all reimbursements for
employee costs due to deployment and reimbursed training must be processed through
the City of Oakland which requires a MOA between the City of Oakland and all CATF -4
participating agencies. The benefit of the City's involvement in this task force is that
CATF -4 would be available to respond and assist City of Alameda residents in the event
of a local disaster and also provide our members with valuable training and experience
that they bring back to provide a higher level of care to our community.
When members of the Alameda Fire Department become part of the CATF -4, and are
deployed to an incident, all overtime and benefits, including those for backfill are eligible
for reimbursement by FEMA or OES through the City of Oakland. Some training costs,
Agenda Item #4 -D CC
02 -06 -07
Honorable Mayor and February 6, 2007
Councilmembers Page 2
including overtime and benefits, are also eligible for reimbursement. City of Alameda
financial liability will be for some quarterly training and meetings, and for non - safety
related uniform items.
Upon initially joining, only two members of staff will participate in order to reduce
negative impacts to local staffing. Absences due to deployment of the CATF -4 would
cause more regular or mandatory overtime.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action will not affect the Municipal Code.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
Estimated annual costs for two members would be as follows:
1.) Training — 2 members X 8 Hrs @ $55 X 4 quarterly classes per year = $3,520
2.) Meetings — 2 members X 8 Hrs @ $55 X 4 meetings per year = $3,520
3.) Additional training as needed — approximately $5,000
4.) Uniforms — 2 members X $250 = $500
Total: $12,540 per year. This amount may be reduced in the event employees apply
for educational incentive credit in lieu of overtime and /or one or more of the
members on the team are management employees and do not receive overtime.
$12,540 will be obtained from the existing Fire Department budget from the Overtime
and Protective Clothing funds.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the Fire Chief to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of
Oakland to participate in the California Task Force #4 Urban Search and Rescue Team.
Respectfully submitted,
ames Christiansen
Fire Chief
By: Chris Reilly
Deputy Fire Chie
Attachment: Memorandum of Agreement
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
City of Oakland Fire Department
AND
City of Alameda Fire Department
An agreement entered into this 20 day of December, 2006, by and between the City of Oakland
Fire Department (Sponsoring Agency) and the City of Alameda Fire Department (Participating
Agency) regarding the Urban Search and Rescue Task Force.
I. PURPOSE
To delineate responsibilities and procedures for Urban Search & Rescue
(US &R) activities under the authority of the "The Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Act," Public Law 93 -288, as amended by 42 U.S.C. Section 5121,
et seq. and relevant State authorities, or when otherwise properly directed.
II. SCOPE
The provisions of this Memorandum apply to US &R Task Force activities performed at
the request of the Federal government, provided at the option of the Participating Agency
and the State, and in conjunction with, or in preparation of, a Presidential declaration of
disaster or emergency and upon activation as outlined below in sub - element V.A. Details
concerning specific working relationships on various projects may be appended to this
Agreement as they are developed.
III. MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the US &R Task Forces is to provide support to local governments. The
US &R Task Force must ensure task force members can safely affect structural collapse
search and rescue, which may be within or near a known or suspected WMD-
contaminated collapse environment, while maintaining a defensive posture to prevent
additional.casualties. Additionally, the Task Force may be asked to perform other
missions in accordance with Federal directives.
State of California Governor's Office of Emergency Services provides eight Water
Rescue US &R Teams to support local governments. This level represents the capability
of hazard recognition, equipment use, and techniques necessary to safely and effectively
support, and participate in, a water associated technical rescue incident. This level can
involve search, rescue, and recovery operations. US &R Water Rescue Teams shall
evaluate the effects of severe weather, extreme water conditions, and other difficult
conditions.
1
Attachment
Agenda Item #4-D CC
02 -06 -07
1_.
IV. DEFINITIONS
A. Activation: the process of mobilizing specific Task Forces to deploy to a
designated disaster site. If the Task Force responds to such a
mobilization request, the Task Force is to arrive with all equipment and
personal gear at the pre - designated point -of- departure and be at the
point -of- departure site within six hours of the activation notice.
B. Alert: the process of informing Task Forces that an event has occurred
and that Task Forces might be activated at some point within a 12 -hour
time frame.
C. Associated Director: the associate Director for State and Local Programs
and Support Directorate, FEMA.
D. Department of Defense (DOD): the Department of Defense, to include
military and civilian components. DOD is the primary agent for
coordinating US &R efforts under Emergency support Function (ESF), #9,
US &R, under the Federal Response Plan.
E. Director: the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
F. Disaster Assistance Employee (DAE): a temporary Federal employee,
hired under the provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act.
G. Disaster Medical Assistance Team (DMAT): a functional unit activated
under the National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) which provides
austere medical care in a disaster area or medical services at transfer
points and reception sites associated with patient evacuation.
H. Emergency Information and Coordination Center (EICC): a control
center located within FEMA headquarters in Washington, D.C., to provide
interagency coordination of assistance to emergency or disaster areas.
I. FEMA: the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
J. Incident Commander: the individual in charge of coordinating relief
activities within the disaster site; under normal circumstances this
individual will be an emergency manager from the local community responsible
for incident activities including the development and implementation of strategic
decisions and for approving the allocation of resources.
K. National Disaster Medical System (NDMS): a cooperative effort of the
2
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Department of
Defense (DOD), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), FEMA, and State
and local governments and the private sector designed to care for a large
number of casualties resulting from either a domestic disaster or an
overseas war. The Public Health Service (PHS) heads the program.
L. National Emergency Coordination Center (NECC): a primary notification
center located in Berryville, VA.
M. Participating Agency: a public entity providing support to and
participating with a US &R Task Force under the authority of a Sponsoring
Agency in this case the City of Alameda Fire Department.
N. Sponsoring Agency: A public entity, to be named on each
instance, providing official sanction to a US &R Task Force.
O. State or States: the State, Commonwealth, or U.S. territory government
to which the "Sponsoring Agency" reports, which shall be named in
each instance.
P. Swift Water Rescue: a rescue when water is moving at a rate greater than one
knot (1.5 mph).
Q.
Task Force: the City of Oakland Fire Department and Participating Agency(ies)
forming an integrated collection of personnel and equipment meeting
standardized capability for addressing the special needs of US &R.
R. Task Force Leader: an individual responsible for team training,
equipment maintenance, mobilization, and tactical direction of the
Task Force.
S. Urban Search & Rescue (US &R): specialized tactics, personnel, and
equipment suited to the unique lifesaving problems presented in structural
collapse situations.
T. Water Hazard Zone: in the water rescue, the water hazard zone includes the area
covered by water or ice.
U. Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD):
1. Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a
propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or
incendiary charge of more than one - quarter ounce, or mine, or device
similar to the above.
3
2. Poison gas.
3. Any weapon involving a disease organism.
4. Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to
human life.
V. RESPONSIBILITIES
A. FEMA shall be responsible for:
1. Coordinating between the City of Oakland Fire Depth twent, the local
jurisdiction, the State, and other relevant governmental and private
parties.
2. Providing limited funding and technical support for equipment and
training specifically aimed at preparing and maintaining a
deployable Task Force, as prescribed in the FEMA Urban Search &
Rescue Response System manual. Use of this equipment will be limited
to FEMA- sanctioned response activities, appropriate responses as
determined by the local jurisdiction, and mutually agreed upon training.
3. Providing out -of- pocket expenses for team members deployed to a
disaster site, as outlined in VI. FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS.
4. Providing document control at the regional office, ensuring that all
reports are directed to FEMA headquarters SL- OE- FR -OP, Attn:
US &R. (City of Oakland only routing codes).
B. Department of Defense shall be responsible for:
1. Deploying US &R Task Forces from designated staging areas and moving
such Task Forces to and from the disaster site.
2. Providing logistical, maintenance, and other support to deployed US &R
Task Forces.
3. Coordinating the replacement and /or rehabilitation of damaged or
destroyed equipment used in the course of the operations.
4. Provisions of DOD responsibilities shall be altered during situations
involving and providing for national security.
4
C. The State shall be responsible for:
1. Maintaining 24 -hour alert capabilities, including point -of- contact or duty
officer available at all times.
2. Implementing FEMA's alert and activation procedure of the State -
sponsored Task Force if called upon to do so by FEMA.
3. Documenting control at the State office, ensuring that all reports are
directed to their respective FEMA Regional Point -of- Contact.
D. The City of Oakland Fire Department shall be responsible for:
1. Recruiting and organizing a Task Force, according to guidelines
prescribed in the FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Response System
description manual.
2. Registering and qualifying all medical personnel on the Task Force
through Public Health Services (PHS) as a specialized DMAT. This
includes a separate Memorandum of Agreement with PHS, attached as
Attachment B.
3. Providing training to Task Force members with limited support and
guidance from FEMA and local City of Oakland Fire Department.
Training should be continuous with the objectives of upgrading,
developing and renewing skills as needed to maintain qualifications for a
particular position on the Task Force. A section on the Incident Command
System should be taught to all Task Force members.
4. Developing, practicing, and implementing an internal call -out system for
its members.
5. Providing administrative, financial, and personnel management as they
relate to the Task Force. All original paperwork will be filed with the City
of Oakland, with copies as outlined in section VII. REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS, below, sent to FEMA, SL- CD- PR -OP, Attn: US &R.
6. Providing reporting as delineated in VII. REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS.
Developing, maintaining, and accountability for US &R- specific
equipment to be purchased with matching funding from FEMA and the
local City of Oakland Fire Department, subject to the availability of such
Task Force personnel and equipment which will be based on requirements
and priorities of the local jurisdiction and the State at the time such
5
personnel and equipment are requested.
7. Providing personnel and equipment for US &R- related exercises, as
agreed upon with FEMA and. the State, subject to the availability of such
Task Force personnel and equipment which will be based upon
requirements and priorities of the participating organizations at the time
such personnel and equipment are requested.
8. Practicing and implementing an internal call -out system for its members as
developed by the City of Oakland Fire Department US &R Task Force
Operations.
9. Managing, under the direction of the City of Oakland Fire Department,
administrative, financial, and personnel issues as they relate to the
Participating Agency's role and responsibilities within the Task Force.
All original paperwork will be filed at the City of Oakland Fire
Department, with copies as outlined in VIII. Reporting Requirements,
below, sent to FEMA, SL- CD- PR -OP, Attn: US &R.
10. Developing, maintaining, and being accountable for US &R specific
equipment to be purchased with matching funds from FEMA through the
City of Oakland Fire Department, (if applicable).
11. Developing a contingency plan to transport US &R personnel and
equipment by means of ground transportation, within but not limited to a
1,000 miles radius of Point of Departure. Deploying US &R Task Forces
from designated staging areas and moving such Task Forces to and from
the disaster site. Providing logistical, maintenance, and other support to
deployed US &R Task Forces. Coordinating the replacement and /or
rehabilitation of damaged or destroyed equipment used in the course of the
operations.
E. The City of Alameda Fire Department shall be responsible for those items
indicated in Attachment B.
VI. PROCEDURES
A. Activation:
1. Upon request from State governments for Federal disaster
assistance and/or determination by FEMA that pre - positioning
US &R Task Forces is prudent, FEMA shall request the activation of
forces necessary to respond to the emergency or disaster situation.
6
2. Activation notices shall be communicated by the EICC or NECC,
through the appropriate State Office of Emergency Services to
Participating Agencies and Task Force members via the
City of Oakland Fire Department Representative.
B. Mobilization, Deployment, and Redeployment:
1. The Task Force Leader shall notify Task Force members'of Federal
activation.
2. If the Task Force responds to a notification of Federal activation,
Task Force Leaders and team leaders shall move the Task Force
and its equipment to pre - designated airfields for pick -up by DOD
aircraft within six hours of the official activation or alternative pre -
designated Point of Departure if transporting by ground.
3. Upon arrival at the mobilization area, DOD will provide an on-
ground briefing, maps, food and housing (as necessary), and other
items essential to the initial set -up and support of the Task Force.
DOD will supply a liaison and a radio operator to each Task Force
deployed to a disaster site. Contingency plans shall be established by
Task Forces to be self - sufficient providing food and shelter for 72 hours.
4. DOD shall provide transportation from the staging area to the disaster site
and return.
5. The Task Force shall be redeployed to the point of origin airfield
by DOD aircraft or ground upon completion of the US &R mission.
VII. FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS
A. Task Force members shall be compensated in accordance with pay schedules and
policies set forth by the Federal Government, including DOD and/or FEMA, i.e.,
Federal Disaster Assistance Employee Program, the State, and the Participating
Agency as determined prior to implementation of this Agreement.
B. Skill and experience levels shall be established for each Task Force
member upon inclusion into the national system and appropriate
compensation determined based on VII. A., above. -
C. Task Force members shall be reimbursed for travel and per diem costs in
accordance with Federal travel regulations, unless otherwise authorized, by the
Sponsoring Agency.
7
D. Members shall be reimbursed for reasonable personal costs of operations
and maintenance incurred in conduction with disaster operations, by the
Sponsoring Agency. •
E. Any reasonable expense incurred by the Participating Agency in filling a Task
Force member's position while the Task Force member has been
activated will be paid by FEMA and in turn the Sponsoring Agency. FEMA will
not pay personnel costs above the normal and usual rate for that position. It is
expressly agreed and understood by FEMA, the State, the Sponsoring Agency and
Participating Agency that such personnel costs reasonably include overtime
compensation if the Participating Agency is required to pay such compensation
costs in filling positions deemed critical for public safety and well - being.
F. Task Force organizational materials, equipment, and supplies consumed
in providing requested assistance shall be reimbursed on a replacement
basis. Replacement and/or rehabilitation requests shall be submitted to
FEMA by the City of Alameda Fire Department through the City of Oakland.
G. Rehabilitation or replacement costs of operational equipment will be
reimbursed if the piece of equipment was used at a disaster site or on
disaster exercises, as authorized by FEMA. FEMA will consider on a
case -by -case basis the replacement of lost or stolen equipment. When
that equipment was not lost or stolen as a result of negligence on the part
of the Task Force or its personnel, FEMA will replace that equipment.
H. No Task Force or any Task Force member shall be reimbursed for costs
incurred by activation outside the scope of this Agreement.
All equipment purchased under this Agreement will revert to the
Participating Agency at the time that this Agreement is dissolved.
J. All financial commitments herein are made subject to the availability of
funds and the further mutual agreement of the parties.
VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
A. The City of Oakland Fire Department will submit quarterly financial and activity
reports to the State, to be forwarded to the FEMA Regional office then to
FEMA headquarters, in accordance with Comprehensive Cooperative
Agreement Article I., Reports, included as Attachment B.
B. The City of Oakland Fire Department will submit, in writing, to the State, to be
forwarded to the FEMA Regional Office, then to FEMA headquarters, all
personnel changes as they relate to the composition of the Task Force.
IX. CONDITIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND TERMINATION
A. This Memorandum may be modified or amended only with written
agreement of all parties, and all amendments will be attached to this
agreement. The Memorandum may be terminated by any party upon 30
days written notice.
B. FEMA complies with the provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24,
1965, as amended and with the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the
Secretary of Labor to the end that "(FEMA) will not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment on the grounds of race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin." In addition, use of federal facilities, supplies and
services will be in compliance with regulations prohibiting duplication of benefits
and guaranteeing nondiscrimination.
