2005-05-17 PacketCITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - MAY 17, 2005 - - - 7:10 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, May 17, 2005, 7:10 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call.
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only may
speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Name of case: St. Paul Property and Liability Insurance v.
City of Alameda.
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
Adjournment
/ 1
1
Beverly J s•n, ayor
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TUESDAY - - - MAY 17, 2005 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Location: Council Chathbers, City Hall, Santa Clara Ave. and Oak St.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council /Commission /Board on agenda
items or business introduced by Councilmembers /Commissioners /Board
Members may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when
the subject is before the Council /Commission /Board. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on
an agenda item.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
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 /Commission /Board or a member of the public.
1 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting of May 3, 2005. [City Council
and Community Improvement Commission]
1 -B. Recommendation to approve an Amended Contract with Michael
Stanton Architecture (MSA) by increasing the Contract amount
an additional $40,000 for design review services for the
proposed Civic Center Parking Garage Project. [Community
Improvement Commission]
1 -C. Recommendation to accept revised Alameda West Strategic Retail
Implementation recommendations. [Community Improvement
Commission]
AGENDA ITEMS
2 -A. Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to an Acquisition
Agreement by which the Community Improvement Commission
acquired an Affordable Housing Covenant from the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority for thirty units of very low
income housing at the Bachelor Officers' Quarters located
within the Alameda Point Improvement Project. [Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority]
2 -B. Adoption of Resolution of Necessity to Acquire Property by
Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes; Authorizing
Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for Order
of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et
seq. (APN 071 - 0203 -014 and APN 071 - 0203 -015; 2315 -2323 Central
Avenue, Alameda, California - Alameda Theatre /Cineplex and
Parking Structure. [Community Improvement Commission]
[Requires four (4) affirmative votes]
ADJOURNMENT
Beverly Jo•ns� rv, MVyor
Chair, • unity Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TUESDAY - - - MAY 17, 2005 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue
and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Authority on agenda items or business
introduced by Authority may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per
agenda item when the subject is before the Authority. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on
an agenda item.
ROLL CALL
MINUTES
Minutes of the Special Industrial Development Authority Meeting of
June 1, 2004.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Public Comment)
AUTHORITY COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Authority)
ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
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.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - MAY 17, 2005 - - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 p.m., City
Hall, Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St.]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. Agenda Items
6. Oral Communications, Non - Agenda (Public Comment)
7. Council Communications (Communications from Council)
8. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address
the City Council.
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 7:10 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, 7:25 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND ALAMEDA REUSE
AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 7:27 P.M.
AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Welcome and presentation honoring Friendship City delegation
from Wuxi, China.
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 May 3, 2005; and the Special City Council Meeting held on
May 4, 2005.
4 -B. Bills for ratification.
4 -C. Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the
Period Ending March 31, 2005 for sales transactions in the
Fourth Calendar Quarter of 2005.
4 -D. Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call for
Bids for one animal control vehicle.
4 -E. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize
Call for Bids for Cyclic Sewer Repair Project, Phase 4, No.
P.W. 05- 03 -11.
4 -F. Recommendation to authorize installation of an All -Way Stop
Control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman
Street. [Transportation Technical Team]
4 -G. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the use of Measure B
Countywide Discretionary Fund Grant from Alameda County
Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) and Matching
Funds from the City's Local Measure B Allocation to Complete a
Citywide Pedestrian Plan.
4 -H. Adoption of Resolution Extending Period for Providing Low and
Moderate Income Housing Pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 33334.16 for 30 Units Within the Bachelor Officers'
Quarters at Alameda Point.
4 -I. Adoption of Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual
Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the
City of Alameda for FY 2005 -06 and Set a Public Hearing for
June 7, 2005.
4 -J. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
to Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park
Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections
2 -7.2 (Membership; Appointment; Removal), 2 -7.3
(Qualification: Voting of Section 2 -7 (City Recreation and
Park Commission). [Mayor Johnson]
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Recognizing the Selection of the City
of Wuxi, China as Alameda's Friendship City and Authorizing
the Mayor to Sign a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the
Formulation and Implementation of Sister City Relations.
[Social Services Human Relations Board]
5 -B. Adoption of Resolution Declaring Support for Measure A,
Alameda Unified School District Parcel Tax Measure.
[Councilmember Matarrese]
5 -C. Public Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriation
Limit) for Fiscal Year 2005 -06; and
• Adoption of Resolution Establishing Appropriations Limit
for Fiscal Year 2005 -06.
5 -D. Public Hearing to consider collection of Delinquent Business
License Fees via the Property Tax Bills.
5 -E. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting
two Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce
Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new
development proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory
Board as a condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak
tree in 2001; and adoption of related resolution. The site is
located at 301 Spruce Street within the R -4 Neighborhood
Residential Zoning District. Applicant: Bill Wong for Hai Ky
Lam. Appellant: Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader.
5 -F. Recommendation to develop two separate voluntary seismic
retrofit programs.
5 -G. Recommendation to accept Report on results of Actuarial
Valuations of the Police and Fire Retirement 1079 and 1082
Plans and the Retiree Health Care Plan.
5 -H. Presentation on the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements
for Fiscal Year 2005 -06.
5 -I. Presentation on the City's infrastructure investment
challenges.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda.
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
8. ADJOURNMENT
• 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 SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MAY 3, 2005 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 8:08 p.m.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor /Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
(05- CC /05- CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on April 19, 2005.
Approved.
Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(05- CC /05- CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider authorizing
the City Manager /Executive Director to enter into a Disposition and
Development Agreement with Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.,
approval of the 33433 Report, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure
Project (State Clearinghouse #2004 - 122 -042);
(05- A /CC) Resolution No. 13834, "Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., and Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program." Adopted; and
(05- A /CIC) Resolution No. 05 -134, "Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., Approving Certain Mitigation Measures for the
Project, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program." Adopted.
The Business Development Division Manager gave a Power Point
presentation.
The Development Services Director provided a brief update on the
project.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005
1
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired about the traffic
remediation requirements.
The Development Services Director responded there was one major
traffic improvement to upgrade a signal at Santa Clara Avenue and
Oak Street; there are struggles with traffic improvements at the
intersection; modifications need to be made to all of the equipment
at the intersection because the equipment is old; the estimate to
do the work is about $100,000; the design plan will provide a nice
public environment to half the block of Oak Street by extending the
public sidewalk from eight feet to fourteen feet and providing
garage and theatre outside lighting to accommodate people, cars and
bicycles entering and exiting the garage.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether determining the
scope is an on -going process, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor /Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents:
Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society;
Susan Decker, Alameda; Lars Hanson, Park Street Business
Association (PSBA); Pauline Kelly; Barbara Marchand, Alameda Civic
Light Opera; Cathy Leong, Alameda Chamber of Commerce; Mike
Corbett, Harsch Investments; and Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Opponents:
Gary McAfee, Alameda; Jennifer Van Airsdale, Alameda; Joan Steber,
Alameda; John McNulty, Alameda; John F. Ruake; Zach Kaplan,
Alameda; and Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda (submitted handout);
Expressed concern with bike safety on Central Avenue between Oak
and Walnut Streets:
Robert Van de Walle, Alameda; Andy Cutright, Alameda; Alameda; Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Mark Haskett; and Jillian Saxty, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor /Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated that the Council needs to
follow through with the commitment to reconfigure the parking [on
Central Avenue between Oak and Walnut Streets] to the original
parallel state at the former historic Alameda High School.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005
2
The Acting City Manager stated that the need for diagonal parking
was created because of the new gymnasium, City Hall moving into the
east wing of the high school, and the Library moving into the
middle wing of the high school; parking was increased from 32
spaces to 58 spaces; Council approved an ordinance modification for
diagonal parking; the Recreation and Park Department is the only
part of City Hall remaining in the east wing and will be moving out
within a month; the Library is projected to move out within 17 or
18 months; much of the parking demand will be eliminated; the
parking garage construction provides an opportunity to move back to
parallel parking; a parking plan would need to be brought back to
Council for approval.
Vice Mayor /Commissioner Gilmore stated that she has great sympathy
for bicyclists; a large segment of the youth population will either
ride bikes or take the bus to the theatre.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated the dollar value of
parking spaces is understood now.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that the parking structure would solve a
lot of the parking problems.
Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated that the project is good
for all of Alameda, especially the youth.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated the theatre project is
important for the whole City; dollars would be kept in town; the
historic theatre will rot if the project does not move forward.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the Resolution Approving and
Authorizing Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement
Between the Community Improvement Commission and Alameda
Entertainment Associates, L.P., and Adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program [paragraph no. 05-
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Approving
and Authorizing Execution of a Disposition and Development
Agreement Between the Community Improvement Commission and Alameda
Entertainment Associates, L.P., Approving Certain Mitigation
Measures for the Project, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring
Program [paragraph no. 05- 1.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005
3
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor /Chair Johnson directed staff to bring the Central Avenue bike
lane issue back to Council.
(05- CIC) Resolution No. 05 -135, "Approving and Authorizing
Payment of Certain Public Improvements to the Park Street and Otis
Drive Intersection." Adopted; and
(05- CC) Resolution No. 13835, "Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Public Improvements Construction Agreement Between
the City and Harsch Investment Corporation." Adopted.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is critical
to Alameda's economic engine.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the
resolutions.
Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired what
type of funding would be used.
The Development Services Director responded that staff recommends
using Community Improvement Commission funds for the project; the
primary benefit finding is required because the intersection is
just outside the formal boundaries of a redevelopment project area;
the improvements are tied to the form and function of the rest of
the redevelopment project area; Redevelopment Law has a provision
that recognizes that there are projects that may be outside the
boundaries which are a primary benefit to the function of the rest
of the project area.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether other funding
sources were considered.
The Development Services Director responded that there was a
discussion about using some sales tax dollars from the new South
Shore Shopping Center development.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan inquired how the two - third, one -
third cost sharing was derived.
The Development Services Director responded that the formula was a
result of negotiations with the developer; there was a dispute over
the assignment of the impact of the intersection; the developer
felt that he should not be responsible for making all the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and 4
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005
improvements to the intersection; traffic modeling shows that there
are other background projects not yet developed, but approved,
which would also impact the intersection; the negotiation used the
actual number of trips coming off the project and the impact on the
intersection.
Councilmember /Commission deHaan stated that there might be further
requirements for further entitlements; inquired what the affect
would be on the traffic remediation.
The Development Services Director responded that the entitlements
received for the project anticipate 112,000 square feet of new
retail square footage at the South Shore Shopping Center and would
likely increase; circulation issues related to the gas station
would need to be examined independently; additional improvements
can always be made; a need for further improvements is anticipated
by 2020.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated that he was concerned that
the same [redevelopment] funds are being used for many issues;
inquired whether there is a detailed breakdown of where
redevelopment funding stands.
The Development Services Director responded that there are
sufficient funds; anticipated improvements can be made with
existing tax increments and not bonds.
The Acting City Manager stated that at the next meeting staff would
provide a Community Improvement Commission multi -year budget to
show how much money remains.
Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is very
important; the rationale and logic fits into the true meaning of
redevelopment; that he defends the approach of taking redevelopment
funds for the Library project; his motion to adopt the resolutions
stands.
Councilmember /Commissioner Daysog stated the investment is
necessary if the money means that the City would have stores such
as Borders or Chicos.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that the City needs to be frugal with
redevelopment money but also needs to use the money wisely; moving
forward with projects that help continue the redevelopment and
revitalization of Alameda business areas is an appropriate use of
funds.
Councilmember /Commissioner deHaan stated that he is comfortable
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005
5
with delaying other major retail developments to allow South Shore
Shopping Center to mature; he supports and looks forward to the
renewed Center, but has concerns with funding.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Approving
and Authorizing Payment of Certain Public Improvements to the Park
Street and Otis Drive Intersection [paragraph no. 05- ].
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Approving
and Authorizing Execution of a Public Improvements Construction
Agreement Between the City and Harsch Investment Corporation
[paragraph no. 05- 1.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05- CIC) Recommendation to approve an Amended Contract with
Architectural Resources Group, Inc., by increasing the Contract
amount an additional $44,275 to provide additional pre - planning
services for the proposed Alameda Theatre Project. Accepted.
Commissioner Daysog moved to approve the staff recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005
6
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: William C. Norton
Acting Executive Director
Date: May 4, 2005
Re: Recommendation to Approve an Amended Contract with Michael Stanton Architecture
(MSA) by Increasing the Contract Amount an Additional $40,000 for Design Review
Services for the Proposed Civic Center Parking Garage Project
BACKGROUND
The Community Improvement Commission (CIC) contracted with Michael Stanton Architecture
(MSA) for professional planning and architectural services for the proposed Historic Alameda
Theatre, Cineplex, and Parking Garage project on January 18, 2005 for $92,500. MSA has provided
extensive architectural services to the City over the last several months, including preparation of
design guidelines for the Cineplex, a summary report of property line construction responsibilities, a
summary report of key code assumptions prepared in conjunction with the Building Department, and
several design review submittals of the parking garage design, as well as attendance at various public
meetings. The amendment to the original contract will result in a total contract amount of $132,500.
An amendment to the scope of work and associated compensation in MSA's January 18, 2005
contract is required for two significant reasons: (1) the final approval of the design guidelines for the
proposed Cineplex required numerous public hearings beyond MSA's original scope; and (2) the
Initial Study /Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking
Structure Project prescribes an extensive community engagement and design review process (beyond
the City's normal process) for achieving final design approval of all three components of the project,
including the parking garage, which were not included in MSA's original scope of work.
The proposed amended contract includes preparing design review submittals and materials necessary
for achieving final design review approval of the proposed parking garage by the Planning Board,
and the completion of performance specifications necessary for the Call for Bidders package for the
design/build contract for the garage. A copy of the contract and its amendments is on file with the
City Clerk.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
MSA's proposed contract scope includes the work tasks outlined below:
1. MSA's architectural responsibilities will include design development and materials selection
(including lighting, landscaping, and urban design features) for the garage. In addition to
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 1 -B
Council /CIC /ARRA
5 -17 -05
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
May 4, 2005
Page 2
architectural design, work on the garage will include additional schematic structural design,
and mechanical, plumbing and electrical design/build criteria. The intent is that this work
will provide a sufficient description of the building for use by the City of Alameda in the
preparation of the Call for Bidders for the design/build team for the new Garage.
2. During the preparation of the design of the new garage, MSA will meet with the City of
Alameda's Department of Public Works to resolve operational issues of the new garage that
pertain to the design.
3. MSA will meet with concerned citizens, respond to community input, and present the design
of the parking garage at City of Alameda public meetings, as directed by staff. This will
include presentation(s) to the Historic Advisory Board, and the Planning Board (up to four
[4] meetings). The design will be modified along the way as required to gain the requisite
approvals.
4. MSA will produce the following material for the City of Alameda for use in the Call for
Bidders package for design/build teams:
a. Performance specifications describing materials, structural system, and design/build
criteria for plumbing, mechanical, and electrical engineering;
b. Performance criteria for the desired design/build process including:
i. Architectural floor plans of each level
ii. Architectural building sections
iii. Architectural building elevations
iv. Lighting diagrams
v. Structural plans
FISCAL IMPACT
The contract is for an amount not to exceed $40,000. This contract will be funded by the Merged
Area Bond Issue and will not impact the General Fund.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G:\ Comdev \econdev\Jennifer\Parking Structure\Admin\MSA 5- 17- 05.doc
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
RECOMMENDATION
May 4, 2005
Page 3
It is recommended that the CIC approve the amended contract with Michael Stanton Architecture
(MSA) by increasing the contract amount an additional $40,000 to provide professional architecture
services for the proposed Civic Center Parking Garage Project.
WCN/LAL/DES /JO:ry
Res 2 ec ly submitt- • 0 h I,',
•lie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
nager, Business Development Division
J
D
cc: Michael Stanton, Michael Stanton Architecture
nife
elo
Ott
ment Manager
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G:\ Comdev \econdev\Jenniferr\Parking Structure\Admin\MSA 5- 17- 05.doc
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
May 4, 2005
To:
From:
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Community Improvement Commission
William C. Norton
Acting Executive Director
Re: Receive and File Revised Alameda West Strategic Retail Implementation
Recommendations
Background
At its April 5, 2005 Community Improvement Commission (CIC) meeting, Linda S.
Congleton presented the Alameda West Strategic Retail Implementation
Recommendations. This report, prepared by Linda S. Congleton & Associates (LCA),
proposes an optimal retail implementation strategy for possible west end retail areas.
Four specific locations (Alameda Point, Enterprise Landing, South Shore and Webster
Street) were evaluated for future retail potential given market demand (e.g., what is the
achievable amount of new retail square footage, sufficiency of anchor tenants interested
in the west end, and sites that optimize leasing and sales success over the long term).
As part of the presentation, the CIC requested that the report be revised to add a section
that discusses previous policy documents, specifically the Economic Development
Strategic Plan (EDSP) and the Citywide Retail Policy Report, and how the Alameda West
Strategic Retail Implementation Recommendations fits within the framework of those
initiatives.
Discussion
Attached is a revised report for CIC consideration. The report has a new "Introduction"
section that identifies the effort undertaken in the Alameda West Strategic Retail
Implementation Recommendations as one of checking the priorities stated in the EDSP
and the Citywide Retail Policy Report against market forces, competition, retail leakage,
existing retail opportunities, and retail saturation and voids. The "Introduction" also lists
six specific policies from the Citywide Retail Policy Report that the Alameda West
Strategic Retail Implementation Recommendations addresses as part of any optimal
retailing strategy for the west end.
Report 1 -C
Council /CIC /ARRA
5 -17 -05
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Community Improvement Commission
May 4, 2005
Page 2
Within the context of existing economic development policies, LCA was retained to
confirm the retail sales opportunity previously identified in two leakage and support
analyses and to balance that with the reality of market demand and regional competition.
It was hoped that this exercise would yield information about specific retail uses that
would be successful on the west end as well as further refine previously adopted retail
policies.
The LCA report confirms that an additional maximum demand of 520,000 - 580,000
square feet of retail exists for the west end assuming that all developers are able to secure
the anchor tenants being targeted. This additional demand assumes that a Target and
Kohl's will be added to the tenant mix at South Shore. The additional retail demand is
specific rather than open- ended. The types of retail anchors likely to locate on the west
end include a grocery store and a home improvement/home furnishings store. This
market assessment is based on retail voids in the market, the number of retailers attracted
to the anchor retail types mentioned above, and the amount of quick foods, dining
establishments and small shop space that is compatible with these types of tenant mixes.
The findings described above are intended to assist the City as it moves forward with
evaluating specific projects as west end planning/development efforts continue to evolve.
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact for receipt and filing of the revised Alameda West Strategic
Retail Implementation Recommendations.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Community Improvement Commission receive and file the
attached Alameda West Strategic Retail Implementation Recommendations.
Respect l submitted,/
Ctg
Leslie A. Little
Development Si; ices Director
B Debbie Potter
Base Reuse and Redevelopment Manager
WCN /LAL /DP:if
Attachments
G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\DebbiePotter \Staff Reports \cic.revisedretail.051705.doc
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
LIlVDA S. CONGLETON & ASSOCIATES
Strategic Real Estate Retail Market Consultation & Research
31726 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 108
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
(949) 487-2000
FAX (949) 487 -2077
e -mail: Iscongletonassoc @aol.com
ALAMEDA WEST
STRATEGIC RETAIL IMPLEMENTATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT
P -473
Prepared for
City of Alameda
Development Services
Alameda, California
March 15, 2005
LINDA S. CONGLETON & ASSOCIATES
Strategic Real Estate Retail Market Consultation & Research
March 15, 2005
Ms. Debbie Potter
Base Reuse & Redevelopment Manager
Development Services
950 West Mall Square, Room 215
Alameda, CA 94501 -7552
P -473
31726 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 108
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
(949) 487 -2000
FAX: (949) 487 -2077
e -mail: lscongletonassoc@aol.com
SUBJECT: Alameda West Strategic Retail Implementation Recommendations
Dear Ms. Potter:
Linda S. Congleton & Associates was retained to determine the optimal retail implementation
strategy for the City of Alameda's West End retail areas, including Catellus Development's
Enterprise Landing site, Webster Street and Alameda Point.