Distribution of supplies, processing of applications, provision of technical
assistance and other relief and assistance activities shall be accomplished in an
equitable and impartial manner, without discrimination on the grounds of race
color, religion, nationality, sex, age, or economic status.
X. LIABILITY
A. Once a Task Force is activated under terms of this Memorandum of Agreement,
the Non - liability clause as stated in P.L. 92 -288, as amended, Section 305, will
be in effect: "The Federal Government shall not be liable for any claim based
upon the exercise or performance of the failure to exercise or perform a
discretionary function or duty on the part of a Federal agency or an employee
(US &R Task Force Team Member) of the Federal Government in carrying out
the provisions of this act." US &R Task Force Team Members are considered
employees of the Federal Government.
9
•
B. FEMA, and in turn the Sponsoring Agency, agrees to reimburse Worker's
Compensation Claims and Long -Term Disability Claims of employees of the
Participating Agency based upon the compensation outlined in the Participating
Agency's own policies. For Task Force personnel not covered under the policy of
the Participating Agency (i.e., canine handlers, structural engineers), FEMA will
register those individuals as Disaster Assistance Employees and will provide
coverage through Federal policies, as provided.
C. The Task Force members will be registered as volunteers with FEMA. Task
Force members will remain employed by their respective Participating Agency for
salary and assessments of other benefits; but upon activation, they will become
Federal employees for the tort liability purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act.
FEMA will reimburse the City of Oakland Fire Department who in turn will
reimburse the Participating Agency, the normal and usual rates of pay and backfill
costs accrued as a result of the activation of the Task Force by FEMA.
D. For the purposes of worker's compensation and long -term disability, Task Force
members who perform disaster relief functions in connection with this US &R •
program will be considered performing within the scope of their employment with
the Participating Agency and, as such, subject to the State or local worker's
compensation laws. The Sponsoring Agency shall be reimbursed by FEMA for
the payment of these benefits and expenses incurred as a result of a FEMA-
sponsored training exercise or disaster response and will turn reimburse the
Participating Agency.
E. Those individuals who are not employees of the Participating Agency will be
either brought onto the Sponsoring Agency's or the State's payrolls as contingent
employees for purposes of consolidated billing. If the State or the Sponsoring
Agency cannot accomplish this, FEMA will register these individuals as Federal
employees at Federal pay schedules established in conjunction with the National
US &R Program.
XI. INSURANCE
Participating Agency shall, at all times during the term hereof, maintain such insurance
coverage as may be required by the City of Oakland. All such insurance, including
renewals, shall be subject to the approval of the City of Oakland for adequacy of
protection and evidence of such coverage shall be furnished to the City on Certificates of
Insurance indicating such insurance to be in force and effect and providing that it will not
be canceled during the performance of the services under this contract without thirty (30)
calendar days prior written notice to the City. Completed Certificates of Insurance shall
be filed with the City prior to the performance of services hereunder, provided, however,
that Participating Agency shall at any time upon request file duplicate copies of the
policies of such insurance with the City.
10
If, in the judgment of the City of Oakland Fire Department, prevailing conditions warrant
the provision by Participating Agency of additional liability insurance coverage or
coverage which is different in kind, the City reserves the right to require the provision by
Participating Agency of an amount of coverage different from the amounts or kind
previously required and shall afford written notice of such change in requirements thirty
(30) days prior to the date on which the requirements shall take effect. Should the
Participating Agency fail or refuse to satisfy the requirement of changed coverage within
thirty (30) days following the City of Oakland's written notice, this Agreement shall be
considered terminated on the date the required change in policy coverage would
otherwise take effect.
XII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of the State
of California.
B. Title and paragraph headings are for convenient reference and are not a part of this
Agreement.
C. No waiver or breach of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a wavier of
any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision hereof, and no waiver
shall be effective unless made in writing.
D. Should any provision, paragraph, sentence, word or phrase contained in this
Agreement be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal
or otherwise unenforceable under the laws of the State of California such provision,
paragraph, sentence, word or phrase shall be deemed modified to the extent
necessary in order to conform with such laws, or if not modifiable, then same shall
be deemed severable, and in either event, the remaining terms and provisions of this
Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect or limitation of its
use.
E. This Agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the parties
hereto. No modification or amendment hereto shall be valid unless in writing and
executed by properly authorized representatives of the parties hereto.
11
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed by the
persons thereto legally authorized, this the day and year first above written.
We have read above and concur with the stated terms.
Daniel D. Farrell
Fire Chief
City of Oakland Fire Department
James L. Christiansen
Fire Chief
City of Alameda Fire Department
Other signatures as may be required by your agency:
Date
//0 VO 7
Date
Date
City Manager
City of Alameda
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
5`fiCity Attorney
City of Alameda
12
ATTACHMENT A
CALIFORNIA URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE TASK FORCES
City of Oakland Fire Department's Administrative and Financial Reporting
This Memorandum of Agreement between the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and the State of California (Governor's Office of Emergency Services/Urban Search
and Rescue), identifies City of Oakland Fire Department as one of the state's Urban Search and
Rescue Task Forces and defines the duties and responsibilities of the Task Force during Federal
government alert or activation.
I. PRE - DEPLOYMENT PROCEDURES
A. The Logistics Component of the Task Force shall identify all supplies and equipment
shortfalls and expendable supplies based on the FEMA approved Task Force Equipment
Cache list. Task Force logistics personnel shall obtain price quotes for any shortfalls and
supplies. These quotes will•be submitted to the City of Oakland Fire Department who
will initiate procurement procedures.
1. A 24 -hour contact person for each vendor and arrangements for 24 -hour delivery
or pick up of equipment and supplies will be maintained. As determined by the
Alert or Activation Order., supplies and equipment will be delivered to the Point
of Departure as designated by City of Oakland Fire Department.
II. PROCEDURES AT ALERT
A. Upon receipt of an Alert Order the Task Force logistics personnel shall contact all
vendors of a possible deployment. The open purchase orders can be supplied to the
vendors by one of three ways:
1. Faxed to vendor
2. Hand - carried to vendor
3. Pre - positioned with vendor. With instructions that identify specific Task Force
personnel required to approve purchases.
B. From the available personnel resources, develop a staffing document to fulfill the 24 -hour
operational requirements of the Task Force.
13
7 ..
III. PROCEDURES AT ACTIVATION
A. Upon the receipt of an Activation Order from FEMA or the State (OES), logistics
personnel and other designated Task Force personnel shall obtain all available equipment
and supplies from US &R Cache and obtain supplies from vendors and transport them to
the .Point of Departure (POD).
B. The City of Oakland Fire Department must be provided from OES or FEMA the
financial agreement number for activation. This is essential so that costs incurred by the
Task Force for activation may be recovered from the respective agency.
C. Task Force procurement and logistics shall track, package, and document all equipment
and supplies using Urban Search and Rescue procedures as outlined in the US &R
Operational System Description Manual.
IV. PROCEDURES DURING DEPLOYMENT
A. During deployment of the Task Force, all costs associated with a Task Force deployment
must be documented. Task Force procurement and logistics shall document equipment
and supplies procured and used during the incident. Also, all equipment and supplies lost,
stolen, or released to other Task Forces or agencies must be documented so that
reimbursement or replacement of the equipment and /or supplies may be accomplished.
V. PROCEDURES FOR DEMOBILIZATION
A. Once the mission assigned to the Task Force is completed as determined by the Incident
Commander, Emergency Management Coordinator, IST, FEMA, or the State a
Demobilization Order number will be issued. A Demobilization Order will include:
1. The official stand -down time.
2. The permitted cache rehabilitation period.
3. The permitted administrative and personnel rehabilitation time.
4. Other information as deemed necessary by FEMA or the State.
B. The City of Oakland Fire Department must then compile all documents and submit one
bill to FEMA for Federal activations and OES for State activations for reimbursement
within 30 days of deactivation.
14
VI. TASK FORCE EOUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
A. Equipment purchased by the Task Force will be maintained by the City of Oakland Fire
Department as custodians of the equipment until the termination of the agreement. At the
termination of this agreement, all equipment owned by FEMA. and /or by the State will be
returned to the respective agency.
B. The City of Oakland Fire Department may utilize the equipment cache for any non-
FEMA or State sponsored training, drills, and exercises, provide that, after such training,
drill or exercise, the equipment cache is returned to its original, pre - deployment
condition.
VII. PERSONNEL COSTS
A. Task Force personnel will be considered to be on duty from the time of Task Force
Activation Order to the time of Deactivation Order, allowing for reasonable time for rest
and Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD).
VIII. ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCIAL REPORTING
A. Task Force personnel, will be required to submit detailed documentation to FEMA in the
form of a Task Force After Action Report, as well as all required financial
documentation. The number of personnel and time needed to complete these reports will
vary for each deployment. The use of Demobilization Order as a guide will allow for
proper reimbursement arrangements.
B. Any participating agencies or member of the Task Force who does not adhere to the
proper documentation requirements or does not meet the required time frames may
jeopardize the payment of their reimbursements costs.
15
i (i � ll:i i ('ill',.
ATTACHMENT B
CALIFORNIA URBAN SEARCH AND RESCUE TASK FORCE
Participating Agency Administrative and Financial Reporting
The Participating Agency is defined as a public or private entity or individual that provides
personnel and /or other resources to support the Task Force, in this case the City of Alameda Fire
Department. The City of Oakland Fire Department, on behalf of the State of California
(Governor's Office of Emergency Services/Urban Search and Rescue) and FEMA, shall be the
Sponsoring Agency of the Task Force. As the Sponsoring Agency, the City of Oakland Fire
Department is responsible for the procedures needed to ensure that all financial matters
associated with the Task Force are in place.
The Participating Agency will provide the City of Oakland Fire Department, all necessary
records and documentation of personnel, and equipment or supplies consumed during a FEMA
or State ordered Alert or Activation.
I. PRE - DEPLOYMENT PROCEDURES
A. The Participating Agency is responsible to provide trained personnel to fill
appropriate positions and perform assigned roles in the Task Force.
B. The Participating Agency shall provide other resources as appropriate or as
assigned by the Task Force with the concurrence of the Participating Agency.
C. The Sponsoring Agency shall develop, practice, and implement an internal call -
out system for personnel assigned to the Task Force.
D. The Participating Agency shall provide a 24 -hour point of contact to the City of
Oakland Fire Department.
E. The Participating Agency shall provide a roster of the Task Force personnel to
which this Agreement will apply. Included with the identification will be
associated 24 -hour wages and pro rated benefit cost for each individual.
II. PROCEDURES AT ALERT
A. The Alert Order is the process of informing the Task Force that an event has
occurred or may occur and the entire portions of the Task Force might be
activated at some point with a 12 -hour time frame. The Alert Order provides
specific instructions to the Task Force and authorizes expenditure of reimbursable
funds for administrative expenses associated with the preparation for activation up
16
to a determined level.
B. The Participating Agency upon notification of the Alert Order will implement the
internal call -out system and determine the availability of personnel resources and
provide a listing of those personnel to the City of Oakland Fire Department and
OES within a one -hour timeframe.
C. The Sponsoring Agency is responsible for preposition equipment and supplies
necessary for activation and deployment.
III. PROCEDURES FOR ACTIVATION
A. Upon the receipt of an Activation Order from OES and /or FEMA designated Task
Force personnel shall transport available equipment and supplies as outlined in
the US &R Operational System Description Manual to the Point of Departure
(POD).
IV. PROCEDURES FOR DEMOBILIZATION
A. Once the mission assigned to the Task Force is completed as determined by the
Incident Commander, Emergency Management Coordinator, IST, FEMA, the
State Demobilization Order will be issued. A Demobilization Order will include:
1. The official stand -down item.
2. The permitted cache rehabilitation period.
3. The permitted administrative and personnel rehabilitation time.
4. Other information as deemed necessary by FEMA or the State.
B. All costs incurred by a Participating Agency or member shall be submitted to the
City of Oakland Fire Department , no later than 21 days after deactivation of the
Task Force.
C. Each Participating Agency shall submit to the City of Oakland Fire Department ,
all bills associated with the repair or replacement of equipment and supplies lost,
stolen, or damaged during activation. This should be submitted within seven days
of deactivation of the Task Force.
17
1
V. PERSONNEL COSTS
A. Participating Agencies shall submit to the City of Oakland Fire Department, the
following personnel and payroll documentation:
1. Task Force responders:
a. Name of each Task Force responder.
b. Social Security Number of each Task Force responder.
c. Time of activation and time of return of each employee.
d. Total amount of pay owed to each employee for the activation
period.
e. Pro rated cost of benefits of each employee for the activation
period.
2. Personnel who backfilled_ positions:
a. Name of each employee who backfilled a position(s) vacated by
Task Force responder.
b. Social Security Number of each employee who backfilled a
position(s) vacated by Task Force responder.
c. Rate of pay for each employee who backfilled a position(s).
d. Work hours of each employee who backfilled a position(s).
e. Total amount of pay to each employee who backfilled a
position(s).
18
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 6, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Island City Landscaping and
Lighting District 84 -2
BACKGROUND
On June 7, 1984, City Council established the Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-
2. The purpose of this assessment district is to provide enhanced maintenance in certain business
or neighborhood districts throughout the City.
DISCUSSION
There are currently seven zones in the assessment district. District maps are also attached.
Zone 1:
Zone 2:
Zone 3:
Zone 4:
Zone 5:
Zone 6:
Zone 7:
Lincoln Avenue between Sherman Street and St. Charles Street.
Webster Street between Central Avenue and Lincoln Avenue.
Webster Street between Lincoln Avenue and Ralph Appezzato Memorial
Parkway.
Park Street between Blanding Avenue and San Jose Avenue, and Santa
Clara Avenue and Central Avenue between Oak Street and Broadway.
Harbor Bay Parkway between Doolittle Drive and the west end of
roadway, including North Loop Road and South Loop Road
Alameda Marina Village
Bay Street between San Antonio Avenue and the Lagoon.
It is necessary to appoint an Engineer -of -Work for preparation of the assessment diagram and the
assessment amount, by parcel, within the zones of the assessment district. It is also necessary to
appoint an Attorney -of- Record for the District to perform the legal services required in the
conduct of these proceedings. Consistent with the current practice, it is recommended that the
City Engineer be appointed as the Engineer -of -Work and that the City Attorney be appointed as
attorney for the District.
The budgets for Zones 2, 3 and 4 will include the maintenance costs for the new facilities
installed as part of the Webster and Park Streets Streetscape projects. Should the budget review
result in an increase in assessments, property owners must, by ballot, approve the proposed
increases.
Agenda Item #4-E CC
02 -06 -07
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers February 6, 2007
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The staff costs associated with this work are payable by the Assessment District, and apportioned
to each zone, based on the individual zones' percentage of the total Assessment District budget.
Only the direct costs for services are charged to the Assessment District. It is estimated that the
cost for this work is $2,000 for attorney fees and $8,600 for the engineering, advertising and
mailing fees, associated with property owner balloting, for a total of $10,600. These costs will
be paid by the Assessment District with no impact to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution appointing an Engineer -of -Work and an Attorney -of- Record for Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2.
Respectfully
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Prepared by:
�'1Q� 2nd 727 etCeQ/yu
Margaret McLean
Public Works Coordinator
MTN:MAM:gc
Attachments 1 -11
is
N W d+?f/S
00-F /0 1
n1
CC -510
20.470
J
.1
U�
N
J
V'
✓
W
W
00 I-
-70011 .
00-500
N•Y00
/O•CCO
-/G .
'•S27 di' D'H_J
O I
a
�.I
W
n -I
0
0
N
.04.r6 c10
xx
1' I ll'
v
.470-aG3
11,1/a NT
a<r0 -/t0 .
_.7 - -a
Z•70�FG0
CI ��
Q ,1 I
O o
O O'
L-.._ r
.' f • _'32 -rLJ
_1rI
7 ?r0 -r_O
•
•
v
i
r
Attachment 1
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
02 -06 -07
Int
O
.
Yi -7r/ 78TJ Fo -Ozo
00 -7(0 (I-37.h772'7M
00 -/00
so -too
/0 -s-00
3/7N3AY
• 00
o0 -zoo
oo -CO0
00- 700 -r++
3/7N:i AIY
/0 -LOO
z0 -r40
E0.-000
00 -700
00- P00
3nN3A '
S..r,pEA"7
/0-0/0
00.1.07
ov•erva
v!
nlI
al
01
3
1
01
` \ ▪ c,,. 4
a ;•ti t y li ▪ i R t\
*1 ti v tle: • . �a ��
tIZZ
,� \� • .f Ida
■ 1. C.\ -y ti - • 1 a 3
r', • • coiz`0 c -tom QaE
0 \1
.., Ili �' i
• Li\L `,.``- I
h �� z2.
1
�I
�Zti' a
< I
. . Ci1 C
e ° 1 ti3
e t
::::ci'ljj C 1 �i 1 ? •
`l4 `- o
Y'3 -N-
k
00 -/00 •
00 -570
'f
01'
1
I �
YN117c-
- /7N?AY
/0Q i1
00 -c/0
o0-410
S/0
N 7GJ/Y /:
N
Iy1
I1
II
I I
II
It
Attachment 2
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
02 -06 -07
00 -a0
00 -L /0
51N3'4 d
20 -400
00 -I /0
W
00 -S /0
•
tl
1Nr7/Y777 .-
1
L. .
I OI
00 -100
00 -.20
10 -0z0
00 -0Q
00
-U0
-7/01
riv?n9 .
7 t/
O
r
-
1
CI,
1I 4 'i! W
21 a 1 •
1
W
CO -/20 Il
1 1 av+oso; % •
7/Ir-1 r767.7/14
03nw./ ..071
06 %O-04
I 13
11 +
I
;
1 �i
a�-
Attachment 3
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
02 -06 -07
(:• JJM3 KO 07/71,11,0104
CQdO -/GD
00-0/01
00400
00 -BOO
WQ- OLD
b 7I, -.0L0
f1 V
o10 loI o $ ! j I
cY Y 77
CI 1
a la
7
•
:14
C i IG
Y1 A/r
. p
ti
O ^, 1 R
' Qp
p 1 C 1 ij q
C
o
II lo'o
~o°
nlo1alo1
I:
Q ..
Q
00 -9••
00 -400
00 -0/O
00 -,/0 W
' 00 -Z70 -.
00•CJO
J 7::
Ia 1
Q Q
11
a 1 ►� i,o -7O °I
ao.aoo
,.0•.0
00-0 /0
-00 N/0
3nv— rd_yvd7Y
VI
•lI
•
1`1
00 -5.001 +.
00 -900;
00•.00 i
00.0/01
71 Y
J0•ry0I
IV0-S00I
O -fool
Jo m
Jd 17001
J0. 00f t
00 -1/CI
71; D /NO1N! NYr
rc01
•900
J0 -[0
J0.0001
W
00.4.0
.c-ero
00 -9Z0
o.3 -•eO
3
1
7y/V/J%V.7
.: •r29
.7-tar NY
M1
•
3
1
79./c7 -0=0
I • 11
1 It
Attachment 4
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
02 -06 -07
C'
Attachment 5
Agenda Item #4-E CC
02-06-07
fitiv
•
1:71. 4"Vgi Z74
•
.� jo .1
. : cv i
o :4 �.
c _ :< ? 2`i
``p ` % �4 I
O tp
a
ai:.yo
Attachment 6
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
02 -06 -07
ZONE F /VE-
'7
� r
sc
10
cc
I Is
1 1 i IA
I iii
1 i I Is
Attachment 7
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
02 -06 -07
r
O
J-.0 •••■•••
T... sc•_vD
Fpt2
. 1
/ �1X.
'lo \
• \-:*;
�� y
\:-
Attachment 8
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
02 -06 -07
(11D
9 O :
m wwt=..2— may..... - --.
;:iwta
..cat=
1 \e o\e a•fJ I.'
4
ITU
•
11 -,
• -3-3
✓
9
n
......
_3..3
w-.
t1 0
O
C "4 •}_3_3.3.3_3
?
M
�e'�•..._..wi�_
Oftiftft
9 of
.
..:..3.. 1�a a
.V.. ` a-J...-Y _w1
11 •
ft e1 ft
a
..
a
. ..m•
•.owr:
_a_a •A.a..a_a_a
•
• -1 u' a
a_ ;+ *= ....—�.. -... Attachment 9
•
SIM G:
ilk:=; •
I
I1
H i=
I.
2
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
02 -06 -07
•
ter. fi.�p
}
r•
JfT
ti
.1
•
5
tif
V 1' a r
77771
s� Y
r
•
h
Attachment 10
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
02 -06 -07
n.
317/.: /Y
of •
i1
ICC -,C0
17:.•••rC
3
- ,2•',00.1 ` ry I�-
•
00 -0ic
90 -LlC1
!00+3EC
Jr
• 7.7;.;.r.--1
A ' '-
H
of
T T '
.'0
Im m
co
■IHCII HANK
Attachment 11
Agenda Item #4 -E CC
02 -06 -07
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING AN ENGINEER AND AN ATTORNEY FOR
ISLAND CITY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT 84 -2
WHEREAS, on June 7, 1984, by Resolution No. 10353, the Council of the
City of Alameda ordered the formation of and levied the first assessment within the
Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2 (hereinafter the "District ")
pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 Highways
Code (hereinafter the "Act "); and
WHEREAS, Sections 22620, et seq., of the Act provide for the levy of
annual maintenance assessments after formation of the District; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of said assessments is to provide for enhanced
maintenance in business district Zones 1 through 6 and residential Zone 7 located
throughout the City and described in proceedings in and for said District heretofore
approved by this Council and herein incorporated by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the public interest and convenience will be served by
appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for assessment and legal services; and
WHEREAS, it would be advantageous to the City to continue with the
services of the City Engineer as the Engineer -of -work and the City Attorney as the
Attorney for said District;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Alameda that the City Engineer for the City of Alameda is hereby appointed as
Engineer for preparation of the assessment diagram and the assessment amount
by parcel within the zones of the Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-
2; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Attorney for the City of Alameda
is hereby appointed as Attorney to perform the legal services required in the
conduct of said proceedings.
Resolution #4 -E CC
02 -06 -07
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 6th day of February 2007, 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 6th day of February 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 6, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Resolution Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Maintenance Assessment District
01 -1 (Marina Cove)
BACKGROUND
On June 7, 2002, City Council established Maintenance Assessment District 01 -1. The purpose of
this assessment district is to provide maintenance in the Marina Cove Development. The District
map is attached.
DISCUSSION
It is necessary to appoint an Engineer -of -Work for annual preparation of the assessment diagram and
the assessment amount, by parcel, for the Maintenance Assessment District. It is also necessary to
appoint an Attorney -of- Record to perform the legal services required in the conduct of these annual
proceedings. Consistent with the current practice, it is recommended that the City Engineer be
appointed as the Engineer -of -Work and that the City Attorney be appointed as attorney for the
District.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The staff costs associated with this work are payable by the Assessment District. Only the direct
costs for services are charged to the Maintenance Assessment District. It is estimated that the cost
for this work is $2,000 for attorney fees and $2,600 for the engineering, advertising and mailing fees
for a total of $4,600. Since these costs are paid by the Maintenance Assessment District, there is no
impact to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
Agenda Item #4 -F CC
02 -06 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
February 6, 2007
Adopt a resolution appointing an Engineer -of -Work and an Attorney -of- Record for Maintenance
Assessment District 01 -01, Marina Cove.
Respectfully bmitted,
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Prepared by:
a/Apo L-i? c� e,4D
Margaret McLean 4 ? ►2
Public Works Coordinator
MTN:MM:gc
Attachment
Attachment 1
Agenda Item #4 -F CC
02 -06 -07
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING AN ENGINEER AND AN ATTORNEY FOR
CITY OF ALAMEDA MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 01 -1,
(MARINA COVE)
WHEREAS, by its previous proceedings, the Council of the City of Alameda
determined to undertake the formation of the first maintenance assessment district
within the City of Alameda Maintenance Assessment District 01 -1 (hereinafter the
"District ") pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3, Article V of the Alameda
Municipal Code (the City of Alameda Maintenance Procedure Code) (hereinafter
the "Code"), which also incorporates the procedural requirements of the
Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 (hereinafter the "Act "); and
WHEREAS, the formation of a Maintenance Assessment District, Sections
22620, et seq., of the Code provide for the levy of annual maintenance
assessments after formation of the District; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of said assessments is to provide for enhanced
maintenance in the district established via the Code located throughout the City
and described in proceedings in and for said District heretofore approved by this
Council and herein incorporated by this reference; and
WHEREAS, the public interest and convenience will be served by
appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for assessment and legal services; and
WHEREAS, it would be advantageous to the City to continue with the
services of the City Engineer as the Engineer -of -Work and the City Attorney as the
Attorney for said District;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Alameda that the City Engineer for the City of Alameda is hereby appointed as
Engineer for preparation of the assessment diagram and the assessment amount
by parcel within the zones of the City of Alameda Maintenance Assessment
District 01 -1; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Attorney for the City of Alameda
is hereby appointed as Attorney to perform the legal services required in the
conduct of said proceedings.
Resolution #4 -F CC
02 -06 -07
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 6th day of February 2007, 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 6th day of February 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: Debra Kurita
City Manager
DATE: February 6, 2007
RE: Resolution Approving Revised Memorandum Of Understanding Between the
Alameda City Employees Association and the City of Alameda for the Period
Commencing July 1, 2006 and Ending June 30, 2009
BACKGROUND
The proposed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Alameda City Employees
Association (ACEA) and the City of Alameda is for the period of July 1, 2006 through June 30,
2009.
DISCUSSION
The City of Alameda Labor Relations Representatives have met in closed session with the City
Council and the Public Utilities Board to discuss negotiations with the ACEA. The revised MOU is
a result of those negotiations and falls within the parameters authorized by the City Council and the
Public Utilities Board. The MOU provides for a 2% wage increase effective February 4, 2007, the
pay period in which the MOU is ratified by the City Council, with an additional 1% wage increase
deferred from July 2006; a 2% wage increase effective June 24, 2007; a wage increase adjusted by
the amount of the change as measured by the difference in the April 2007 through April 2008
Consumer Price Index (SF, OAK, SJ 1982 -1984 =100), effective June 22, 2008 with a minimum of
2% and a maximum of 4 %; special wage adjustments effective August 5, 2007 and August 3, 2008;
benefit adjustments and language modifications through the term of the contract. The MOU is on
file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION
The cost for the implementation of the salary and other benefit adjustments for Fiscal Year 2006 -07
is approximately $413,739. The cost to the General Fund is approximately $224,945 and within the
budget as adopted for the fiscal year.
The cost for the implementation of the salary and other benefit adjustments for Fiscal Year 2007 -08
is approximately $949,327. The cost to the General Fund is approximately $523,187 and within the
budget as adopted for the fiscal year.
Agenda Item #4 -G CC
02 -06 -07
Honorable Mayor and Page 2
Councilmembers February 6, 2007
The cost for the implementation of the salary and other benefit adjustments for Fiscal Year 2008 -09
is approximately $1,362,590. The cost to the General Fund is approximately $750,482 and will be
appropriated in future year's budgets. For budget purposes, the July 2008 wage increase is
calculated based upon Consumer Price Index maximum of four percent.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt resolution approving the revised Alameda City Employees Association Memorandum of
Understanding for the period of July 1, 2006 and ending June 30, 2009.
Respectfully submitted,
z/,,,,,.,
Ee__,66--j
Karen Willis
Human Resources Director
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPROVING REVISED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE ALAMEDA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
AND
THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING
JULY 1, 2006 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2009
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this Council a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Alameda City Employees Association (ACEA) and
the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda has fully examined said
proposed Memorandum of Understanding, a copy of which is on file in the Office
of the City Clerk, and thereby finds and determines adoption of said documents
to be in the best interest of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda that said Council hereby approves and adopts said revised
Memorandum of Understanding.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provision of this Resolution shall
supersede any other resolution in conflict herewith.
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 , 2007, 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 , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolution #4 -G CC
02 -06 -07
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 6, 2007
Re: Introduction of an Ordinance to Repeal the Existing Time Limit on
Incurring Debt for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project
BACKGROUND
The proposed ordinance would repeal the time limit on incurring debt in the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project Area (BWIP). State Law provides that repealing time
limits for incurring debt is specifically exempt from compliance with any of the regular
provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law relating to amendment of redevelopment
plans. Currently, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) is precluded from
issuing tax increment bonds for the BWIP project area after 2011. However, there are a
number of approved housing and commercial projects within the BWIP which will require
the issuance of future public debt to assist in the development of infrastructure. In 2003,
the City Council approved a similar ordinance repealing the time limit on incurring debt for
the West End Community Improvement Project Area.
DISCUSSION
It will be necessary to preserve the ability to issue redevelopment bonds after 2011 to meet
the CIC's obligations with regard to various projects. State Redevelopment Law allows
redevelopment agencies to repeal the time limit for establishing debt for all pre -1994
project areas by enacting a city ordinance. Currently, the time limit on incurring new debt in
the BWIP is 2011. After that time, projects can only be funded on a pay -as- you -go
approach so that no new debt is incurred. This requires that all project assistance be made
from the CIC's existing financial resources as they accrue in small increments. The loss of
the ability to finance project assistance would seriously restrict the CIC's mission and
fulfillment of its obligations to projects such as the recently approved Alameda Landing
project. This ordinance has no effect on the life of the BWIP, or its authority to collect tax
increment.
Agenda Item #4 -H CC
02 -06 -07
The Honorable Mayor February 6, 2007
and Members of the City Council Page 2
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of repealing the time limit for incurring debt is limited only to those taxing
agencies that do not have pass- through agreements. New pass- through agreements will be
executed with those taxing agencies beginning in FY 2011 -12 based on a formula
contained in State Redevelopment Law. The additional funding obligations would
represent only a small portion of anticipated future tax increment revenue.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the ordinance is a "governmental
funding mechanism" which is not considered a project and is therefore categorically
exempt.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt an ordinance to repeal the existing time limit for incurring debt in the BWIP.