SCOPE OF WORK
Over the last three months, we have:
• conducted in -field evaluations of the sites;
• participated in two Stakeholder meetings attended by representatives of Catellus,
Alameda Point, South Shore and the West Alameda Business Association;
• conducted additional one -on -one meetings and participated in telephone conversations
with the Stakeholder representatives;
• reviewed previously prepared retail reports submitted to us;
• analyzed Alameda demographics and prepared a grocery store demand analysis based on
current and planned trade area housing;
• evaluated proposed leasing, design and retail development program strategies for South
Shore, Enterprise Landing and Alameda Point;
• conducted an in -field evaluation of Webster Street's stores and buildings; and
• participated in a number of meetings with city staff and consultants.
Linda S. Concleton & Associates
INTRODUCTION
The Alameda West Strategic Retail Implementation Recommendations is a market -based
analysis intended to check priorities stated in the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP)
and the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy against regional market forces, competition, retail
leakage data, retail opportunities and retail saturation and voids. Both the EDSP and Citywide
Retail Policy grew out of broad community discussion. The purpose of the Alameda West
Strategic Retail Implementation Recommendations is to examine the regional marketplace as a
source of answers to questions of which retailers are available in the market, where are the new
retail opportunities, what are the geographic retail constraints posed by Alameda's Island market,
and how do these facts compare with the goals and expectations of these policy documents.
City of Alameda Economic Development Strategic Plan
Strategy #2 of the July 2000 EDSP expresses a desired increase in the availability and quality of
retail goods and professional services to met the purchasing preferences of Alameda residents
and the employees of Alameda firms.
Alameda Citywide Retail Policy
The 2004 Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report updated the retail component of the EDSP and
it continued the community dialogue around retail priorities. It is worthwhile recalling several
key factors that led up to the Citywide Retail Policy process, including:
> Discussions regarding potential retail development opportunities at the Northern
Waterfront - the former Del Monte site, the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center
area (Enterprise Landing), and Alameda Point; and
> Redevelopment opportunities at Bridgeside Shopping Center, Webster Street, and
retail retenanting and expansion of South Shore Shopping Center.
One theme during the series of community meetings and discussions was to discuss the role or
niche played by each of the City's existing retail areas and to discuss the community's
expectations and aspirations for the role that future retail areas might play. While the Alameda
Citywide Retail Policy made an important contribution to community dialogue, it retained a
broad, citywide focus and did not break new ground on an effort to give form and character to the
niche that specific new retail areas could and should play.
However, the Citywide Retail Policy Report distilled three major issues and proposed policies
which led to this current work effort:
• Leakage — There are types of retail goods and service that residents currently have
to seek off the island but would like to find here in Alameda.
There are a number of polices that describe the type of market segments envisioned for new
retail development in Alameda. Citywide Policy 3 (CW3) suggests that new retail proposals
demonstrate that they will primarily serve the community or meet a high - priority local need.
2
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
• Supporting existing retail vs. attracting new retail opportunities — the community
wants to see Alameda businesses thrive; there is concern that new retail might
threaten the viability of these businesses.
Citywide Policies CW1 And CW3 seek to ensure that new retail centers complement rather
than duplicate the primary roles and major economic segments of existing retail areas, and
that they not have significant, long- term deleterious effects on existing retail areas and/or the
local economy. Retail areas may have some overlapping target markets, with the possibility
of similar retailers locating in more that one location, but this should be ancillary to the major
economic segments represented.
• Local vs. regional markets — Workshop participants want to see Alameda retail
better serve local needs; there is some concern that attracting off -island customers
to spend to spend their money in Alameda will not offset the additional traffic
impacts.
It is recognized that the many successful existing Alameda retailers rely on their ability to
draw shoppers from a trade area that is wider than Alameda. This is especially true for many
successful independent specialty retailers. While it is expected that future new successful
retailers may follow a similar business model, the community sentiment is that new retailers
should not have to rely on being able to draw from beyond alameda's boundaries in order to
survive.
The Citywide Retail Policy provided vision and goals as backdrop and context for discussions
and recommendations in the Alameda West Strategic Retail Implementation Report, including
support for:
• A diverse mix of businesses — lower- , middle- and high -end retail
• Comprehensive range of goods and services that minimize the need to leave the
Island
• Scale and design of retail consistent with the small town character of Alameda
• All of Alameda's business districts reaching their potential — and thriving.
Key Citywide Retail Policy goals include:
• Retain, maintain and revitalize existing Alameda retail.
• Attract new business to Alameda that Alamedans want.
• Build on unique assets of Alameda: water access and views.
• Generate sales tax revenue for the City.
With all of this as guidance, it must be said that a primary purpose for preparing the Alameda
West Strategic Retail Implementation Recommendations was to help understand the choices or
alternatives that flow from six particular policies of the Citywide Retail Policy Report:
3
Linda S. Congleton & Associates
• Regional Center 2 (RC2) - Any new regional retail center in the West End (at
Alameda Point, Enterprise Landing or the Northern Waterfront) should be
coordinated with, and if possible enhance, existing, planned and approved retail in
Alameda.
• Regional Center 3 (RC3) - An additional regional center differentiated from South
Shore may address unmet retailing needs of the Alameda community and work force,
as projected through General Plan build -out.
• Regional Center 4 (RC4) - Support South Shore's efforts to expand and to attract
more mid -range tenants and lifestyle retailers that require footprints of between 5,000
and 40,000 square feet of gross leasable space. Typical tenants would include such
things as soft goods, apparel, home furnishings, and housewares. (Note: Changes in
the marketplace have made South Shore competitive to retailers of larger size than
just 5,000 to 40,000 square feet)
• Regional Center 5 (RC5) - Support, encourage and foster development of a new
regional retail center on the West End (at Enterprise Landing, Northern Waterfront or
Alameda Point) with quality place - making design and a tenant mix that is a mid- to
high -end concept with emphasis on hard goods (furniture and home furnishings,
electronics and sporting goods) and larger format national restaurants. Examples of
tenant mix would include such things as: general merchandise retailers; furniture;
home furnishings; home improvement; household appliances & electronics; hardware;
and possibly some apparel; larger format, national restaurants, especially those
oriented to the shopper, so as to avoid diluting the Main Street business districts'
emphasis on entertainment and independent and fine dining restaurants.
• Regional Center 6 (RC6) — Provide for construction of a new grocery store -/ drug
store - anchored shopping center at a location other than Enterprise Landing, and in a
location within the West End, where a grocery store would be critically needed as an
anchor tenant for surrounding retail.
• Main Street 3 (MSI3) - Revise the existing General Plan policy 2.5g (calling for
preparation of a Specific Plan) with a policy that calls for preparation of a Strategic
Plan for Webster Street, including an anchor catalyst retail project. Analysis of
possible retail opportunities should include matching new retail to meet the
underserved retailing needs of the residential population and demographic mix of the
area.
In addition, preparation of the Alameda West Strategic Retail Implementation
Recommendations was coordinated with the process of preparing the Webster District Strategic
Plan in several ways, but in particular by including individual members of the Economic
Development Commission Webster Strategic Plan Task Force in the stake- holder interviews at
the beginning and end of the process.
Linda S. Congleton & Associates
With the closure of the Naval Air Station Alameda (NAS) and the Fleet Industrial Supply
Center (FISC), major new development opportunities have opened up on the west end of
Alameda. How these key sites are developed, along with the revitalization of Webster Street and
South Shore Shopping Center, has informed the key policy documents discussed above. These
development opportunities also require that the City understand community aspirations, market
forces, the local and regional economy, and project timing and phasing so that it can make
informed decisions as part of the entitlement process for specific projects. Toward that end,
Linda S. Congleton & Associates (LCA) was retained to determine an optimal retailing strategy
for four specific locations. LCA's work is a follow -up to the policy initiatives described above
and is intended to fit into the framework of broad retail goals including ensuring that new and
existing retail fit with Alameda's quality of life and promoting new retail development that
protects and enhances the City's existing retail base.
KEY FACTS & ISSUES
At the inception of this consulting assignment, we were presented with four locations exploring
retail additions to the City, with three located in West End Alameda:
1. Catellus Development: a possible 400,000 to 450,000 square foot retail project on a
portion of an 84 -acre site currently zoned R &D /office (Enterprise Landing). This retail
would be adjacent to the new Bayport residential home site, currently being jointly
developed by Warmington Homes and Catellus Development.
2. Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP): a minimum of 88,000 square feet of
grocery- anchored, neighborhood/community- oriented retail to a maximum of 524,000
square feet of retail oriented to island -wide residents. This retail would be part of a
proposed reuse and redevelopment of the former Alameda Naval Air Station.
3. South Shore Shopping Center: 112,000 square feet of new space added to the existing
space of about 540,000 square feet, representing Alameda's single largest shopping center
destination today. The center is undergoing renovation and re- leasing, with the
replacement of anchor, mini -anchor and small shop stores. It is reported that the center is
currently in negotiations with Target for the acquisition of land for a 140,000 - square -foot
store, with a goal of closing in 2005. South Shore is also in negotiations to add Kohl's to
the center as part of its re- leasing efforts. Safeway has agreed to relocate and expand its
37,000 - square -foot store to 59,000 square feet.
4. Webster Street: The West Alameda Business Association is initiating a strategic
marketing plan to attract retailers. One of the preliminary ideas discussed is the addition
of a grocery store. Webster Street is a retail district with a variety of uses, including a
Days Inn Hotel, a Hawthorne Suites Hotel, the Elders Inn (Seniors project), a number of
free - standing fast food operators, auto - related uses, several restaurants /cafes, a small
pharmacy, numerous personal services and many other independent entrepreneurial
businesses in older, two -level buildings.
5
Linda S. Congleton & Associates
According to a September, 2003 Retail Impacts Analysis report prepared by Strategic Economics,
the City of Alameda contains 818,000 square feet of retail space in four shopping centers (South
Shore, Marina Village, Bridgeside and Harbor Bay Landing) and about 561,000 square feet of
retail and service space on Park and Webster Streets, for a total retail inventory of about 1.38
million square feet. The maximum retail space originally suggested by both Catellus and
Alameda Point was nearly 1.0 million square feet (974,000 square feet).