Respectf -)Iy submitted
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
By: • b e ' otter
Base Reuse & Community Development Manager
DK/LAUDP /MJ /sb
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
REPEALING THE EXISITING TIME LIMIT ON INCURRING DEBT
FOR THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE BUSINESS AND
WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda (the "City Council "),
adopted Ordinance No. 2559 on June 18, 1991, approving and adopting the
Community Improvement Plan (the "Community Improvement Plan ") for the
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (the "Project "); and
WHEREAS, the City Council amended the Community Improvement
Plan by Ordinance No. 2681, adopted on December 7, 1994 and Ordinance No.
2835, adopted on June 7, 2000 and Ordinance No. 2844, adopted on
September 20, 2000 and Ordinance No. 2857, adopted on April 3, 2001 and
Ordinance No. 2896, adopted on March 18, 2003 and
WHEREAS, Section 502 of the Community Improvement Plan for the
Project provides that, "the Commission shall not establish or incur loans,
advances or indebtedness to finance in whole or in part the Project beyond
twenty -five (25) years from date of adoption of this Plan. Loans, advances, and
indebtedness may be repaid over a period of time beyond said time limit." and
WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda (the "Commission "), has been designated as the official
redevelopment agency in the City of Alameda to carry out the functions and
requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California
(Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) and to implement the
Community Improvement Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 33333.6 of the Community Redevelopment Law, as
amended by SB 211 which took effect on January 1, 2002, authorizes
redevelopment agencies to repeal the time limit on the establishment of loans,
advances, and indebtedness contained in redevelopment plans.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Community Improvement Plan for the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project is hereby amended to repeal the time limit on
the establishment of loans, advances, and indebtedness established by
Ordinance No. 2559.
Section 2. Ordinance Nos. 2259, 2681, 2835, 2844, 2857, and 2896 are
continued in full force and effect as amended by this Ordinance.
Section 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of
the Ordinance to the Commission. Introduction of Ordinance #4 -H CC
02 -06 -07
Section 4. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance is held to be invalid
for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this Ordinance, and this City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had
been deleted.
Section 5. Certification of Passage; Posting. The City Clerk will certify to
the passage of that Ordinance by the City Council of the City of Alameda and
cause the same to be posted in three conspicuous places in the City of
Alameda, and it will take effect on the 31st day after 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 , 2007
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 , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
° L
u-
2 \ RT
03 1
0
• g. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda
that:
L \
fl.
a ▪ \ Section 1. Section 11 -116 of Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. is hereby amended
by reclassifying approximately 8.36 acres from M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing)
District to MX, Mixed Use Planned Development, being all the real property situated .
within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, located generally
south and east of the Oakland- Alameda Estuary, west of Grand Street and north of
Fortmann Way and Marina Cove Park, as shown on Exhibit "A ".
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE No.
New Series
RECLASSIFYING AND REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED
ADJACENT TO THE OAKLAND ESTUARY AND GRAND STREET
FROM M -2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL (MANUFACTURING)
DISTRICT TO MX, MIXED USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (MX)
Section 2. The above amendment shall be known as and reference to as
Reclassification and Rezoning Amendment No.201 to Ordinance No. 1277, N.S.
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 Council
Final Passage of Ordinance #4 -I(1) CC
02 -06 -07
:V IMILlx3
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 , 2007 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 , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE No.
New Series
APPROVING MASTER PLAN MP05 -01 FOR A MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
RECREATIONAL MARINA, MARITIME COMMERCIAL, AND
OPEN SPACE USES, LOCATED WITHIN A PROJECT AREA
ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 8.36 ACRES OF LAND AND
WATER AT THE INTERSECTION OF GRAND STREET AND THE
OAKLAND ESTUARY
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 MP05 -01, as amended by the conditions in Exhibit "A" is hereby
adopted for all the real property within the 8.36 acre site situated within the City of
Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, located generally south of the
Oakland - Alameda Estuary, west of Grand Street and north of Fortmann Way and
Marina Cove Park.
Section 2. The above Master Plan MP -05 -01 shall be known as and
referenced to as Grand Marina Project Master Plan dated July 17, 2006, 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 Council
* * *
Final Passage of Ordinance *4-1(2) CC
02 -06 -07
EXHIBIT A: GRAND MARINA MASTER PLAN CONDITIONS
EFFECTIVE DATE
1. The Master Plan approval shall not be in force and effect unless and until the City Council
approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the General Plan Amendment (GP 05 -02), and
the Zoning Map amendments (R05 -04), and they are in effect.
APPROVED PLANS
2. The Project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the document titled Grand
Marina Project Master Plan, prepared by Warmington Homes California, dated September
15, 2006 on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department,
except as modified by the Master Plan conditions approved herein.
VESTING
3. 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
4. All regulations of the Alameda Municipal Code shall apply to MP 05 -01, except where
express provisions have otherwise been made in this Master Plan approval.
5. The applicant shall submit applications and plans for a subdivision map for consideration and
approval by the City in accordance with City Standards prior to issuance of any building
permit.
6. The applicant shall submit applications and plans for a Development Plan for each building
phase of the Project for consideration and approval by the City. Such Development Plans
require Planning Board action and shall be reviewed by the Planning Director to ensure that
subsequent phases are designed to substantially conform with the Master Plan approval and
the conditions of this Master Plan and otherwise meet the requirements of Sections 30 -4.20,
30 -35 and 30 -36 of the Zoning Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in the applicable
Development Agreement. The Development Plan process shall provide for review of detailed
site plans, building and landscape treatments as well as compliance with the Master Plan
conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP), as
applicable. The Development Plan shall approve the overall concept for site layout, building
design and landscaping. Each building site or combination of sites shall be subject to Design
Review. The Design Review process provides for review of architectural design and building
facades, building materials, colors, etc.
7. Specific infrastructure improvements and construction conditions shall be established
through either a Development Plan or a Tentative Map for each development phase in
accordance with City standards or other agencies responsible for the provision of
1
infrastructure. All water, gas, electrical and telephone lines shall be installed in accordance
with the requirements of the Alameda Power and Telecom and other utility companies and to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer, in accordance with the applicable Development
Agreement. All utilities during the construction of each development phase shall be
underground, to the extent feasible, unless trunk lines are allowed to remain above ground by
the City Engineer. Poles and lights, and utility boxes shall not block pedestrian access.
Whenever possible utility boxes shall be screened from view with landscaping. When the
Development Plans are finalized, the applicant shall contact the East Bay Municipal Utility
District New Business Office and request a water service estimate to determine costs and
conditions of providing water service to the Project and shall follow the East Bay Municipal
Utility Requirements.
8. Building design shall be subject to Design Review, requiring approval of Major Design
Review DR05 -0126 as part of the project. The Design Review process shall provide for
review of architectural design and building facades, building materials, colors, etc.
FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS
9. The applicant and all contractors shall adhere to the standard conditions required by Alameda
Fire Department, as part of individual Development Plans.
10. The applicant shall provide a "grass paver" emergency vehicle access (EVA) easement
running north from Fortmann Way through the 0.19 acre triangular park so as to facilitate
Fire Department access to the alley between lots 33 -36 and 37 -40. The EVA shall include a
28' inside turning radius.
11. The applicant shall post "No Parking" signs in all alleys within the residential subdivision.
12. The applicant shall provide sprinklers in all living spaces, attics, and garages of the
residential units.
SCHOOLS
13. The applicant shall pay a per - square -foot impact fee for residential development to the
Alameda Unified School District prior to issuance of individual building permits.
PUBLIC ART
14. The applicant shall comply with AMC Subsection 30 -65, the Public Art Ordinance.
PROJECT AREA REQUIREMENTS.
15. The applicant shall provide at least twenty -five (25) percent of the total number of housing
units for affordable housing, consistent with the inclusionary requirements of the Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project Area, and shall enter into an affordable housing
agreement with the City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (CIC).
2
16. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant and the Community Improvement
Commission shall enter into an agreement providing for:
a. Provision of Affordable Housing within the project consistent with CIC Resolution
No. 04 -127 establishing inclusionary housing policy for the Business and Waterfront
and West End Community Improvement Projects.
b. Amendment to the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement
Plan to allow mixed use development.
c. Payment of a fair share contribution to traffic signals required for Northern
Waterfront build out, as required by the MMRP.
d. Establishment of a Northern Waterfront Transportation Demand Management
program funding strategy for the provision of water -based or land based shuttle
services to Oakland from the Northern Waterfront area. The TDM funding plan shall
be designed to cover all properties within the Northern Waterfront area, including the
Grand Marina site, the Del Monte site, the Encinal Terminal site, the Pennzoil site,
and the City's corporation yard and animal shelter sites.
REGIONAL PERMITS
17. The applicant (or City, as appropriate) shall obtain all required regional permits including
but not limited to permits from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Site Management Plan as approved by the Alameda County
Health Department, and the Bay Area Air Quality Control District, prior to conducting any
construction activities over which such regional agency has permitting authority.
18 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for each building or construction phase within the
residential area, including for site grading or foundation, the applicant (or City, as
appropriate) shall submit a copy of the required Notice of Intent for that building or
construction phase which was sent to the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
HOLD HARMLESS
19. 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
provide 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 fully in the defense.
If the City fails to promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the
City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not hereafter be responsible to
defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City.
3
AMENDMENTS
20. Any amendments to this Master Plan shall be subject to the provisions established in the
Master Plan. Major amendments to this Master Plan shall remain within the authority of the
City Council.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS
21. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the permittee shall acknowledge in writing all of
the conditions of approval of the Master Plan and must accept this Master Plan 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 to be exercised.
MASTER PLAN, TENTATIVE MAP AND MMRP COMPLIANCE
22. The Master Plan shall be in substantial compliance with the provisions of the Tentative Map
City infrastructure design standards, as revised by the City Engineer; as well as the
mitigations contained in the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, as amended,
prepared for the Grand Marina Project.
PLANNING BOARD CONDITIONS AS MODIFIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
1) The applicant will study the feasibility or exposing the underlying wood planks and
provide a consistent cosmetically appealing walking and bicycling surface. If upon
further study by the applicant, it is determined by the Planning and Building Director that
exposing the existing wood planks is financially infeasible, unsafe, or contrary to water
quality standards, the Planning Director may approve an asphalt resurfacing plan.
2) The existing asphalt pedestrian path from Grand Street to the Alaska Packers building will be
widened and resurfaced to provide an well maintained, adequately sized, and safe bicycle and
pedestrian path along the waterfront. The project shall be responsible for the maintenance of
the sidewalk.
3) The applicant shall provide signage to direct traffic down Fortmann to the marina parking lot
to discourage use of Hibbard by marina -bound traffic.
4) The Grand Street sidewalk shall be widened to facilitate pedestrian access to the waterfront.
5) The waterfront open space landscaping plan between Hibbard and Alaska Packers should be
revised to include larger areas of turf for informal seating.
6) The final architectural submittal to the Planning and Building Director shall include revisions
to the third story elements. The revisions will reflect the design of the third stories in the
Marano Project in Cupertino. In addition the final architectural submittals will be reviewed
to ensure that the project includes high quality windows, and the Grand Street elevations will
also be reviewed to ensure that the Grand Street project frontage is well articulated
architecturally and attractively landscaped. The Planning and Building Director shall consult
with Mr. Christopher Buckley on the final design approvals.
4
7) To reduce automobile trips to and from the site, the applicant shall provide voice, video,
data, and telemetry services to each home in the Project. The developer agrees to negotiate in
good faith with APT for the purpose of entering into preferred provider marketing
agreements with APT for voice, video, data, and telemetry services to the residences. The
developer shall make certain portions of the Project available to APT to construct its
telecommunications facilities for the purpose of providing APT Services to consumers within
the portions of the Project within Developer's ownership and/or control, with the
understanding that APT will obtain and maintain the requisite legal and regulatory authority
under any and all governmental authority and applicable laws to provide the APT Services to
the Project including without limitation, the required permits, franchises, certificates,
licenses, and approvals for the design, construction, installation, operation and maintenance
of and access to the Project and network facilities. Neither Developer nor APT will prohibit,
restrict, discriminate against or seek to prevent any other service provider access to the
Project for such service provider to provide competing services, including, without
limitation, precluding the other service providers from access to the conduit, poles, ducts,
and other rights -of -way used to provide the APT Services.
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 , 2007 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 , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: February 6, 2007
Re: Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development Needs for
Community Development Block Grant FY2007 -08 Annual Plan
BACKGROUND
As an "Entitlement" city, Alameda receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). CDBG
regulations require an annual public hearing to obtain citizens' views on current housing
and community development needs. Noticed in the January 5, 2007 Alameda Journal and
on the City's website, this Hearing provides an opportunity for input to the FY2007 -08
Action Plan.
The Social Service Human Relations Board advises the City Council regarding social
service needs in the community. To support the City's effort in soliciting public comment on
community needs, the SSHRB held several public meetings to discuss the Assessment
and other homeless housing and community needs of the community. The SSHRB
findings regarding community service needs will be submitted under separate cover.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The City's Five -Year (2005 -2010) Housing and Community Development Strategic Plan
sets forth the Priority Needs and Objectives for the specified period. As required by HUD,
the Five -Year Plan was developed in conjunction with other jurisdictions in Alameda
County. The adopted Priority Needs and Objectives are listed and included (Attachment A)
in this report. In general, Alameda's housing and community development needs include:
affordable ownership and rental housing; fair housing access; homeless and supportive
housing and services for the disabled; public services benefiting low- and moderate- income
persons; and improvements to public facilities that benefit disabled and /or low- and
moderate - income families or neighborhoods.
In addition to identifying Priority Needs as required by HUD, the City strives to continually
assess the needs of the community through ongoing collaboration with community groups,
and housing and social service providers. Surveys and focus groups are periodically used
to assess the social service and human relations needs of the community. Through the
leadership of the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB), the Alameda
Agenda Item #5 -A
02 -06 -07
The Honorable Mayor February 6, 2007
and Members of the City Council Page 2
Community Needs Assessment for 2005 -2006 (Assessment) was completed in October
2006. The Assessment, available on the City's website, affirms the Priority Needs set forth
in the City's Five -Year Plan and lays out additional recommendations and strategies for
meeting identified needs.
Through the FY 07 -08 Action Plan, the City will seek to address the objectives identified by
this Needs Hearing process. Eligible CDBG activities include property acquisition and
rehabilitation, public facilities improvements, public services, accessibility improvements,
economic development, and planning and administrative activities. At least 70% of CDBG
funds must benefit low- and moderate- income residents or neighborhoods. A limited
amount of funds may also be used to eliminate blight in selected areas. Activities not
directly benefiting an eligible low- or moderate - income individual or household must meet
identified needs in low- income neighborhoods shown on the attached map (Attachment B).
In April 2006, the City Council approved CDBG- funded public services through a 2 -year
Request for Proposal (RFP) process, covering FY 2006 -07 and FY 2007 -08. This 2 -year
cycle for public services funding enhances program stability and directs resources towards
program delivery. It is recommended that the City Council review and confirm these
allocations for FY 2007 -08, absent performance problems by the currently funded
community -based organizations or major changes in available funding.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the General Fund. Use of CDBG funds helps maintain the
affordable housing stock, improve public facilities and provide needed public services by
leveraging public and private investment that help defray General Fund costs.
CDBG Entitlement allocations for FY 2007 -08 have not been published by HUD. Although
cuts of approximately 25% were proposed in the FY 2007 -08 Presidential Budget, industry
analysts are predicting that funding levels for FY 2007 -08 will be consistent with FY 2006-
07. The City's FY2006 -07 CDBG allocation was $1,367,112. In addition to the City's
FY2007 -08 federal allocation, staff anticipates approximately $185,000 in Program Income
from residential rehabilitation and other loan repayments. As required by CDBG
regulations, the City's FY 2007 -08 public services allocation will be capped at 15% of the
FY 2007/08 grant, plus prior year's program income.
RECOMMENDATION
Proceed with the public hearing on current and anticipated housing and community
development needs. After the public portion of the Hearing, Council members may wish to
identify additional needs that have not been noted in citizens' comments.
The Honorable Mayor February 6, 2007
and Members of the City Council Page 3
Respectfully submitted,
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
By: D'':• ie o 'er
Base Reuse and Community Development Manager
By: Terri Wright
Community Development Program Manager
LL /DP /TW:sb
Attachments
cc: Social Service Human Relations Board
G: \CDBG \CONSPLAN\AnnPlans \2007 \07 Needs \07 CC Report.doc
F: 33.1(c)
Attachment A
FY 2005 -09 Consolidated Plan Priority Needs & Objectives
Priority: Housing Needs*
• Increase the availability of affordable rental housing for extremely low
income, low income and moderate income households.
• Preserve existing affordable rental and ownership housing for low income
and moderate income households.
• Assist low and moderate income first -time homebuyers.
Priority: Fair Housing Access*
• Reduce housing discrimination.
Priority: Homeless Needs*
• Maintain, improve and expand (as needed) the capacity of housing,
shelter and services for homeless individuals and families including
integrated healthcare, employment services and other services.
• Maintain and expand activities designed to prevent those currently housed
from becoming homeless.
• Build on inter - jurisdictional cooperation to achieve housing and homeless
needs.
Priority: Supportive Housing Needs*
• Increase the availability of service- enriched housing for persons with
special needs.
Priority: Community Development (Non - Housing) Needs*
• Senior Facilities and Services
• Parks and Recreation Facilities
• Neighborhood Facilities
• Child Care Facilities and Services
• Crime Awareness (Prevention)
• Accessibility Needs
• Infrastructure Improvements
• Economic Development
• Public Services
* These need areas are uniformly set, as required by HUD.
G: Comdev \CDBG \Consplan\AnnsPlan\ 2007 \Needs07\PriorityNeeds - AttachA
F: 33.1 (c)
Attachment B
City of Alameda
2000 Census Low- and Moderate - Income Areas
Alameda is an "Exception" community, with the criteria set at 48.4 %. Any Block Group where at least
48.4% of the population does not exceed 80% AMI qualifies as a low -mod area.
CT 4271
BG 4
CT 4272
BG 2
BG 3
BG 4
CT 4273
BG 1
BG 3
BG 5
CT 4274
BG 2
CT 4275
Entire Tract
CT 4276
Entire Tract
CT 4277
BG 1
CT 4279
BG 4
CT 4281
BG 4
CT 4286
BG 2
Percent
Low -Mod (L /M)
L/M Area
Boundaries
50.1 W -Park St., N- Estuary, S /E- Tilden /FernsideNersailles
53.3 W- Chestnut St, N- Clement Ave, E- Walnut St., S- Lincoln
Ave.
55.2 W -Grand Ave /Minturn St., N- Buena Vista /Clement Ave., E-
Chestnut St, S- Lincoln Ave.
48.4 W- Stanton St/Hibbard St. /Grand St., N- Buena
Vista /Eagle /Estuary, E- Grand Ave /Minturn St. /Oak St. /Park
St., S- Lincoln Ave./ Buena Vista /Clement/Blanding Ave.
49.1 W -St. Charles St, N -Buena Vista Ave,
E- Sherman St/Stanton St., S- Lincoln Ave.
50.6 W -9th St./Wood St., N- Railroad tracks, E- Sherman St. /St.
Charles St, S -Buena Vista /Lincoln Eagle Ave.
73.1 W- Webster St., N- Stewart Ct., Railroad tracks, E-
Constitution /9th St., S -Buena Vista Ave.
60.0 W -Main St., N- Estuary, E- Webster St. /5th St.,
S- Atlantic Ave./Tinker Ave.
74.5* W- San Francisco Bay. N- Estuary, E- Main St.,
S- San Francisco Bay
61.2 W -Main St. N- Atlantic Ave, E- Webster St.,
S- Pacific Ave /Marshall Way /Lincoln Ave.
54.4 W- Linden St/6th St., N- Lincoln Ave,
E- Webster St., S- Santa Clara /Central Ave.
54.4 W- Sherman St., N- Lincoln Ave /Santa Clara Ave.,
E- Stanton St. /Cottage St., S- Central Ave.
58.5 W -Park St., N- Lincoln Ave., E- Versailles
S- Central Ave.
54.0 W -McKay St., N- Central Ave., E -8th St/Westline St.
S -San Francisco Bay
HUD 2006 Income Limits as of March 8, 2006. Median Family Income: $82,200
Family Size 1
2 3 4 5
6 7 8
Very Low Income
Low Income
$29,000 $33,100 $37,250 $41,400 $44,700 $48,000 $51,350 $54,650
$46,350 $53,000 $59,600 $66,250 $71,550 $76,850 $82,150 $87,450
G: \CDBG \CONSPLAN \AnnPlans \2007 \07 Needs \Attch B.doc
F: Legal \Req \L -M Areas
To:
From:
Subject:
City of Alameda • California
January 31, 2006
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Cyndy Wasko, Acting President
Social Service Human Relations Board
Social Service Human Relations Board Recommendations Regarding Housing and
Community Development Needs
The Social Service Human Relations Board advises the City Council regarding social service and
human relations needs in Alameda. In 1997, the Council asked the SSHRB to participate in the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) process by reviewing and commenting on the public
service needs and funding recommendations. This letter represents our input for the annual needs
process, culminating in the Needs Hearing at the February 6, 2007 City Council meeting.
At our January 25, 2006 meeting, we received input from six service providers (Attachment A) and
reviewed the comments we provided to you in 2006. We also heard a staff presentation on the
Community Development Block Grant. As in years past, we are impressed with the breadth of needs
that are addressed with the City's Community Development Block Grant funds, but we noted with
dismay that available funds are never sufficient to address all the needs of lower- income residents
of our city.
This year the Social Service Human Relations Board completed the City of Alameda Community
Needs Assessment. The Assessment reaffirmed the need to strengthen Alameda's safety net
services: 19% of respondents were unable to afford all the food their family needed, 16% had fallen
behind on rent or mortgage payments, and 18% indicated that not everyone in their family had
health insurance, 14.5% expressed a need for better transportation services. Twenty -eight percent
(28 %) of people said that someone in their family has a disability. Residents also cited the need for
more living wage jobs and increased supports for families with children.
In spite of extensive outreach, some residents are either unaware of existing resources or unable to
fully utilize them due to transportation and scheduling limitations.
We compared the Focus Areas of the past two funding cycles with the comments we received this
year and concur with our previous year's findings that certain areas have become even more critical
in light of the changes Alameda residents are experiencing. Emphasis should be placed on:
• Strengthening Alameda's safety net for families and individuals who are in crisis or
vulnerable, through programs such as needed food, shelter, health care and personal safety
services;
• Empowering Alamedans to achieve economic and social self- sufficiency and stability
through education, job training, health care, employment and employment support services
such as transportation and childcare;
Development Services Department
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, California 94501 -7552
510.749.5800 • Fax 510.749.5808 • TDD 510.522.7538
Regarding
Agenda Item #5 -A
02 -06 -07
led Paper
Mayor and Members of the City Council January 31, 2007
Page 2
• Improving access to affordable housing in Alameda through programs such as fair
housing (including disability related housing issues), homeless prevention and short-term
rental and utilities assistance; and
• Making sure that people with disabilities, seniors, single parents and culturally and
linguistically isolated populations have awareness of and access to services through
increased outreach, publicity, and technology that encourages collaboration among service
providers.
The SSHRB recommends no particular order of priority or percentage allocation of CDBG public
service funds among these focus areas. Rather, we hope that the funding allocations will reflect
a commitment to:
• Empowering families and individuals with tools for self- sufficiency and success.
• Maintaining Alameda's diversity; and
• Supporting families and individuals who are vulnerable or in crisis.
We look forward to reviewing staff's public service funding recommendations when they are
published later this year.
Cyndy Wasko, President
Social Service Human Relations Board
MJ:sb
Attachment
cc: Social Service Human Relations Board
Development Services Director
G: \SSHRB \CDBGRECS \Needs Statement 06 \NEEDS07FinaL.DOC
ATTACHMENT A
Social Service Human Relations Board
January 25, 2007
Public Service Speakers
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative
Sue Ruetherford, Bananas
Scott Cunningham, Alameda parent receiving services through Bananas
George Phillips, West Alameda Teen Club, Alameda Boys & Girls Club
Paul Russell, Alameda Food Bank
Jim Franz, Alameda Red Cross
Noel Folsom, Alameda Homeless Network
G: \Comdev \SSHRB \CDBGRECS \Needs Statement 06 \Needs07AttachA.doc
‹° bikA0 %IA ::---rk 1A61 C7ik" (V■
-%-"a\-- kek6.4 IiLia,•1/4, _JAI e - VAL e - t tki1/4L, el A "tkAk,
1-t-f 6-ir A .
\0.14J-,4\w-Licy\-=‘ ‘.v-,,,pt- eYA T c5,44 Zku;,._ ,A,4,„,„_.
,ki,:A.A1- ( u_a % \ tItk-. Cikt\ c,t, kjj, A1/44 ' A , `1„,
tNak_ ti-i_ 7-.P.sta_ 1 6 \j\e'st— Lk I'Z'Cq • RA 4 4 1 ' _i
letAft--.
kitC40) ‘ 'SS Ci-6 \.>
\ C_tr•fr—c—"—C 6—k + 5 Zt
1./t0Q/ .(001
TI45-ru.
iftLoAk-
•
vv.t.---- \ e`j ‘A.L0AA A : e__
n �a,� b � 2 0xzm
I �
1�
ECEIVE
CITY OF ALAMEDA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
FEB - 5 2007
C , \4 L
I 1 �
114-
.1‘)
Re: Agenda Item #5 -B
02 -06 -07
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 6, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Consideration of Appeal of Transportation Commission's Decision to Install New Bus Stops
on Otis Drive at Pond Isle and Authorization to Install Bus Stops at Otis Drive and
Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive and Willow Street
BACKGROUND
The City's Long Range Transit Plan, accepted by City Council in 2001, recommends that the
distance between bus stops be approximately 1,000 feet. AC Transit's policy for local bus route
spacing recommends a distance of approximately 800 - 1,300 feet between stops. The existing bus
stops along Otis Drive do not meet these recommended distances.
Originally, bus stops were located at the intersection of Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way, in front of
and across from Lum Elementary School. However, due to concerns that vehicles double parked in
front of Lum School and buses stopped to load and unload passengers were limiting the ability of
motorists to see school children in the crosswalk, the Alameda Police Department (APD) contacted
AC Transit and requested that the bus stops be removed. Based on this request, AC Transit halted
service at this location in 2005.
When the Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way stops were in place, the maximum distance between stops
was 1,900 feet, the distance between the Sandcreek Way stop and the Whitehall Place stop to the
southeast. The spacing between the remaining stops along Otis Drive range from 750 -1200 feet
(Attachment 1). Elimination of the Sandcreek Way bus stops increased this spacing to 2,950 feet,
the distance between Grand Street and Whitehall Place, greatly exceeding the recommended bus stop
spacing guidelines. Since the recommended distance was exceeded, the Transportation Commission
considered a corridor -wide analysis for determining bus stop spacing along Otis Drive, with the
objective of more closely meeting the recommended distances in AC Transit's guidelines. Four
locations were evaluated: Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way, Otis Drive at Sandalwood Isle, Otis Drive at
Pond Isle and Otis Drive at Willow Street.
Because of the concerns regarding pedestrian visibility, as well as noise and fumes created by the
buses, the Transportation Commission eliminated the Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way location from
further consideration. Based on an evaluation of the remaining stops, the Transportation
Commission approved installing new bus stops at Otis Drive at Pond Isle. This location would be
approximately 1,500 feet from the Otis Drive at Grand Street stops and 1,450 feet from the Willow
Street at Whitehall Road stops, approximately halfway between the existing stops.
Agenda Item #5 -B
02 -06 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
February 6, 2007
On November 22, 2006, Mr. Geoffrey Kline submitted to the City Clerk a Petition for Appeal of the
Transportation Commission's decision to install new bus stops at the intersection of Otis Drive at
Pond Isle. Subsequent to filing his appeal, Mr. Kline submitted a supplemental letter detailing his
concerns with the proposed bus stop locations (Attachment 2). In addition, several nearby residents
sent comments to staff or spoke in opposition to the installation of the new bus stops at the
November Transportation Commission meeting (Attachment 3).
DISCUSSION
The correspondence from Mr. Kline and other residents cited several reasons for appealing the
decision to install new bus stops at the intersection of Otis Drive at Pond Isle. This report briefly
summarizes the primary bases for appeal and provides a staff response to those issues.
Basis for Appeal 1 - Insufficient Ridership Demand for a new Bus Stop
• There is no need for a bus stop at this location because residents living in the area are not
transit users.
• There are no attractions in the vicinity that transit riders would access via this stop.
• The Transportation Commission's contention that the proximity of the new stops to Ivy
Walk, a pedestrian walkway that accesses the residences south of Sandcreek Way, would
improve transit access for these households is overstated. The existing stop on Willow Street
is closer than the proposed Pond Isle stop and provides virtually the same transit accessibility
for these residences.
Staff Response:
The City's "Transit First" policy and Long Range Transit Plan commit to ensuring that transit is a
viable option for Alameda residents and seek to provide a sufficient number of bus stops to enhance
the convenience and accessibility of transit. While the proposed stops may not serve a local
attraction, they would enhance transit access for nearby residents who might choose to use this form
of transit. Further, in selecting the Pond Isle location, the City's and AC Transit's guidelines for bus
stop spacing were applied.
Staff also reviewed the area that would be served by installing new bus stops at Pond Isle and
determined that there is significant overlap with the area currently served by the bus stops on
Whitehall Place at Willow Street and Otis Drive at Grand Street. With the exception of those
residences along portions of Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive, many of the residents potentially served
by the new Pond Isle stop are located closer to the existing stops.
Basis for Appeal 2 - Conditions for Pedestrians
• Installing a new crosswalk at the uncontrolled intersection of Otis Drive at Pond Isle would
encourage school children walking to Lum Elementary School or Wood Middle School to
cross at this location rather than using the existing crosswalk on Otis Drive at Sandcreek
Way, where there are crossing guards and other traffic enhancements in place.
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
February 6, 2007
• There is limited nighttime visibility at the proposed eastbound Pond Isle stop and the
walkway at Ivy Walk, due to low lighting levels.