Recognizing that the amount of proposed new Alameda retail space is not likely to be
realistically achievable, the City of Alameda has asked us to analyze a number of key issues,
including the following:
1. How can the City provide a balanced increase in retail space that addresses a portion of
the City's retail sales leakage, enhances the City's sales tax base and provides appealing
new shopping opportunities in high quality developments? (EDSP Strategy #2)
2. What is the realistically achievable amount of square footage that can be added to the
City's retail base without cannibalizing the City's existing anchored shopping centers?
(Alameda City Wide Retail Policy, #CW -1)
3. What are the optimal locations for major new retail additions that bolster the City's
chances for leasing and sales success over the long term? (Alameda City Wide Retail
Policy — Regional Center #R C -2, R C -3, R C -5)
4. Are there a sufficient number of anchor tenants seriously interested in a West End
Alameda location to adequately support the proposed centers? (Alameda City Wide
Retail Policy — Regional Center #R C -5)
5. How can the City balance its near -term retail opportunities with the longer term demand
potential generated by new Alameda Point residents? (Alameda City Wide Retail Policy —
Regional Center #R C -5)
6. Because a significant amount of land at Alameda Point is only suitable for commercial
uses, how can the City provide a balance between near -term opportunities and the
potential for reserving space for future retail space? (Alameda City Wide Retail Policy
#CW -1)
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Few large retailers exist that would be willing to serve as the critical anchor stores for Enterprise
Landing and Alameda Point. Further, South Shore is undergoing renovation and re- leasing today
to attract and secure the most sought -after retailers likely to thrive in Alameda. Should South
Shore succeed in implementing its strategy of selling land to Target and adding Kohl's to its
tenant mix, the two top contenders for serving as anchor stores will have already been secured for
6
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
Alameda East prior to finalizing the entitlement process for Enterprise Landing and Alameda
Point.
The addition of Trader Joes at South Shore, the expansion of Safeway at South Shore and the
commitment of a 57,000- square -foot Nob Hill grocery store at the Bridgeside redevelopment
project have all impacted the demand for new grocery space in Alameda. Our demand analysis
shows that strong demand exists for only one more grocery store in Alameda in the near future
(see EXHIBIT 4).
Should Target acquire the South Shore site and should Kohl's be added to the tenant mix at
South Shore, two community center anchor tenant scenarios are most viable for Enterprise
Landing: (1) a center anchored by Lowe's, a major home improvement/home furnishings store
of about 130,000 square feet or another major home improvement store; or (2) a community
center anchored by a 30,000 to 40,000 - square -foot gourmet/specialty grocery store. We project
that either scenario would result in a center totaling about 220,000 to 225,000 square feet. This
projection is based on our assessment of the retail voids in the market, the number of retailers
attracted to these anchor retail types, and the amount of quick foods, dining establishments and
small shop space that is compatible with these types of tenant mixes.
If the Enterprise Landing site becomes a home improvement/home furnishings center, additional
demand remains over the short-term (e.g., five years) for another specialty grocery store to be
located in the West End of Alameda. Alameda Point could start its total mixed -use development
in the early years with a grocery-store anchored neighborhood center of about 80,000 to 120,000
square feet located near the entrance to the project, with the center serving the new homes at
Bayport, other West End Alameda residents, as well as serving as an amenity for future homes to
be built.
Should Enterprise Landing become a community center anchored by a 30,000 — 40,000 square -
foot specialty grocery store, additional strong grocery store demand will not be available for
another grocery- store - anchored center to be located at Alameda Point in the early years of the
project. However, Alameda Point is proposing approximately 1,900 new homes that will provide
additional support for grocery store space. Once these homes are fully occupied, demand will
exist for another 40,000 — 65,000 square -foot grocery store (see EXHIBIT 5). It is not unrealistic
to assume that, once a sizable portion of Alameda Point's homes are under construction, an
additional grocery store may be attracted to anchor the first phase of retail in the mixed -use
project. The timing of this additional new grocery store may not be achievable until at least half
of the homes at Alameda Point are fully occupied, and, therefore, this center would not be
developed in the first few years of development.
Additional retail potential at Alameda Point includes possibly attracting a large floorplate tenant
(e.g., 150,000 - 160,000 square feet), particularly for some of the site's adaptive reuse space. The
remaining amount of retail space at Alameda Point will be dependent upon the amount of visitor -
oriented uses that are secured along the waterfront. We estimate a maximum opportunity of
55,000 to 60,000 square feet of visitor - oriented retail space, including dining offerings. The
7
Linda S. Congleton & Associates
amount supportable will be highly dependent upon whether Alameda Point becomes a visitor
destination for non - Alameda residents.
The highest and best economic retail strategy for Webster Street, irrespective of current zoning
restrictions, is conversion of two story, older buildings to work -live environments and other
upper level housing programs, such as rental housing, with ground floor retail. No major
redevelopment intervention program would be financially feasible or doable given the lack of
available empty sites or suitable buildings for major anchor store uses, such as a grocery store.
Moreover, even if a grocery store were added to the street, such a program would not generate
high spin -off sales to surrounding uses, and therefore, cannot be justified in terms of increasing
on- street sales.
Based on our review of City demographics, the number of possible key anchor stores, and the
realistically achievable range of mini - anchor and small shop opportunities associated with these
anchor stores (as discussed above), there is the optimum potential to add approximately 520,000
- 580,000 square feet of retail space at Alameda's West End, assuming Target and Kohl's locate
at Alameda's South Shore center (see table below).
ALAMEDA WEST END
POTENTIAL RETAIL SPACE
OPTIMUM SCENARIO
8
Enterprise Landing
Community Center
220,000 — 225,000 sq. ft.
Waterfront Restaurants
15,000 — 20,000 sq. ft.
Total
235,000 — 245,000 sq. ft.
Alameda Point
Neighborhood Center
80,000 — 120,000 sq. ft.
Large Format Retailer
150,000 — 160,000 sq. ft.
Visitor - Oriented Retail
55,000 — 60,000 sq. ft.
Total
285,000 — 340,000 sq. ft.
Webster Street
No large amounts of new net
square footage
Grand Total
520,000 — 585,000 sq. ft.
8
Linda S. Conoleton & Associates
This optimum scenario, however, does not reflect a worst case scenario reflecting the inability of
one or both developers, Catellus Development and/or APCP, not securing its sought after anchor
stores. Moreover, the possibility exists that APCP is not successful in securing a large format
retailer, particularly for any of its large existing former Naval Base structures. Creating a visitor -
oriented destination at the APCP site may not be easy to achieve, and, therefore, the possibility
also exists that APCP will not be able to support any square footage of retail space targeted to
non - Alameda residents. Should this "worst case" situation occur, APCP may only be able to
support a minor amount of office- support and/or neighborhood convenience retail space of about
8,000 to 10,000 square feet. The second table below, therefore, shows a worst case scenario for
both Catellus and APCP, with 8,000 to 395,000 square feet reflecting this alternative's estimated
range of supportable square footage.
ALAMEDA WEST END
POTENTIAL RETAIL SPACE
WORST CASE SCENARIO
•
Enterprise Landing
Community Center
0 -- 220,000 sq. ft.
Waterfront Restaurants
0 -- 15,000 sq. ft.
Total
0 -- 235,000 sq. ft.
Alameda Point
Neighborhood Center
0 sq. ft.
Large Format Retailer
0 -- 150,000 sq. ft.
Visitor - Oriented Retail
0 sq. ft.
Office Support/Neighborhood
Convenience Retail
8,000 — 10,000 sq. ft.
Total
8,000 — 160,000 sq. ft.
Webster Street
No large amounts of new net
square footage
Grand Total
8,000 — 395,000 sq. ft.
9
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
DISCUSSION
City Demographic & Locational Constraints & Opportunities
In the retail industry, we define the primary trade area for a shopping center as the residential
area from which the shopping center can expect to generate most (67% to 80% +) of its sales.
The City of Alameda's self - contained island physical characteristics define the primary trade area
for the West End Alameda areas being reviewed. Major physical barriers define the city of
Alameda, providing a sense of community identity and culture that is distinct from the city of
Oakland, located to the east.
The City of Alameda's physical separators include the San Francisco Bay to the south and west;
the Alameda - Oakland Inner Harbor to the north and east separating the island from the city of
Oakland; the Oakland Airport immediately south of Alameda; the San Leandro Channel and Bay
separating the south ends of Alameda from Oakland; and the Freeway 880, which runs parallel to
the western edge of Oakland (see EXHIBIT 1, map).
According to the 2000 Census, Alameda contains 72,259 persons living in about 30,000 occupied
households (see EXHIBITS 2 and 2A). Alameda's households are relatively affluent, with
estimated median incomes (for 2003) at about $65,000 a year and average incomes of over
$83,000 a year. The Census reports median age of 38.3 years and an average household size of
2.3 persons. The relatively modest average household size reflects a trade area that contains high
percentages of singles and childless couples —large family household trade areas typically report
2.5 to 3.0 persons or higher. Nearly half of the households are owner - occupied, with slightly
more than half consisting of renter - occupied units. Renter households include upscale residents
renting by choice; those renting single family homes; and those renting as a result of the very
high Bay Area home sales prices.
Although Alameda's residents are clearly affluent, the 30,000 homes representing this self -
contained community provide a ceiling on the types and quantities of retailers that can thrive in
Alameda. Some large retailers (50,000 to 100,000 square feet or more) require primary trade
areas with significantly higher numbers of households because their merchandise generates lower
frequency buying patterns, particularly if the merchandise is highly specialized. The retailers
seek high quantities of homes that may shop their store on a monthly basis. For example, many
large regional department stores, both full -price and discount, require primary trade areas with at
least 100,000 households. Moreover, these types of retailers usually seek locations with easy,
quick freeway access and often freeway visibility as well. None of the Alameda West End sites
evaluated are located directly along a major freeway, and therefore, cannot draw from
communities well beyond Alameda's borders.