Staff Response:
The Public Works Department together with the APD have been working with the Alameda Unified
School District (AUSD) to consolidate student - crossing locations, identify recommended walking
routes to schools and provide traffic enhancements at these crossings, as part of our informal Safe
Routes to School (SR2S) program. In fact, the in- pavement crosswalk lights at Otis Drive at
Sandcreek Way were funded through the state's SR2S program. In addition to the in- pavement
lights, the Sandcreek Way crosswalk includes other pedestrian enhancements such as pedestrian
bollards, pole- mounted radar signs and crossing guards that make this the preferred location to
channelize student pedestrian crossings. Installing another crosswalk on Otis Drive does not appear
to be consistent with the City's and AUSD's joint efforts. Should a crosswalk be installed at this
location, staff would also install a "Yield to Pedestrian" paddle sign to assist pedestrian crossings.
The lighting level along Otis Drive is consistent with lighting levels on other streets throughout the
City.
Basis for Appeal 3 - Neighborhood Impacts
• The removal of on- street parking at the proposed bus stops would create a hardship for
residents.
• The establishment of the bus stops at this location will require the removal of a tree. This is
not appropriate, especially since there is a limited number of trees in this corridor already.
• New bus stops would create additional air pollution and noise, especially to the houses
fronting the bus stops.
Staff Response:
The establishment of bus stops at this location will require the removal of a total of seven parking
spaces, three on the north side of the street and four on the south side of the street, to install
handicapped ramps and provide the required curbside access. While parking will need to be
removed, there appears to be sufficient available off - street parking along Otis Drive. While a tree
would typically have to be removed to install a ramp at this location, staff has determined than an
alternative ramp design could be used here, and this would eliminate the need to remove the tree.
Regarding residents' concerns about noise and pollution, this is a concern echoed by many residents
throughout AC Transit's service area. To address these concerns, AC Transit has purchased lower
emission and quieter buses to reduce these impacts. In addition, one of the City's goals for
promoting transit and increasing its availability is to enhance air quality by reducing the number of
motor vehicles on the street.
Basis for Appeal 4 - Increased Costs to City
• The cost of installing the bus stop was estimated to be $10,000.
• In the future there may be interest in installing a crosswalk with in- pavement lights at this
location, which could cost $75,000 - $100,000.
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
• The bus traffic would result in increased maintenance costs for the City.
Page 4
February 6, 2007
Staff Response:
Funding to install the bus stops and associated improvements is available in the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). Currently, this location does not meet the State's established guidelines for in-
pavement lights. Regarding the issue of street maintenance, no new bus service is being
recommended for this route, and the City has an ongoing pavement management program to address
maintenance needs. Locations are resurfaced once they have reached a pavement condition
threshold.
Additional Comments
• The Transportation Commission recommended that the bus stops be removed after one year
if it were determined that there was insufficient ridership.
• Transit riders would be better served by rerouting the 63 Line to its former route on Shoreline
Drive.
Staff Response:
While this possibility was suggested by one Commissioner and discussed by the Commission, it was
not included in the approval. AC Transit revised the 63 Route to improve service operations and
establish a less circuitous route. A comparison of ridership shows that the current location of the 63
route on Otis Drive carries more passengers than when it was on Shoreline Drive.
Appeal Allows Opportunity to Consider Corridor Analysis
In reviewing this appeal, Council has the opportunity to reassess the corridor -level analysis provided
to the Transportation Commission for Otis Drive. While the Transportation Commission removed
the Sandcreek Way location from consideration, Council may want to include the location in its
analysis since APD's initial concerns regarding this location have been addressed and the department
now supports providing a stop at this location (Attachment 4).
Based on discussions with APD staff, their primary objection to a bus stop at the Otis Drive at
Sandcreek Way intersection was the potential for conflicts between pedestrians using the crosswalk
and motorists due to visibility limitations. APD was concerned that vehicles double - parked in front
of Lum School and buses stopped to load and unload passengers limited the ability of motorists to
see school children in the crosswalk. Further review determined that the source of the double -
parking was congestion in the student drop -off zone in front of Lum School. The drop -off zone has
since been modified to address the congestion. In addition, as an operations improvement, the
crossing guard has been directed to keep students on the sidewalk while a bus is at the stop. Since
these changes have addressed APD's concerns, they support re- establishing the bus stop at the Otis
Drive at Sandcreek Way intersection and they would not recommend installing another crosswalk
along Otis Drive as it would not support the City's SR2S program. AC Transit has indicated that it
also regards the Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way intersection as the preferred location for bus stops in
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 5
February 6, 2007
this corridor due to the other traffic related treatments that the City has provided at this location
(Attachment 5).
Evaluation of alternatives
Staff has identified two options for Council's consideration. The advantages and disadvantages of
both options are summarized below:
Option 1: Install bus stops at Pond Isle — Transportation Commission approved location
Advantages
• Spacing — If only a single bus stop is to be added to this corridor, this location would be
located about half way between the existing stops on Otis Drive at Grand Street and Willow
Street at Whitehall Road.
Disadvantages
• Would require removal of seven on- street parking spaces, three on the north side of the street
and four on the south side of the streets; however, off - street parking appears to be adequate.
• Would establish a second uncontrolled crosswalk between Grand Street and Willow Street,
which is not supported by APD because it is inconsistent with the City's SR2S objectives
and could send a confusing message to school children at Lum and Wood schools.
• While this location is acceptable to AC Transit, it is not their preferred location.
• Residents do not support this location due to their assessment of noise, pollution, and on-
street parking supply impacts.
Option 2: Install bus stops on Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive at Willow Street — City
staff and AC Transit preferred location
Advantages
• Providing these bus stops to the Otis Drive corridor would result in bus stop spacing that
more closely meets the recommendations from the City's Long Range Transit Plan and AC
Transit's recommended guidelines.
• Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: Crosswalk has multiple traffic related treatments, such as: in-
pavement lights, pedestrian bollards, pole - mounted radar signs on either side of the
crosswalk, and crossing guards before and after school, to enhance the pedestrian
environment.
• Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: Would improve transit access slightly better than the proposed
alternative at Pond Isle, due to the pedestrian walkway and connection through the Lum
School parking lot.
• Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: No impact to on- street parking. There is already sufficient red
curb to provide for bus stops on both sides of the street.
• Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: Consistent with City's SR2S program. Helps to direct
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 6
February 6, 2007
students who cross Otis Drive to use this crosswalk rather than another uncontrolled crossing
further east on Otis Drive.
• Otis Drive at Willow Street: Located near a number of potential generators of transit trips,
including Alameda Hospital, multi - family residences and other medical facilities.
• Otis Drive at Willow Street: Located near several multi -unit housing complexes.
• Otis Drive at Willow Street: Stops would be adjacent to an existing traffic signal controlled
intersection with marked crosswalks.
• Otis Drive at Willow Street: Impact to on- street parking is limited to the north side of the
street only. There is sufficient red curb on the south side of Otis Drive to establish a bus
stop.
Disadvantages
• Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: Residents have appeared before the Transportation Technical
Team and the Transportation Commission in opposition to this location. Minutes from these
meetings are included as Attachment 6 and are summarized below.
• Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: Residents do not support this location due to their assessment
of noise and pollution impacts.
• Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way: While APD has determined that this location is acceptable,
residents have expressed concern with this location because of the potential conflicts
between the buses and pedestrians using the crosswalk, and concern about the visibility of
pedestrians to drivers at this intersection.
• Otis Drive at Willow Street: Would require removal of two on- street parking spaces on the
north side of the street; however, an evening parking demand analysis indicated that on- street
parking is available within a one -block radius of the site.
• Otis Drive at Willow Street: Distance to existing stop on Willow Street at Whitehall Road is
only 675 feet, less than the recommended distance in the Long Range Transit Plan and AC
Transit's guidelines.
• Otis Drive at Willow Street: Neighborhood opposition due to their assessment of noise,
pollution, and on- street parking supply impacts.
Conclusion:
While both options are acceptable, staff considers Option 2, which reestablishes the bus stop at
Sandcreek Way and provides new stops at Willow Street, as the superior option because it improves
transit access for this corridor by locating stops closer to potential transit attractors, has the support
of APD and AC Transit, meets the objectives of the SR2S program, and supports the bus stop
spacing recommendations from the City's Long -Range Transit Plan.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost for each option is approximately $12,000. Funds are available in the Bus Accessibility
project of the Capital Improvement Program. Required improvements include: Option 1 - Otis
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 7
February 6, 2007
Drive at Pond Isle — a new crosswalk, two new handicap ramps, removal of one tree, two pedestrian
crossing signs, and painting of red curb; Option 2 - Otis Drive at Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive at
Willow Street — two new handicap ramps and construction of bus landing areas at both locations.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed installation of bus stops is in support of the City's Long Range Transit Plan and
adopted "Transit First" Policy.
RECOMMENDATION
Grant the appeal of the Transportation Commission's decision to install new bus stops on Otis Drive
at Pond Isle, and authorize the installation of bus stops at Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way and Otis
Drive and Willow Street.
Respect 1y submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Prepared by:
c 0
QJYI:'
Barry Bergman c�
Program Specialist
MTN:BB:gc
Attachments
cc: Jeff Kline
Otis Drive Corridor — Existing and Proposed Bus Stops on AC Transit Line 63
I 0V-
fA%c\-m-TNekl_i-
10 December 2006
City Council
City of Alameda
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Council Members:
My name is Geoffrey Kline, and I am a homeowner on Otis Drive in the City of Alameda.
At one time during the 1990's, I was the Traffic Engineer for San Mdteo County, California. This
letter provides information, which you should consider, regarding the decision of the
Transportation Commission, on 15 November 2006, to establish an AC Transit bus stop and a
crosswalk at the intersection of Otis Drive and Pond Isle. Representing a number of homeowners
in the neighborhood, I have made application to appeal the decision to your City Council.
Decision of Transportation Commission
In a five (5) to one (1) decision, the Transportation Commission decided that an AC
'Transit bus stop, both eastbound and westbound, should be established on Otis Drive in the
vicinity of the intersection with Pond Isle. In addition, a crosswalk with wheelchair ramps would
be installed across Otis Drive at the same location. The bus stop (eastbound) would require the
removal of parking by establishing a red curb and the removal of a tree or trees as necessary. It
was also decided that the bus stop would be removed if after a year it was determined that the
ridership at the location did not support establishment of the bus stop.
Basis of Appeal
1. Residents in the vicinity were never notified of the Transportation Commission (TC)
meeting until four (4) or five (5) days before the 15 November 2006 meeting date. However, that is
not the real issue, which is that there was no notification of any discussion regarding establishment
of the bus stop in the first place. I believe that it is only fair that input on an initial discussion of a
need for such bus stop should have been made. At the TC meeting on 15 November 2006, there
seemed to be confusion on the part of the TC on whether the meeting was to decide the location of
a bus stop or whether a ruling was to be made regarding the need for a bus stop at all.
2. A number of speakers at the TC meeting stated that there is no need for a bus stop for the
"63 bus ", hereafter referred to as the "63 ", because no one would use it. The neighborhood is
composed of retired people, and the few who do still work drive their cars to their places of
employment. There have been no requests to the City of Alameda to establish a bus stop.
3. I fully understand the policy of AC Transit to establish crosswalks at bus stops based on
legal considerations. However, a crosswalk at Pond Isle would make little sense because school
children going back and forth to Lum Elementary and Wood Middle School might tend to use the
new crosswalk instead of the controlled crosswalk - crossing guards and lighted pavement with
signage - which is at Sandcreek Way, only one (1) block distant. Many cities are removing striped
crosswalks because cities assume liability when accidents occur at these "striped crosswalks ". An
uncontrolled crosswalk so close to the above schools represents an accident waiting to happen.
4. The estimated cost of the bus stop /crosswalk is $10,000. This is not a priority when it
comes to the finances of the City of Alameda. Also, please consider that when, and not if, an
accident occurs with a school student, there will undoubtedly be a cry for some type of lighted
crosswalk, which costs from $75,000 to $100,000 in today's dollars.
5. The eastbound location is extremely dark in periods of low visibility. The nearest
streetlight would not provide proper illumination even after removal of nearby trees. When I walk
in the area after dark, I must be careful of where I step, and I know the area. The proposed
westbound "63" bus stop on the north side of Otis Drive is poorly lit also.
6,, The proposed "63" bus stops do not serve any local attraction. No one would use these
stops to come and go to and from Alameda Towne Centre or the schools previously mentioned.
There is an existing "63" bus stop at Grand Street and Otis Drive to serve the 'schools. Who will
follow up in future to determine if the "63" bus stop is efficient and being used? I submit nothing
will realistically be done in this regard.
7. There are not enough trees along Otis Drive at the present time. Why remove a tree to
serve a bus stop that no one will use? If the bus stop is eventually removed, replacement trees will
take many years to grow to maturity.
8. Parking is at a premium on the south side of Otis Drive in the Pond Isle area. Taking away
parking will adversely affect the five (5) residences from 1932 to 1948 Otis Drive, and eliminate
possibly three (3) of the seven (7) parking spots currently available.
9. A number of speakers at the 15 November 2006 TC meeting, who do not live in the vicinity,
stated that Ivy Walk would be a perfect walkway to attract "63" riders to come to the Otis
Drive/Pond Isle stop. This is not true as Ivy Walk is not lighted and very dark and inhospitable in
periods of low visibility. The distance to the proposed stop might attract a few people from
Sandcreek Way, but would not attract any people from more southerly streets because the
distances are greater than walking to the established bus stops on Willow Street.
10. Otis Drive is extremely busy and is currently breaking up in numerous places. Running
heavy buses along Otis Drive will exacerbate this deterioration and increase City of Alameda
maintenance costs.
I and my neighbors do not want either the bus stops or crosswalk. I know there are more
attractive alternatives regarding this issue. The current proposal can be summarized as providing
a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Alternatives (in priority order)
1. Have the "63" bus resume its previous route: Otis Drive/Grand Street to Shoreline Drive
to Willow/Whitehall Place and return. There are both established bus stops for the AC Transit
"W" bus along this route and established crosswalks. The only thing that would have to be
modified would be the bus stop signs themselves. The "63" and "W" buses could certainly share
stops. Also, there is lots more potential ridership from the many apartments along this route
rather than Otis Drive which has few apartments.
2. Survey the neighborhoods to see if there is any potential interest in riding the "63" bus.
This should have been done before the TC decision. Transit routes are established in consideration
of who might make use of the service. It is not customary to establish a bus stop and then hope
people will use it.
O� l
3. Hold a public meeting to discuss the need or necessity of establishing the proposed "63"
stop. This was not done - see Basis of Appeal #1.
4, A better place for a stop, if it must be established, is at Glenwood Isle to the east of Pond
Isle. It is well lighted, has better sight distance, and could serve the apartment complex in the 2000
block of Otis Drive on the north side of the street. Its location is much more "friendly" to riders
and also closer to Ivy Walk where it joins Otis Drive.
5. Should the Pond Isle bus stop "have to be" established, do not remove trees or paint the
'curb red.' Afflag" stop could be established for the few times it would ever be used. Such a stop
exists on ,the south side of Otis Drive just east of Willow Street. The curb is not painted.
Conclusion
I am a proponent of transit when it makes sense from both a ridership and humanistic standpoint.