In contrast, some large retailers of 50,000 to 100,000+ square feet can do well in community -
oriented locations, such as Alameda, because the store's merchandising format attracts shoppers
on a more frequent basis (say, several times a month). Examples include Target and Kohl's.
These retailers do not require freeway- frontage locations.
-10-
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
We have prepared an analysis of the neighborhood lifestyle clusters for Alameda's households to
further evaluate residents' shopping desires and preferences (see EXHIBIT 3). Incomes alone do
not provide the subjective information needed to predict the types of retail appealing to residents
served by a community- oriented shopping destination. For example, the following two lifestyle
categories for households earning over $50,000 a year would exhibit major shopping pattern
differences: (1) "Young Literati" or upscale urban singles and couples and (2) "American
Dreams" or established upscale immigrant families with children. Young Literati, typically
highly educated, childless residents, are excellent consumers of artworks, books, fitness services
and products, travel and home furnishings. In contrast, established upscale immigrant families
are strong spenders on their children's necessity goods, apparel and educational expenses.
EXHIBIT 3 segments Alameda's households into categories that represent the nation's highest -
spending clusters, and categories that represent the highest household percentages in the City.
Nearly 61% of Alameda's households are in the highest spending lifestyle categories in the
nation, with another 23.4% consisting of upper - middle income, white - collar urban couples
( "Urban Achievers ") —also excellent consumers of discretionary goods, services and foods
because of their urban lifestyle and lack of child - related spending obligations. In fact, Alameda's
neighborhoods contain significant percentages of highly educated, upper - middle- income and
upscale childless singles, couples and couples with few children (Urban Achievers - 23.4 %;
Money and Brains- 19.8 %; Young Literati - 17.3% and Bohemian Mix- 4.2 %).
The household groups described above have excellent discretionary spending possibilities and
lifestyles that favor frequent evening dining, purchases of take -out meals, gourmet foods and
liquor, books and art, electronics and home furnishings and accessories. Therefore, a mix of
community- oriented, value -priced retailers offering home improvement goods and services,
furnishings and accessories, including electronics, and specialty foods, are likely to be well -
received at newly developed West End Alameda locations.
Grocery Demand Analysis
We prepared a theoretical convenience goods (grocery /drug/liquor) demand analysis for the City
of Alameda in order to assess the demand for new space, or alternately, the over - supply of the
market. This analysis was prepared as of the end of 2004 /early 2005 using the City of Alameda's
figures for actual building permits issued since the year 2000 (251 units) and adding these units
to the year 2000 Census figures of 30,226 for a total of 30,477 housing units (see EXHIBIT 4).
For this analysis, we assumed that Alameda residents make 100% of their grocery /drug/liquor
purchases within the City —a phenomenon that never occurs in fact due to the existence of big
box warehouse stores like Wal -Mart and Costco. These warehouse stores, often located outside a
resident trade area (such as the Wal -Mart and Costco in San Leandro, just south of Alameda),
draw off significant portions of the convenience goods spending. Nevertheless, this analysis is
often useful as an indicator of the overall health of the convenience goods market because in
many —if not most — California markets the resident trade areas are over - supplied with grocery
stores using the same analysis technique.
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
Alameda shows very different demand results from many California trade areas. New theoretical
demand exists for convenience goods space (grocery/drug/liquor store space), even after
accounting for the recent addition of Trader Joes at South Shore, the future expansion of Safeway
at South Shore and the addition of Nob Hill at Bridgeside. The demand for new space is unusual
for a City that is nearly built -out. The reason for this situation is the limited amount of land on
the island to accommodate large, contemporary -sized grocery stores. Most new grocery stores
today require about 42,000 to 65,000 square feet to adequately merchandise their offerings,
including the higher - profit - margin goods found in deli, bakery and liquor sections of the store.
With the exception of the 40,991 - square -foot Albertsons located at the Marina Village Center, all
stores in Alameda today are less than 40,000 square feet.
Although demand exists for one additional grocery store, generous demand does not exist for
more than one contemporary -sized store in the resident trade area in the near future — particularly
in light of the inability to actually capture 100% of all resident convenience goods spending.
Should more than one grocery store be added to Alameda in the near future, we believe the
competitive environment would become over - saturated, resulting in weaker sales for the existing
array of grocery retailers (see EXHIBIT 4).
In the future, however, new home growth generates new demand for grocery store space.
Retailers are not willing to open a new store until they see that a development is under
construction and they feel confident that the new homes will be occupied with new shoppers
within a short-term time frame. We have modeled the theoretical demand for grocery/drug/liquor
space upon the build -out of Alameda Point (1,900 homes) and Catellus Development's
residential areas (Bayport, 500 homes). A total of 2,400 homes built in Bayport and Alameda
Point generates sizable demand for new grocery store space (see EXHIBIT 5).
Should a 30,000 – 40,000 square -foot specialty grocery store be located at Enterprise Landing,
additional demand will remain for a traditionally -sized (40,000 to 65,000- square -foot) grocery
store in the West End Alameda area, after the homes at Alameda Point and Bayport are built out.
A second grocery store would not likely commit to an Alameda Point location at this time if it
knew that a store had already been committed to Enterprise Landing. Retailers typically have
short time horizons (3 to 5 years) and they would need to see substantial housing construction
underway at Alameda Point before they would be willing to commit to a site. In fact, a new
grocery store may not commit until at least half of the future homes at Alameda Point had already
been occupied. Not only do new retailers wish to see that the new housing construction is
underway, they want to feel confident that the existing retailers are showing thriving retail sales
revenues before they venture into the market. Therefore, there is the possibility of long -term
demand for two grocery stores (one specialty and one traditional) in the West End of Alameda
totaling about 100,000 square feet, once Alameda Point's housing units are well underway.
Anchor Tenant Prospects
Based on our review of City demographics, the existing shopping centers and the proposed
leasing programs for each of the sites, we have concluded that few anchor retailers exist that can
thrive in Alameda. As mentioned in the City Demographics section above, the 30,000 homes
-12-
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
constituting the island community, establish a ceiling on the types and quantities of retailers that
can thrive in the City. A fixed and rather limited number of retailers can thrive in community -
oriented locations, such as Alameda. Because none of the Alameda West End sites evaluated are
characterized by direct freeway frontage, the sites cannot draw many miles beyond the City of
Alameda's borders. Therefore, potential retail anchors must be those that can attract Alameda -
wide shoppers on a frequent basis (say, several times a month), because their merchandise
offerings are broadly appealing. These anchor tenant possibilities are those that would typically
serve as key stores for community -based centers —not regional malls or extremely large, big box
power centers.
Mervyns, the 84,000 - square -foot junior department store located at South Shore, is an example
of a community center anchor store. Other examples include community- oriented discount
department stores, such as Target and K -Mart. These store sizes tend to range from about
120,000 to 140,000 square feet. Kohl's is another example of a junior department store that
anchors community centers and is usually housed in about 85,000 square feet. Other candidates
for community -based centers obviously include grocery stores, the typical anchor store for a
local - serving neighborhood center. Niche grocery stores, such as those that offer specialized
gourmet and nutritional goods, freshly - prepared foods, and high -end specialty packaged foods,
are typically located in community centers —not neighborhood centers —due to the highly
specialized nature that draws shoppers on, say a bi- monthly basis versus the weekly basis of a
typical grocery store. Examples include Trader Joes, Whole Foods, Bristol Farms, Mollie
Stone's and Wild Oats Markets.
Discussions at the meetings with Stakeholder representatives validated the fact that pre - leasing
efforts have resulted in a limited number of potential community and neighborhood center anchor
stores interested in a West End Alameda location. Anchor tenant names discussed were limited
to the following retailers:
1. Target
2. Kohl's
3. Costco
4. Lowe's
5. A grocery store. Names mentioned included Whole Foods, Andronico's and 99 Ranch.
Without an anchor store, none of the sites can support much additional small shop space;
moreover none of the Stakeholders was interested in proceeding with a major retail center
without an anchor store. These anchor stores are necessary for a successful center because they
attract other large (5,000 - 10,000- square -foot) tenants to a development.
It is reported that Target desires to purchase land at the South Shore Shopping Center, with the
goal of closing in 2005. Therefore, the City of Alameda should know within a number of months
whether Target has finalized a deal at South Shore. Furthermore, it has been reported that Kohl's
is under negotiations to be added to the renovated South Shore center. Because South Shore's re-
leasing and renovation program is further along than Enterprise Landing and Alameda Point, the
addition of Kohl's appears to be likely at South Shore.
- 13 -
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
Therefore, should South Shore finalize two new anchor deals, only three remaining retailers have
been identified as interested and suitable for Alameda: Costco, Lowe's and a new grocery store.
FINAL CONCLUSIONS & PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS
Enterprise Landing
A home improvement/furnishings center is one of the viable retail program options for a portion
of Catellus Development's Enterprise Landing site, given the few number of potential anchor
retailers available. An attractive, contemporary - designed center anchored by the home
improvement retailer, such as Lowe's, is compatible with local demographics and unmet retail
voids. For example, a full - service Lowe's would be about 130,000 square feet, with a garden
center. The home center and hardware chain is interested in expanding to serve the Alameda
area and is well - recognized for its excellent customer service.
Additional retail voids in Alameda could be filled by securing a major electronics retailer (e.g.,
Best Buy); a large, party store outlet; an upscale furniture store; an office supply outlet; other
home furnishings small shop space and several high - quality quick food pads. This type of center
is estimated at about 220,000 to 225,000 square feet. This square footage excludes additional
waterfront retail space of about 15,000 square feet reserved for major, view - oriented restaurants.
Therefore, this retail program scenario results in total retail space on the Enterprise Landing site
ranging from about 235,000 to 240,000 square feet.
Large, value- oriented retailers, such as those proposed for Enterprise Landing, require a simple
site plan with generous parking in front of their stores. In order to achieve strong sales, these
retailers must provide a convenient shopping destination that easily accommodates the
customers' ability to take home large purchases. Moreover, because the center size is relatively
modest, at about 225,000 square feet, the presentation of the retailers needs to be clearly seen
from the parking lot area. These requirements can be achieved with high quality design features.