In this case, neither condition exists. I and my neighbors do not want the bus stop or the crosswalk
for all the reasons previously listed. We feel we were not heard on the issue, and the decision
'makers have made the bus stop decision based on form - a plan for bus stops in Alameda - rather
than substance - the concerns of the residents affected.
Thank you for your time regarding this issue. I am confident you will see the validity and
reasonableness of the arguments presented.
Respectfully,
.........„,,11._
f a C. ine
Tel: 5 0 69- 624
o
REciEvED
NOV 2 7 2006
PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF ALAMEDA
22 November 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
GEOFFREY C. KLINE
1940 OTIS DRIVE
ALAMEDA, CA 94501
510-769-0624
ECEIVE
NOV 2 2 2006
CITY OF ALAMEDA
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Please be advised that I, representing a number of homeowners residing in the vicinity of Otis Drive and
Pond Isle, am officially appealing the decision of the Alameda Transportation Commission on Wednesday,
15 November 2006, in which said group authorized the establishment of bus stop and crosswalk at the
Pond Isle /Otis Drive location. Both my neighbors and I will be providing additional information regarding
the basis of an appeal to the Alameda City Council.
Enclosed is a check for $100.00 which I understand is the fee for such appeal. Thank you for your attention
to this matter.
Respectfully,
Geoffre C. ine, Homeowner
1940 Otis Drive
Alameda, CA 94501
Telephone (510) 769 -0624
Not appeal also covers the proposed bus stop on Otis Drive at Willow Street which was part of the
Transportation Commission proceedings.
5 ur at
-4 �� �
S (:\
„a�,
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
City of Alameda, California
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Ms. Hawkins,
We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are
considering of installing in front of our house. We oppose this bus stop installation
proposal for the following reasons:
• We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the
proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be
mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the
majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional
bus stop.
• The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive —
rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago- has increased the noise level
and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idling,
and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes in front of
our house which is a significant health hazard
• Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are
existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance
between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be
rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would
be able to use the bus.
• We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation
on Friday November 10th, five days prior to the Transportation Commission
meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to
the affected residents.
We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter.
Sincerely, - -. )
/ C9-T ,
3
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
City of Alameda, California
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Ms. Hawkins,
We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are
considering of installing in front of our house. We oppose this bus stop installation
proposal for the following reasons:
• We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the
proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be
mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the
majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional
bus stop.
® The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive —
rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago- has increased the noise level
and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idling,
and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes in front of
our house which is a significant health hazard.
• Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are
existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance
between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be
rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would
be able to use the bus.
• We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation
on Friday November 10th, five days prior to the Transportation Commission
meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to
the affected residents.
We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
City of Alameda, California
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Ms. Hawkins,
We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are
considering of installing in front of our house. We oppose this bus stop installation
proposal for the following reasons:
• We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the
proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be
mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the
majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional
bus stop.
• The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive —
rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago- has increased the noise level
and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idling,
and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes in front of
our house which is a significant health hazard
• Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are
existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance
between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be
rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would
be able to use the bus.
• We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation
on Friday November 10th, five days prior to the Transportation Commission
meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to
the affected residents.
We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
viii Oita 1,tw
de 8
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
City of Alameda, California
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Ms. Hawkins,
We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are
considering of installing in front of our house. We oppose this bus stop installation
proposal for the following reasons:
• We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the
proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be
mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the
majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional
bus stop.
• The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive —
rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago- has increased the noise level
and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idling,
and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes in front of
our house which is a significant health hazard.
• Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are
existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance
between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be
rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would
be able to use the bus.
• We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation
on Friday November 10th, five days prior to the Transportation Commission
meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to
the affected residents.
We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter.
ho 1 rA,
I
i 5 1-H 0i s Dr.
4 d� 8
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
City of Alameda, California
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Ms. Hawkins,
We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are
considering of installing in front of our house. We oppose this bus stop installation
proposal for the following reasons:
• We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the
proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be
mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the
majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional
bus stop.
• The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive —
rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago- has increased the noise level
and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idling,
and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes in front of
our house which is a significant health hazard.
• Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are
existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance
between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be
rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would
be able to use the bus.
• We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation
on Friday November 10th, five days prior to the Transportation Commission
meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to
the affected residents.
We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter.
ILF'D
Eva & Tamas Csoboth
1932 Otis Dr.
Alameda, CA 94501
Tel: 510- 521- 5045
November 136, 2006
Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
City of Alameda, California
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Ms. Hawkins,
We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit's 63 line you are
considering of installing in front of our house located at 1932 Otis Dr. We oppose this
bus stop installation proposal for the following reasons:
• We, the residents of Otis Drive have never been surveyed or asked about the
proposal to install a bus stop in our residential area. A needs survey should be
mandatory before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the
majority of residents of this section of Otis Drive need or request an additional
bus stop.
• The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive —
rerouted from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago- has increased the noise level
and air pollution already. Installing a bus stop, resulting in the stopping, idling,
and restarting of the bus, would further increase the noise and fumes in front of
our house which is a significant health hazard. Eva Csoboth has been treated for
asthma and this would be a further risk factor for an exacerbation.
• Our tax dollars would be wasted on installing new bus stops when there are
existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The recommended 1000 feet distance
between bus stops could be easily achieved if the AC Transit 63 line would be
rerouted to an area where a higher number of people live and more people would
be able to use the bus.
® We only received your letter informing us about the proposed bus stop installation
on Friday November 10th, five days prior to the Transportation Commission
meeting. This late notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to
the affected residents.
We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Eva Csoboth
Tamas Csoboth
Transportation Commission
City of Alameda
Dear Transportation Commission members:
have just recieved a letter stating that the city engineers
have proposed a bus stop in the intersection of Otis Dr. and
Pond Isle. I live at 1936 Otis Dr. and have a large family
daycare licence( up to 14 children) since 1998. I have been
serving Alameda families for at least eight years. I. would
oppose your proposal and fight for it. Installation /Designation
of a bus stop in front of my house /business is not the right
choice. As it has only a few parking spaces to drop off / pick
up children from age 3 months to 10 years all day long (
6:OOam to 6:OOpm).
Within past ten years living here, all my nieghbours have
multiple cars and DO NOT NEED public transportation. I
remember in summer, when city engineers were out here to
measure, I told them about my daycare.
I suggest to put one bus stop in front of the Lum School front
isle because this prime places are only for teachers parking
all day long (in summer this area is empty).Another
possiblity is 1912 -1916 Otis Dr.,it is near Sandalwood,
school even ShorelineDr.The .other option is at 2000 -2004,
where there is an Alley ( Ivy Lane) connecting Otis Dr. to
Sandalwood. This-location serves a better purpose for the
city residents around Otis and Sandalwood. Within past ten
years of my residency at 1936 Otis, this particular area has
the least traffic and the front garden is safer and more
visable for a bus stop. So you do not have to put the other
bus stop at the intersection of Otis Dr. and Willow,as this bus
stop would be close enough to eliminate the proposed
intersection bus stop. . This particular bus stop will slow
down /stop the right turn traffic to willow and would be
dangerous for crossing pedestrains.
ae-
I hope you take my suggestions, as I have been living here
for 10 years and have watched and paid close attention to
the traffic.
Sincerely,
PI O
Mina Katoozian
1g3t" 07/3 I •
cc: Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer
From:CITY OF ALAMEDA POICE 510 +748 +4641 11/15/2006 16:27 #010 P.002/002
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 15, 2006
To: John Knoxwhite
Chair, Transportation Commission
Fm: Sergeant Ted Horlbeck3
Supervisor, Traffic Division
Re: AC Transit Bus joj Near Lum School on Otis Drive
After further review of this matter while taking Into consideration the below listed
Improvements, the Traffic Dlvision does not object to re- activating the AC Transit
bus stop located in front of Lum School. The initial concern that was raised by
our crossing guard assigned to this location was that having a bus stop in front of
the school with parents double parking along Otis greatly reduced the visibility of
drivers in oncoming vehicles which in -tum raised safety concems on behalf of the
children being crossed. Upon investigation into this matter, some associated
factors were identified pertaining to double parking, and the current design of the
passenger loading and unloading zones. As a result of the investigation, there
have been many improvements made at this location on behalf of the Public
Works Department. Furthermore, the crossing guards have been advised to hold
the children back while the buses are making a stop.
In addition, we understand that moving the bus stop to another location in the
vicinity would have an adverse effect on residents in the area and would require
a new crosswalk be installed to facilitate usage of the new bus stop. This
alternative would not be conducive with the City's Safe Route to School Program
in that there would then be two locations available to assist children attending
both Lum and Wood School in crossing Otis Dr. The main foous of the Safe
Route to School Program is to identify /create the safest route for the children and
then educate both them and their parents on the importance and benefits of
utilizing this route. The existing crosswalk in front of Lum School Is staffed by
two crossing guards and has been equipped with In- pavement lights, new
roadway markings, and new signage, all of which was intended to enhance the
crosswalk and make it as safe as possible.
Iledicatad to jailance, Committed to Service'
AIcrneda- Contra Costa Transit District
January 18, 2007
Matthew iNaclerio
Public Works Director
City of Alameda Public Works Department
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501 -7552
Re: Otis Street Bus Stops
Dear Mr_ Naclerio,
AC Transit has been working with. Barry Bergman, of your staff, regarding .installation of bus
stops on Otis Drive, between Willow Street and Grand Street. This letter is to communicate AC
Transit's position on the bus stops coordinated with Mr. Bergman.
At the November 15, 20.06 City of Alameda. Transportation Committee meeting, three bus stop
locations (previously discussed with Mr. Bergman) were presented:
• AC Transit preference is for reinstallation of the bus stop at the original .location on Otis
Drive and Sandcreek Way. This location is preferable because of the numerous City installed
crosswalk safety enhancements at this location, such as crosswalk in- pavement .lights, radar
speeds signs on both side of the crosswalk, and crossing guards are present before and after
school.
AC Transit would also be acceptable with either a.bus stop at Otis Drive and Sandalwood Isle
or at Otis Drive and Pond .Isle, with the condition that a crosswalk is installed at the approved
location. This is AC Transit staff recommendation- aid City staff should make final
determination if a crosswalk alone will suffice as adequate treatment for pedestrian crossing
of Otis Drive.
in addition to the above, we have also - requested the approval of bus stops on Otis at Willow
Street, from Mr. Berman. We believe the adjacent land uses support installation of bus stops
and we urge City approval of these stops.
Thank you and you may contact me at 510- 891 -4722 if you have any questions.
Cesar Pujot
AC Transit - Traffic Engineer
Cc:
Nancy Skowbo, Deputy General. Manager for Service Development
Scan DiestL.orgion, Transportation Planner
1600 Frorklin Street OoHonri', CA 94612 TEL (510) 89 1 4777 www.octrcinsit.org
Public Comments from May 10, 2006 Transportation Technical Team Meeting
Ms. Cleves stated that the intersection is extremely busy during the week and on the
weekends, particularly during organized games. She claimed staff's findings of the bus
stop distances to be extremely off. She said the distance from the crosswalk at Sandcreek
Way to Grand Street is approximately 900 feet and the distance from the crosswalk to the
east of the bus stop at Whitehall Palace on Willow Street is approximately 2100 feet. She
said the City had spent $65,000.00 to ensure safety at the crosswalk by Otis Drive and
Sandcreek Way and noted it did not seem logical to impair the visibility of the drivers
approaching the Lum School crosswalk by re- installing a bus stop. She urged the
technical team not to install a bus stop on either side of Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way.
Diane Voss agreed with Ms. Cleve and asked the bus stop not be re- installed.
Marilyn Teplow said her driveway is next to the crosswalk and she sees the interaction
between vehicular traffic and school children on a daily basis. She noted very few people
used the bus stop when it was there.
Elmer. Garlets said he opposes the installation of the bus stop. He claims it presents a
safety problem to the crossing guards. He mentioned a vehicle operator couldn't safely
stop in time for a pedestrian using the crosswalk if a bus is blocking the crosswalk..
Jim Manheimer, principal of Lum Elementary School, said he had tried to improve traffic
flow but has not been able to do it. He said the proposed changes by Officer Rodrigue
along with the Traffic Department could help. He highlighted expanding the school's
drop -off zone to two lanes and creating a white zone on Sandcreek Way would help. He
acknowledged school staff would lose some parking but they could deal with that.
Principal Manheimer said it has been nice not having the bus stop there. He said it is a
bad spot for it because it impairs the visibility of drivers.
Hyo Kim lives on Sandcreek Way, which is in front of Lum School. She opposes the bus
stop since there is a bus stop already about a half -block away.
Barbara Nemer said that there is a safety factor with the bus stop there. She urged the
technical team to not install the bus stops.
0Ps
,2.- -c-TAKc C
Public Comments from May 24, 2006 Transportation Commission Meeting
Peter Muzic stated that it is 900 ft to Grand and a couple of thousand feet to the Willow
bus stop. The bus stop is not in the middle of the block. He recommended putting the bus
stop by the walkway, about half way between the two existing stops.
Barbara Nemer stated that the proposed bus stop location is hazardous. She said that the
crosswalks are not observed by drivers and the location is unsafe because of parents
dropping off and picking up their children at the school.
Elmer Garlets, a crossing guard at Lum School, stated that the proposed bus stop location
is hazardous. He said that the bus stops right on top of the crosswalk, which blocks the
view of the crossing guards of oncoming traffic and that vehicles cannot stop in time for
the crosswalk. He suggested moving the stop bar approaching the crosswalk to the west
side of the Waterview Isle, which would direct drivers to stop further back from the
crosswalk. It would also need adequate signage for the vehicles to remain behind the line
when the crosswalks are occupied. He also requested that a parking stall on the west side
of Sandcreek Way be reserved for the crossing guards at Lum School during school
hours.
Liz Cleves reiterated what was said at the TIT meeting concerning the bus stop. She
suggested locating it at Pond Isle or Glenwood Isle, instead of near Sandcreek, as this
would be closer to the mid -point of the existing bus stops. She noted that the crosswalk
near the school is very busy with pedestrians crossing and cars going past without
stopping for the pedestrians.
Public Comments from November 15, 2006 Transportation Commission Meeting
Mina Katoozian, 1936 Otis Drive, noted that she had lived at her address for 10 years and
added many of the residents of the single - family homes had between one and three cars.
It was not her opinion that these residents needed a bus, and she had not observed anyone
in the neighborhood use the bus. She noted that she operates a large family day care, and
believed the presence of buses in her neighborhood would be a safety hazard. She
opposed the presence of this bus stop near her house.
Liz Cleves, 1815 Otis Drive, pointed out that Ivy Walk is a pedestrian path connecting
Otis Drive to Sandcreek Way. She supported the Pond Isle location specifically because
of its proximity to Ivy Walk.
Barbara Nemer, 3202 Ravens Cove, supported the Pond Isle location, and added that the
westbound side of the street was almost empty of cars during the day. She believed that
the neighbors had offstreet parking for their homes.
Marilyn Teplow, 1805 Otis Drive, believed that empirical, practical thinking must be
used to arrive at a sound conclusion. She noted that there were three streets along the
odd - numbered side of Otis (Glenwood Isle, Pond Isle and Sandalwood Isle), with three
residences between Sandalwood Isle and the crosswalk to Lum School. She noted that
there had been strong objections to this bus stop on safety grounds. She believed that the
site between Glenwood Isle and Pond Isle was a better solution, because it was halfway
between the existing bus stops. She conducted an informal 14 -day survey, which revealed
that there were seven days when there were no cars parked along that corridor; three days
when one car was seen; three days when two cars was seen; and only one day when three
cars were seen for part of the day. She did not believe that removing parking space would
interfere with a bus stop on the odd - numbered side of Otis Drive. She did not believe
there would be a perfect solution, but hoped the Commission could find a solution that
would do the least harm to the greatest number of people.
Diane Voss, 1815 Otis Drive, believed it was important to have a bus stop on Willow and
Otis, and noted that all of the measured distances would be thrown out of scale if it did
not go in. She noted that after safety, ridership was the next most important criterion. She
did not understand why the bus was ever rerouted from Shoreline to Otis. She noted that
while she did not like to see trees removed, she would support that removal if it would
allow a bus stop for the public interest.
Eva Csoboth, 1932 Otis Drive, had collected signatures from her neighbors in opposition
to the proposed bus stop, and read her letter into the record:
"We are writing in regards to the proposed bus stop of AC Transit 63 Line you are
considering installing in front of our house, located at 1932 Otis Drive. We
oppose this bus stop installation proposal for the following reasons: We, the
residents of Otis Drive, have never been surveyed or asked about the proposal to
install the bus stop in our residential area, and these surveys should be mandatory
before even considering such a proposal. It is questionable that the majority of
residents of this section of Otis Drive would need or request an additional bus
stop. The new route of the AC Transit 63 line passing our house on Otis Drive
was routed from Shoreline Drive one or two years ago, I don't know exactly
when, has increased the noise level and air pollution already.
Installing a bus stop resulting in the stopping, idling and restarting of the bus
would further increase the noise and the fumes in front of our house, which is a
significant health hazard. I have been treated for asthma and this would be a
further risk factor for an exacerbation. Our tax dollars would be wasted on
installing new bus stops when there are existing bus stops on Shoreline Drive. The
recommended 1,000 feet distance between bus stops could be easily achieved if
the AC Transit 63 line would be rerouted to an area where a higher number of
people live, and more people would be able to use the bus. We only received your
letter infoiming us about the proposed bus stop installation on Friday, November
10, five days before this Transportation Commission meeting. This late
notification suggests that this proposal might not be known to the affected
residents. We are requesting your reconsideration of this matter."
She noted that this letter was addressed to City Engineer Barbara Hawkins, and submitted
it into the record.
Geoffrey Kline, 1940 Otis Drive, believed the Commission was looking for a solution to a
nonexistent problem, and did not believe there was a need for a bus stop in this location.
He noted that many of the residents were retired; one worked in Benicia, and very few
people took the bus. Anyone who took the bus could walk to the existing stop on Willow.
He did not want the few remaining trees to be removed for a bus stop, and he did not
believe many people wanted the bus stop. He noted that he recently retired from public
service in San Mateo County and added that at one time he was their traffic engineer. He
believed it was reasonable for people to be able to park in front of their house. He noted
that the speakers who supported the bus stop did not live near it.
George Wales, 2031 Otis Drive, agreed with the previous speaker, and did not believe the
bus stop was needed. He noted that the nearby condo complex would lose six to ten
parking spaces. He expressed concern about air pollution generated by the bus at Sand
Creek. He did not believe a bus stop was needed at all.
Bill Beltz, 2051 Otis Drive, noted that he and his wife were very concerned about the
traffic congestion because of the buses; they did not believe another bus stop was needed.
He noted that the noise level of buses and other traffic was very bad. He noted that many
of the buses were running nearly empty. He was very concerned about the traffic safety,
and had seen a pedestrian hit and injured.
Comments Regarding Potential Bus Stops on Otis Drive — 11/15/06
Betty Holden, 2051 Otis, objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Willow
George Wales, 2031H Otis Drive (2 °d floor) objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Willow. He expressed concern
about the additional fumes that would be generated by the buses stopping and starting.
Eva Csoboth, 1932 Otis Drive, objected to the addition of any new bus stops in this area for several reasons: 1) low transit
usage in the neighborhood, which is primarily residential, 2) additional pollution generated by the buses having to stop
and then accelerate, and 3) the expense that would be required to add the new stops. She recommended that the bus be
rerouted onto Shoreline Drive, where there are many apartments. She also recommended that a survey be conducted of
residents along this portion of Otis Drive regarding the addition of new bus stops.
Jean Thomas, 2027 Otis Drive, objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Willow. She said that when temporary bus
stops were set up near the Willows, that they had a significant problem with trash accumulating, and that a chain link
fence had to be erected to keep people off the property, and she does not want to see something similar happen where she
lives. She asked if the bus could be rerouted to use the stops on Otis that are used by the 50 and W buses.
Linda Benson, 2035D Otis Drive, objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Willow because there is an existing
shortage of parking, and because the proposed location is not that far from the existing bus stop.
Lyle A. Smith and Frances R. Goodwin (email): We are the owners of a condo at the South Shore Lagoon Condos. This
is a 89 -unit community and each unit has one parking space. This is the main reason we object to the installation of a new
bus stop (at either 2031 or 2051 Otis) and thereby losing up to 3 spaces! This would really put a hardship on all of us.
Also, we live at 601 Willow, and until the routes changed, AC Transit 50 line stopped right at our door. So, we know
from experience that not only is the noise level great, but also people utilizing the bus stops litter. We already have the
noise from ambulances at the hospital. Please don't add to our noise level by having a bus stop so close to our condos.
Eleanor Tulloh, 1915 Otis, objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Sandalwood Isle. Her primary concern is that a
number of parents park their cars in the area so they can walk their children to school, and there will be no place for them
to park if the red curb zone is added. She also asked why the bus was rerouted from Shoreline, where more people live.
Maria Li Mangiapane and James A. Mangiapane, Jr., 2041 Otis Drive (email): This is to notify the Transportation
Committee that we strongly oppose the proposed installation of the 63 line bus stops in front of the Southshore Lagoon
Condominiums located at 2051, 2041 and 2031 Otis Drive. This is totally unacceptable for the following reasons. (1) it
would adversely affect property value because all these units have bedrooms and living rooms facing Otis Drive. Many of
these units have patios and decks facing Otis Drive as well. (2) the noise from the buses stopping and starting all day
through midnight would greatly impact people's lives. (3) the pollution from the bus exhaust would create health
hazards. (4) this would create a lot more foot traffic. (5) there will be more trash as is seen at any other bus stops and
(6) the loss of the much needed parking which is at a premium as you can see on any given morning and evenings and all
weekends that it is full. The people making these decisions obviously do not live in the area and are not affected by this.
We feel the proposed intersection of Otis and either Sandalwood or Pond Isle would be more suitable since it would
impact less families, property values and parking which is more needed by residences at Southshore Lagoon
Condominiums This would also serve the neighborhood and community better. Thank you for your consideration and if
you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Jim McFeeley, 2041 Otis Dr. objected to the proposed bus stop at Otis and Willow. He stated that when buses turn from
Willow onto Otis that they cause his building to vibrate, and that he is the second unit back from the street. He expressed
concern that the addition of a bus stop, and the stopping and accelerating of the buses, will exacerbate the situation.
Eugene Placencia, 2036 Otis Drive, objected to the potential bus stop location at Otis and Willow. He suggested that a
better location for a bus stop in this area would be on Willow on the near side of Sandcreek
Kate Lindley, resident of the South Shore Lagoon condominiums, objected to the potential bus stop at Otis and Willow.
She expressed concern that the bus stop would result in additional noise, diesel fumes, and a loss of parking for the
neighborhood. She suggested that a better location would be another block down, since fewer people would be impacted.
cYF
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: February 6, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councihnembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Accept Comprehensive Sidewalk Repair Program, and Adopt Plans
and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids for the Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 Repair of
Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching,
No. P.W. 08 -06 -18
BACKGROUND
The City of Alameda has approximately 260 miles of sidewalk and about 20,000 street trees
within the public right -of -way, some within narrow planting strip areas less than four feet wide.
As the trees grow and mature, site conditions such as the narrow planting strip, high ground
water, soil conditions and improper irrigation result in tree roots raising the sidewalk, curb,
gutter, and pavement area. In addition, there are locations throughout the City where the
planting strip has been removed and replaced with concrete, brick or landscape rock, further
restricting a tree's ability to grow in an urbanized environment.
Over the years, the City has repaired the damaged infrastructure by removing the concrete
sidewalk, trimming or shaving the tree roots causing the uplift, and replacing the concrete
sidewalk. However, as the trees grow, the roots may continue to raise the sidewalk. The City has
implemented a rubberized sidewalk program and installed flexible sidewalk made from recycled
tires at forty locations throughout the City. Based on historic funding levels, repairs to the curb,
gutter and pavement areas have only been made when ponding extends into the travel lane.
DISCUSSION
As part of the recent sidewalk repair program, two pilot projects were undertaken to identify the
variables that will provide adequate repair to the sidewalk, curb, gutter and pavement while
minimizing future root damage and assuring the long -term viability of our urban forest. Based
upon the pilot projects, the following Comprehensive Sidewalk Repair Program was developed.
1. Sidewalk Repair Options
• At sites where soil drains well, the water table is low, and the damage is limited to
the sidewalk area only, use conventional method of trimming the tree roots and
replacing existing sidewalk.
• At sites where the uplifts are caused by young trees (under 10 years old), trim the
tree roots and place a layer of herbicidal geofabric under the new concrete
Agenda Item #5 -C
02 -06 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
February 6, 2007
sidewalk. The herbicidal geofabric should discourage the new root growth from
growing upwards toward the sidewalk.
• At sites where trees are 24 inches or less in diameter and tree roots are no greater
than three inches in diameter, trim the tree roots and place a three to four inch
thick layer of aggregate and filter fabric under the new concrete sidewalk. The
filter fabric prevents moisture build up and the aggregate rock allows for better
drainage.
• At sites where there are large trees (over 24 inches in diameter) with minimally
invasive roots, use airspading to remove soil to determine whether the roots can
be removed without jeopardizing the stability of the tree or inviting root infection.
Airspading uses a strong jet of air to excavate the soil around the tree structure
without damaging the tree roots.
• Continue to pursue grants for installing rubberized sidewalk throughout the City
and monitor the effectiveness and cost efficiency associated with this product.
Rubberized sidewalk has limited applications. It can only be used where the
sidewalk is completely straight and there is soil on both longitudinal sides.
• When tree roots causing the damage exceed three inches in diameter and
trimming or shaving the roots have been determined by a certified arborist to
compromise the long -term viability of the tree, and no other options are available
to retain the tree, remove the tree and plant a tree species suited to the site
conditions using the best soil preparation methods.
2. Tree Planting and Maintenance Standards
• Update the Master Tree Plan using current horticulture practices. In accordance
with previous Council direction, the update will include identifying the best tree
species for the different site conditions; inventorying trees and their condition
along the major street tree corridors, including coastal corridors; developing a
replacement plan and schedule; and identifying species that maximize
photosynthetic activity and thereby optimize carbon sequestering.
• Develop new planting standards and criteria, including the use of structural soil to
improve drainage capacity as well as removal of impermeable planter strips.
• Modify the tree maintenance program. Young tree roots can be trained to grow
away from the sidewalk if pruned properly. A consistent 10 -year branch pruning
program for young trees can result in minimal branch pruning in later years.
• Implement new watering regimes. Trees need to be watered the first five years
through drip irrigation or hand watering. For tree roots to grow downward rather
than under the sidewalk, over - watering on adjacent properties needs to be
minimized.
• Provide public outreach program on water usage. Insufficient water in the public
planter strip as well as over - watering on private property has resulted in tree roots
expanding beyond the planter strip under the sidewalk towards saturated private
lawns.
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
February 6, 2007
• As part of the new sidewalk standard, include the provision of PVC sleeves for
homeowners to irrigate the planter strip using drip irrigation. Encourage
homeowners to learn more about EBMUD's water usage educational program.
3. Tracking Program
• Develop an inventory of trees and site conditions.
• Develop a database to track sidewalk and ponding repairs and monitor
effectiveness of different repair methods.
• Establish long -term maintenance schedule and budget.
To elicit public comment, the proposed Comprehensive Sidewalk Repair Program was presented
at three public meetings. Meetings were held at the Chamber of Commerce, the Fernside
Homeowner's Association and the Council Chambers where all homeowner associations and the
general public were invited. The proposed Program was well received. Residents supported
changes in the current maintenance practices and requested an opportunity to participate in
updating the Master Tree Plan. In particular, they were interested in using more native tree
species where possible. Some residents requested an opportunity for cost sharing if sidewalk
repair could be expedited. Other residents asked about the cost of the proposed program as
compared to the existing program.
The cost of the existing sidewalk repair program is approximately $10 per square foot. It is
estimated that the addition of herbicidal geofabric will increase the cost to $15 per square foot
and repairs with an aggregate layer and filter fabric will cost $20 per square foot. Rubberized
sidewalk costs approximately $30 per square foot. Airspading costs $2,500 per location; this
amount does not include the concrete improvements.
The proposed contract for the Fiscal Year 2006 -2007 Repair of Portland Cement Concrete
Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching, No. P.W. 08 -06 -18 has been
developed in accordance with the parameters identified in the Comprehensive Sidewalk Repair
Program.
This project will also include the examination and evaluation of the trees that have caused the
sidewalk uplift problem. Staff will work closely with a certified arborist to determine the best
course of action to minimize future sidewalk uplift. The contract will include the various
sidewalk repair options listed above including the provision of PVC sleeves for homeowners to
irrigate the planter strip, but will exclude the rubberized sidewalk program which will be a
separate project. The contract will also include the replacement of some handicap ramps to
conform to the American Disability Act standards when the existing ramps are affected by
sidewalk repair.
The project is estimated to be approximately $1,000,000. A copy of the plans and specifications
are on file in the City Clerk's Office.
Honorable Mayor and Page 4
Councilmembers February 6, 2007
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Council has allocated approximately $1.1 million for sidewalk repairs for Fiscal Year 2006-
2007. Funding is provided through the General Fund, Measure B, and the California Joint
Powers Risk Management Authority excess liability pool. Update of the Master Tree Plan is
estimated to cost $25,000 and funds are available through Council's February 6, 2006 additional
budget allocation for tree pruning and replacements.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Sidewalk Repair Project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Section 15301 (c) - Repair of existing facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Accept Comprehensive Repair Sidewalk Program, including the proposed changes to the
sidewalk improvement repair options and updating of the Master Tree Plan.
2. Adopt plans and specifications and authorize call for bids for the Fiscal Year 2006 -2007
Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street
Patching, No. P.W. 08- 06 -18.
Respect y submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Prepared by,
CtO
CW Chung,
Associate Civil Engineer
MTN:CWC:gc
cc: Watchdog Committee
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
HOUSING COMMISSION
THREE VACANCIES
Anthony E. Forrette
Joy Pratt
Billie Trujillo
Walter Schlueter
Re: Agenda Item #7 -A
02 -06 -07