Landscaping and facade treatment need to be designed in keeping with the large- format stores
that are accessed via the car. Because these retailers offer deep discounts and value -priced
merchandise, their rents and common area charges are relatively modest in contrast to regional
mall small shops, specialty centers or upscale "lifestyle centers ". Therefore, the amenities
provided in a home furnishings- oriented community center need to reflect the lower maintenance
charges received from the retailers. Design priorities should focus on the ease of access, the clear
presentation of the retailers, the open parking configuration and auto orientation of the shopping
experience.
As shown in the following photo examples, however, many of these newer value - oriented centers
provide a broad array of pleasing treatments, increasing the shopping appeal for customers.
Landscaping treatments, small park and water amenities, public art, and upgraded facade
treatments can all add to the attractiveness of the center. The inclusion of pockets of outdoor
dining venues, small cafes, quick foods, and restaurants can also add a "gathering place"
-14-
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
environment to the centers. In some cases, where cities desire highly upgraded designs with
public amenities, some supplemental funding participation may be required to assist the
developer. In some cities, redevelopment agencies serve this role, providing the additional
financial assistance.
Landscaping & Awnings Enhance Facade
Contemporary Design - Under Construction
Landscaping & Awnings Enhance Facade
- 15 -
Stone Facade Treatment & Landscaping
Street Pavers, Landscaping & Upscale Cafes
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
Landscaping & Stone Facade Treatments
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
Should the Enterprise Landing site be anchored by a 30,000 – 40,000 square -foot specialty
grocery store, many of the same design principles discussed above apply; although open parking
layouts are the preference of anchor and mini - anchor (5,000 to 15,000- square -foot) tenants,
tasteful landscaping and attractive facade treatments can add much to create a shopping
destination of high quality that will be valued and appreciated by local shoppers. This center is
expected to total about 225,000 square feet, as well.
Both Enterprise Landing retail program scenarios are separate from the potential for adding
destination - oriented, freestanding restaurants along the water's edge. We estimate that two to
three major restaurants, totaling about 15,000 square feet may be attracted to this waterfront. In
addition, we understand that Catellus Development has interest from a unique specialty use, a
wine tasting center that would provide an attractive, visitor - appealing amenity to the location.
Should Target and Harsch Investments not be able to close a deal for a site at South Shore, for
any reason, the City of Alameda should encourage Target to locate at Enterprise Landing.
Clearly, Target desires to locate a new store in Alameda soon. Retailers tend to be highly
impatient once they have decided to open a store in a selected area. Alameda risks losing Target
to a nearby —but not Alameda— location if the City does not encourage the retailer to take the
Enterprise Landing location as a second choice to South Shore. Because Alameda Point's
entitlement process is expected to take considerably longer than Catellus', we recommend
proceeding quickly to assure Target of the City's interest should it not purchase a South Shore
site.
Because Target generates frequent, community -based shopping trips, the retailer spins off
significant cross - shopping to other, small and medium -sized retailers. In other words, many
retailers are attracted to a Target - anchored center that would not otherwise go to a smaller, home -
furnishings /improvement - anchored center. The tenant mix of a Target - anchored center can be
more diverse to include a greater variety of shops, particularly in the 2,500 to 10,000 - square -feet
range. Total square footage could range up to about 340,000 to 405,000 square feet for a Target -
anchored center at Enterprise Landing.
Alameda Point
Alameda Point is the proposed reuse and redevelopment of the former Alameda Naval Air
Station into a mixed -use residential and commercial community. The redevelopment will
represent the largest infusion of new homes in Alameda in many years; once complete, the City
will be virtually built out.
Typical of master planned developers, APCP is concerned about providing community - related
services to its new residents. A site has been reserved for a grocery- anchored neighborhood
center on Atlantic, just beyond the main entrance to Alameda Point. This location could be
developed in the early years of Alameda Point to serve the new homes at Bayport and to provide
additional grocery store choices in the West End —if a new grocery store is not added to the
Enterprise Landing site. As new homes are occupied, this grocery store will benefit from
additional sales generated by new home owners.
- 17 -
Linda S. Congleton & Associates
APCP may wish to phase its neighborhood center, with an initial project to include a grocery
store anchor and minimal small shop space (such as a 48,000 - square -foot grocery and 30,000
square feet of small shop space). As the community matures, additional neighborhood- oriented
space may be added, including local dining uses.
Should Enterprise Landing anchor its retail center with a specialty grocery store of about 30,000
– 40,000 square feet, our analysis shows demand for an additional grocery store at Alameda Point
of about 40,000 to 65,000 square feet. However, this demand would not fully mature until a time
period close to build -out of the Alameda Point mixed -use community. That is, a new grocery
store is unlikely to be attracted or supported by West End Alameda residents until a substantial
number of the homes at Alameda Point are built. Therefore, APCP would need to phase
development of this grocery- store - anchored center for some time in the middle of the
development program for the entire project —not at the beginning (see EXHIBIT 5).
Alameda Point houses numerous warehouse /industrial-like buildings that are part of an historic
district and programmed for adaptive reuse. APCP seeks to secure a commercial/retail user that
may be able to economically reuse these old structures. About 150,000- 160,000 square feet is
programmed into Alameda Point's development plan for a major destination, warehouse -type
retailer.
Several Alameda Point development goals include physically enhancing the waterfront area
facing the San Francisco Bay; creating ferry access to San Francisco; and building waterfront
boat slips. Should this waterfront area become a Bay Area visitor destination, additional
retail/dining space may be supportable. In order to provide long -term flexibility for such a
program, an additional 55,000 to 60,000 square feet of visitor - serving retail (that is also
appealing to local residents) is recommended. We envision this square footage to be developed
in the later stages of the project, in combination with other visitor - oriented, waterfront amenities.
Webster Street
Webster Street's strengths include: (1) A collection of single- and two -level older buildings
toward the north end of the street; (2) Its many entrepreneurial businesses; and (3) An active arts
community, including the Alameda Art Center. Any revitalization program should build upon
the street's existing strengths.
No large vacant spaces exist for a major, new redevelopment project. The street either contains
economically viable, free - standing uses, such as the hotels, fast food operations, gas stations, or
financial buildings, or older, interesting buildings with entrepreneurial businesses. Demolition
and re- building is not recommended given the high cost of acquiring buildings with operating
businesses.
No large redevelopment intervention program is recommended. Instead, we recommend building
upon the existing, organic entrepreneurial business environment by encouraging incremental new
construction and renovation of buildings into work -live and ground floor retail with upper level
- 18 -
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
residential. We are finding strong interest in older, small downtowns as well as new master
planned communities for work -live products. Unlike many of those developments that are
"artificially" creating work -live units with the hopes of attracting new small businesses owners,
Webster Street already has the building stock and environment for such uses. Examples of work -
live and artists lofts are included in the photos below of the Artists Walk area of Downtown
Santa Ana.
MIXED -USE ARTISTS WALK, SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
Concluding Remarks
The retail program recommended accomplishes the following:
1. Retail sales leakage is significantly reduced should Target and Kohl's be added to South
Shore. Should Catellus proceed with the retail program outlined, voids in home
improvement, home furnishings, electronics and other miscellaneous categories will be
filled.
2. The retail program provides a balanced addition of a maximum total of 520,000 —
580,000 square feet: 235,000 — 240,000 square feet at Enterprise Landing and a
maximum of 340,000 square feet at Alameda Point (120,000 neighborhood center;
160,000 big box; and 60,000 square feet of visitor - oriented space).
3. The retail program places the new retail additions in solid locations for long -term success.
4. Although few anchor retailers are available, the retail program recommended provides
room for all those candidates that can realistically thrive on the island.
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
5. The retail program balances near -term opportunities of filling spaces at South Shore,
allows for the possibility of developing a commercial program on Enterprise Landing,
and provides major retail opportunities for Alameda Point in the future.
We have enjoyed working on this challenging assignment and wish you continued success in
your future retail development projects.
Very truly yours,
LINDA S. CONGLETON & ASSOCIATES
Linda S. Congleton
Principal
DEMAND ANALYSIS
CITY OF ALAMEDA
EXHIBIT LIST
Linda S. Congleton & Associates
Tab No.
Resident Trade Area Map
Alameda, California 1
Census 2000
Alameda, California 2
Summary of Selected Demographic Characteristics
Alameda, California
Resident Trade Area 2A
Neighborhood Lifestyle Clusters — Occupied Households
Alameda, California
Resident Trade Area 3
City of Alameda
Grocery Store Demand Analysis 4
City of Alameda
Grocery Store Demand Analysis: Build -Out Homes
500 Units at Enterprise Landing & 1,900 Homes at Alameda Point 5
EXHIBIT 2
TOTAL POPULATION
AKE
White
Black or African American
American Indian and Alamo Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific islander
Some other race
Two or more races
72,259 100.0%
41,148 56.9%
4,488 6.2%
484 0.7%
18,894 26.1%
434 0.6%
2,380 3.3%
4;431 6.1%
HISPANIC OR LATINO AND RACE
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 6,725 9.3%
Not Hispanic or Latino 65,534 90.7%
White 37,921 52.5%
Black or African American 4,350 6.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native 365 0.5%
Asian 18,757 26.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific islander 407 0.6%
Some other race 235 0.3%
Two or more races 3,499 4.8%
SEIL.AND AGE
Male 34,689 48.0%
Female 37,570 52.0%
Under 5 year 4,057 5.6%
5 to 9 years 4,499 6.2%
10 to 14 years 4,459 6.2%
15 to 19 years 3,965 5.5%
20 to 24 years 3,648 5.0%
25 to 34 years 11,077 15.3%
35 to 44 years 13,169 18.2%
45 to 54 years 11,410 15.8%
55 to 59 years 3,684 5.1%
60 to 64 years 2,686 3.7%
65 to 74 years 4,712 6.5%
75 to 84 years 3,569 4.9%
85 years and over 1,324 1.8%
Median age (years) 38.3 (X)
HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE
Total households 30,226 100.0%
Family households (families) 17,858 59.1%
With own children under 18 years 8,378 27.7%
Married-couple family 13,198 43.7%
With own children under 18 years 5,979 19.8%
Female householder, no husband present 3,454 11.4%
EXHIBIT 2
With own children under 18 years 1,872 6.2%
Nonfamily households 12,368 40.9%
Householder living alone 9,747 32.2%
Householder 65 years and over 2,830 9.4%
Average household size
Average family size
2.35 OQ
3.04 (X)
HOUSING OCCUPANCY
Total housing units 31,644 100.0%
Occupied housing units 30,226 95.5%
Vacant housing units 1,418 4.5%
HOUSING TENURE
Occupied housing units 30,226 100.0%
Owner-occupied housing units 14,486 47.9%
Renter-occupied housing units 15,740 52.1%
Average household size of owner-occupied unit
Average household size of renter-occupied unit
Assodadon of Bay Area Governments
census.abag.ca.gov
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
oensus.mtc.ca.gov
Source: U.S. Census, PL94-171 (March 2001) and DP-1 (May 2001)
2.50 (X)
2.22 (X)
More detailed census information is available from the American Fact Finder
factfinder.census.gov
IL) N
0
0 ^ m
m 0
O a)
CL
Cluster Name
cc
w
g
• Z
J
• y
L1.1 to
fr
• U
0
Z
w
d
X N
LLI
a)
2
o
Z
w
- -- Cluster Name - --
N
a)
a)
0
a)
N
y
7
U
•
- -- Cluster Name - --
N
U
G)
0
[ SELECTED SUMMARY OF HIGH PERCENTAGE CLUSTERS 3
- -- Cluster Name - -- Characteristics
e0
ai
T
a
Source: PRIZM Clusters by Claritas Corporation.
a
Source: PRIZM Clusters by Claritas Corporation.
eton & Associates
Linda S. Con
Alameda, CA Demogs.xls
Iq N
0
CO
O a)
a_
PZM - Alameda, CA
N
J
0
W
N
0
2 -
O y
W
D • a)
V W
O • F-
c
c2 cc 'a
w
m N
W O E
uJ 0
N
W a7
LL
G - m
O • a
2
0
2
W
Z
N
Z
_N
2
U
N
a)
U
0
cn ,
cc
W y
� c3
Z
U a)
W
Q
D U
Z
W
a
X N
W
W C
2 m
0 0_
Z
W
- -- Cluster Name - --
E
Z
u
N
c
N
U
a)
n.
- -- Cluster Name - --
0)
CC
W
H
0)
D
J
U
W
Z
W
U,
CC
W
a
2
W
0
cc
2
D
co
O
W
U
w
J
w
CO
Characteristics
I TOTAL REMAINING LIFESTYLE CLUSTERS 19.0%
Military Quarters 1.7%
Single City Blues 1.5%
Big City Blend 1.2%
TOTAL OF ALL CLUSTERS 100.0% I
Bohemian Mix 4.2%
Pools and Patios 4.1%
Blue Blood Estates 3.6%
Gray Power 2.6%
I TOTAL HIGH PERCENTAGE CLUSTERS 81.0%
Urban Achievers [Mid - Level, White - Collar, Urban Couples] 23.4%
Money and Brains [Sophisticated Urban Fringe Couples] 19.8%
Young Literati [Upscale Urban Singles and Couples] 17.3%
Old Yankee Rows [Empty -Nest, Middle -Class Families] 11.3%
American Dreams [Established Urban Immigrant Families] 9.2%
emo
ied Households.
Source: PRIZM Clusters by Claritas Corporation.
alamgrocdem
EXHIBIT 4
CITY OF ALAMEDA
GROCERY STORE DEMAND ANALYSIS
For 2004 -2005
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
03/16/05
2004 ESTIMATES
EST. TOTAL
EXPENDITURE ANNUAL ASSUMED MAX.
POTENTIAL SALES % S.F. TARGET
(000) (000) CAPTURE DEMAND SALES /S.F.
POPULATION
EST. OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS ''
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
TOTAL DISPOSABLE INCOME 2'
(000)
EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL:
73,555
30,477
$64,753
$1,697,190
Tenant Type
CONVENIENCE GOODS.($000)
$267,986 $267,986 100% 428,778 $625
TOTAL MAX. SUPPORTABLE S.F.:
TOTAL ESTIMATED SUPPLY :
1. Safeway, South Shore 37,231
2. Albertsons, South Shore 35,254
3. Walgreens, South Shore 21,450
4. South Shore Liquors 2,000
5. Safeway, Harbor Bay Landing 34,333
6. Longs, Harbor Bay Landing 15,695
7. Albertsons, Marina Village Center 40,991
8. Longs, Marina Village Center 25,800
9. Walgreens 15,000
10. Trader Joes 10,000
11. Nob Hill (planned) 57,000
12. Expanded Safeway space at South Shore 22,000
13. Park St. Marketplace 15,000
14. Misc. Small Grocery Space 28,500
428,778
Total Grocery/Drug: 360,254
New Grocery/Drug Demand Or (Over - Supply): 68,524
1/ Year 2000 U.S. Census Households (EX. 2) of 30,226 plus 251 new bldg. permits issued since 1/1/00.
2/ Per Survey of Current Business Data.
3/ Convenience Goods includes expenditures made at grocery stores, drug stores, liquor
stores, medical supplies/prescriptions, auto accessories, plants and cleaning supplies.
tutalamgrocdem
Linda S. Conaleton & Associates
EXHIBIT 5
CITY OF ALAMEDA
GROCERY STORE DEMAND ANALYSIS: Build -Out Homes
500 Units at Enterprise Landing & 1,900 Homes At Alameda Point
03116105
EST. TOTAL
EXPENDITURE ANNUAL ASSUMED MAX.
POTENTIAL SALES % S.F. TARGET
(000) (000) CAPTURE DEMAND SALES/S.F.
POPULATION
OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS'/
MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
TOTAL DISPOSABLE INCOME v
(000)
EXPENDITURE POTENTIAL:
73,555
32,877
$64,753
$1,830,841
Tenant Type
CONVENIENCE GOODS.($000) a'
$289,090 $289,090 100% 462,544 $625
TOTAL MAX. SUPPORTABLE S.F.:
TOTAL ESTIMATED SUPPLY :
1. Safeway, South Shore 37,231
2. Albertsons, South Shore 35,254
3. Walgreens, South Shore 21,450
4. South Shore Liquors 2,000
5. Safeway, Harbor Bay Landing 34,333
6. Longs, Harbor Bay Landing 15,695
7. Albertsons, Marina Village Center 40,991
8. Longs, Marina Village Center 25,800
9. Walgreens 15,000
10. Trader Joes 10,000
11. Nob Hill (planned) 57,000
12. Expanded Safeway space at South Shore 22,000
13. Park St. Marketplace 15,000
14. Misc. Small Grocery Space 28,500
462,544
Total Grocery/Drug: 360,254
New Grocery/Drug Demand Or (Over - Supply): 102,290
1/ See EXHIBIT 4; 30,477 units est. for 2004 plus 2,400 planned units.
2/ Per Survey of Current Business Data.
3/ Convenience Goods includes expenditures made at grocery stores, drug stores, liquor
stores, medical supplies/prescriptions, auto accessories, plants and cleaning supplies.
Community Improvement Commission/
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
May 3, 2005
TO:
Honorable Chairs and Members of the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority
FROM: William C. Norton
Acting Executive Director
SUBJ: Recommendation that the CIC and ARRA Approve a First Amendment to an
Acquisition Agreement by which CIC Acquired an Affordable Housing Covenant from
ARRA for Thirty Units of Very -Low Income Housing at the Bachelor Officers'
Quarters Located within the Alameda Point Improvement Project
Background
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) leases the property at Alameda Point from the
U.S. Department of the Navy. The leased premises include a building commonly referred to as the
Bachelor Officers' Quarters (BOQ). In 1999, the ARRA was in negotiations with a prospective tenant for
the BOQ. A successful project would have converted the 304 existing units into approximately 210
rehabilitated units. In addition, this project would have created an obligation to ensure that 30 units be
made affordable to very -low income households. As part of project negotiations, the CIC and ARRA
approved an Acquisition Agreement by which the CIC was authorized to acquire an affordable housing
covenant for 30 units at the BOQ. The Acquisition Agreement authorized the ARRA to sell the covenant
to the CIC for $310,000. The City Council authorized the CIC to use Business and Waterfront
Improvement Project housing set -aside funds for acquiring the covenant.
Discussion
A First Amendment to the Acquisition Agreement has been prepared (attached) in order to extend the term
of the Acquisition Agreement through October 5, 2009, and reduce the interest rate from ten percent (10 %)
per annum to two and one half percent (21 %) per annum from the date the funds were deposited by the
CIC for the purposes of acquiring the covenant. The extended term will allow staff and the master
developer to explore strategies to renovate the BOQ to include affordable housing. The reduced interest
rate will decrease future financial liability to the ARRA in the event an affordable housing project is not
developed at the BOQ.
As required by the California Redevelopment Law (CRL), following consideration of the First Amendment
by the CIC and ARRA governing boards, the City Council will consider approving a Resolution extending
the term that the CIC may retain its real property interest in the BOQ through October 5, 2009. If the
housing units are not developed during the additional five -year period, the CIC property interest will cease
and the ARRA will be required to reimburse the $310,000, plus interest, to the Business and Waterfront
Improvement Project set -aside fund.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp\Elizabeth Cook\Alameda Point \BOQ \Special Joint Meeting CIC ARRA 05170
Meeting.doc
Report 2 -A
Council /CIC /ARRA
5 -17 -05
Honorable Chairs and Members of the Community Improvement Commission/
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Fiscal Impact
May 3, 2005
Page 2
The Amendment extends the obligation of the ARRA to repay the $310,000 to the CIC for an additional
five years in the event affordable housing is not built at the BOQ. The Amendment also reduces the
interest rate from 10% per annum to 2.5 %, thereby reducing any future financial liability of the ARRA.
Recommendation
It is recommended that: 1) the ARRA approve the attached First Amendment to Acquisition Agreement
and authorize the Acting Executive Director to execute the First Amendment; and 2) the CIC approve the
attached First Amendment to Acquisition Agreement and authorize the Acting Executive Director to
execute the First Amendment.
R pe cilly sub 'tt
e Little
Development Services Director
By:
D - s bie Potter
Base Reuse & Redevelopment Manager
Attachment: First Amendment to Acquisition Agreement
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
FIRST AMENDMENT TO ACQUISITION AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to Acquisition Agreement ( "Amendment ") is made and entered
into on , 2005, by and between the COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA, a public body, corporate and politic (the
"CIC "), and ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a joint powers
authority ( "ARRA "), with reference to the following facts:
RECITALS
A. CIC and ARRA entered into that certain Acquisition Agreement dated October 6,
1999 (the "Acquisition Agreement "), which provided for the CIC's purchase from ARRA of an
affordable housing covenant on certain real property to be acquired by ARRA from the United
States Department of the Navy (the "Property ").
B. ARRA's purchase of the Property has been delayed and the CIC and ARRA desire
to amend the Acquisition Agreement to extend the time frame for ARRA's execution of leases
and rental of Restricted Units on the Property in accordance with the Covenant for five
additional years.
C. CIC and ARRA also desire to retroactively amend the interest rate to be applied in
the event ARRA is required to reimburse the CIC the purchase price of the Covenant to reflect
current market conditions.
AGREEMENT
1. Replacement of Paragraph 4.A. Paragraph 4.A. is hereby deleted in its entirety
and replaced as follows:
"If ARRA has not entered into leases and rented the Restricted Units to
persons of very low income at an affordable rent in accordance with the Covenant
within ten (10) years of the date of approval of this Acquisition Agreement, or if
at any time ARRA violates the terms of the Covenant, or if at any time ARRA
desires to terminate the Covenant, ARRA shall reimburse the CIC the purchase
price paid by the CIC for the Covenant at a rate of TEN THOUSAND FOUR
HUNDRED DOLLARS ($10,400) per Restricted Unit not rented in accordance
with paragraphs 1 and 2 above, plus interest at a rate equal to two and one half
percent (2.5%) per annum measured from the date the funds were deposited by
the CIC for the purchase of this Covenant until paid. Such amount shall be paid
to the CIC within thirty (30) days of written demand by the CIC."
2. Deletion of Second Sentence in Paragraph 3. The second sentence in
Paragraph, 3, Closing, is hereby deleted in its entirety.
3. Effective Date. This Amendment shall be effective upon execution by both
parties and approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Alameda extending the
time period for providing the Restricted Units on the Property pursuant to Health and Safety
Code Section 33334.16.
1
806914v2 21942/0001
4. Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall
have the meanings given to such terms in the Acquisition Agreement.
5. Acquisition Agreement in Effect. CIC and ARRA acknowledge and agree that
the Acquisition Agreement, except as amended by this Amendment, remains unmodified and in
full force and effect in accordance with its terms.
6. Severability. If any term, provision, condition or covenant of this Amendment or
its application to any party or circumstances shall be held, to any extent, invalid or
unenforceable, the remainder of this Amendment, or the application of the term, provision,
condition or covenant to persons or circumstances other than those as to whom or which it is
held invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected, and shall be valid and enforceable to the
fullest extent permitted by law.
7. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have entered into this Amendment as of the
date first written above.
CIC:
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA, a public body, corporate and
politic
By:
Executive Director
ATTEST:
Commission Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1
3
AP
City Attorney /Commission Counsel
2
806914v2 21942/0001
ARRA:
ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a joint
powers authority
By:
Executive Director
ATTEST:
Secretary
APP RAVED AS TO FORM:
4iSk City Attorney / Authority Counsel
3
806914v2 21942/0001
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: William C. Norton
Acting Executive Director
Date: May 4, 2005
Re: Resolution of Necessity To Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for
Redevelopment Purposes; Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire
Property and for Order of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235
et seq. (APN 071 - 0203 -014 and APN 071 - 0203 -015; 2315 -2323 Central Avenue,
Alameda, California — Alameda Theater /Cineplex and Parking Structure)
BACKGROUND
The Community Improvement Commission (the "CIC ") is being requested to authorize
the acquisition by eminent domain of the real property generally known as the Alameda
Theatre and the adjacent parking parcel located generally at 2315 -2323 Central
Avenue, (Assessor's Parcel Nos. 071 - 0203 -014 and 071 - 0203 -015), Alameda,
California for redevelopment purposes. The real property is held by Cocores
Development Company, a California Corporation. The condemnation of the real
property will allow CIC to assemble an approximately 1.3 -acre site, which includes
adjacent real property already owned by the CIC, and to cause the development on the
site of a new approximately 352 -space parking structure together with a new multiplex
theater project to be integrated with a rehabilitated and refurbished Historic Alameda
Theatre.
The resolution authorizing the acquisition of the real property by eminent domain
includes the following findings:
(a) the public interest and necessity require the proposed project;
(b) the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most
compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury;
(c) the interest in real property sought to be acquired by eminent domain is
necessary for the proposed project;
(d) the CIC has complied with all conditions and statutory requirements
necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to acquire the real
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Servi
Report 2 -B
Council /CIC /ARRA
5 -17 -05
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
May 4, 2005
Page 2
property, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take said real
property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer
required by Government Code §7267.2(a) and complying with existing
business tenant preference requirements of the Community
Redevelopment Law and its Owner Participation and Business Tenant
Preference Rules and relocation assistance requirements;
(e) the CIC has fully complied with the California Environmental Quality Act,
Public Resources Code Section 21000 et esq.; and
the CIC has authority under the Community Redevelopment Law and the
Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Plan to acquire the real
property by eminent domain.
(f)
The resolution also authorizes the Commission Attorney and Special Counsel to
commence an action in condemnation to acquire the real property and to obtain an
order of possession for the real property in accordance with the Eminent Domain Law.
The resolution is effective only if it is adopted by an affirmative vote of two- thirds or
more of the CIC members. This means that approval requires a minimum of four (4)
affirmative votes.
The issues of compensation to Cocores Development Company and the exact timing of
the CIC's possession are not issues for the CIC at this time. The CIC has negotiated
with Cocores Development Company and has been unable to reach an agreement on
compensation. In fact, Cocores has repeatedly refused to discuss the issue of
compensation. If compensation is not resolved by negotiations, the fair market value of
the real property would be determined through eminent domain proceedings in Superior
Court.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theatre, new construction of a mutiplex
cinema and new construction of a 352 -space parking garage has been a City and CIC
priority for many years. On May 3, 2005, after many years of planning and negotiation,
the CIC approved a Disposition and Development Agreement (the "DDA ") with Alameda
Entertainment Associates, L.P. providing for the rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda
Theatre and construction of a public parking structure and new multiplex cinema.
Among other things, the DDA provides that if CIC's efforts to acquire the real property
through negotiation are unsuccessful, the CIC is to hold a public hearing and consider
adoption of a resolution of necessity, which adoption is to be determined by the
Commission in its sole and absolute discretion.
On January 12, 2005, the CIC staff sent or hand delivered a Government Code Section
7267.2(a) offer to purchase the real property for just compensation, $1,500,000. The
offer was accompanied by an appraisal summary that fully complied with Government
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C: \DOCUME- 1 \cm_user \LOCALS -1 \Temp \5 -17 -05 reso for acq..doc
F: CP /Alameda Theatre, Cinema Multiplex & Parking Structure Project/Acquisition /Staff Reports
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
May 4, 2005
Page 3
Code Section 7267.2(a). The parties discussed the offer and a follow -up letter was sent
on February 22, 2005 to try to encourage the property owner to negotiate the acquisition
of the real property on mutually agreeable terms.
Since the CIC has not been able to successfully negotiate the purchase of the real
property, on April 28, 2005, CIC staff sent a Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of
Necessity to acquire the real property by eminent domain ( "Notice of Intent ") to Cocores
Development Company, as the owner of the real property. Cocores Development
Company was notified that it had fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing of the Notice
of Intent to file a written request to appear and be heard at the May 17, 2005, CIC
hearing on the following matters:
(a) whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project;
(b) whether the proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will
be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private
injury;
(c) whether the interest in property sought to be acquired by eminent domain
is necessary for the proposed project;
(d) whether the CIC has complied with all conditions and statutory
requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent domain to
acquire the real property, as well as any other matter regarding the right to
take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making
the offer required by Government Code §7267.2(a);
(e) whether the CIC has fully complied with the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.; and
whether the CIC has authority to acquire the real property by eminent
domain.
(f)
Public Interest and Necessity Require the Proposed Project
The public interest and necessity require the proposed project in order to redevelop
existing blighted, largely vacant functionally obsolete and underutilized properties
located within the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project ( "BWIP ") area. This
proposed project would be a catalyst project that will provide an entertainment draw to
the Park Street business district, stimulate new private investment to the area and
otherwise meet the objectives of the BWIP Community Improvement Plan. In addition,
the public interest and necessity requires the proposed project to facilitate a substantial
public improvement project with the construction of a 352 - space public parking garage
to benefit the entire Park Street Central Business District. A major goal of the
Community Improvement Plan for the BWIP project area is the elimination of blighting
influences, and this project is designed to eliminate blight and spur other development
in the area. The project will also create new jobs and generate property tax increment
that will be used to achieve goals and objectives of the BWIP plan.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C: \DOCUME-- 1 \cm_user \LOCALS-1 \Temp \5 -17-05 reso for acq..doc
F: CP /Alameda Theatre, Cinema Multiplex & Parking Structure Project/Acquisition /Staff Reports
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
May 4, 2005
Page 4
The Historic Alameda Theatre ceased operations as a theater in the early 1970's. Since
that time, theater seats have been removed and the Theatre has been leased out for
various uses including a roller rink, gymnastic school, and slot car track; none of which
utilized the full interior space. Upkeep has been deferred and portions of the building
began to deteriorate and cause a blight to the area. The BWIP project area was created
in 1991. The Report to Council dated April 1991, for creation of the BWIP, documented
that there was a low rate of investment in the theater property and overall a lower rate of
increase in the value of property within the BWIP project area as compared to the City
as a whole." Citywide average annual growth in assessed property value between fiscal
year 1986 -87 and 1990 -91 has been 7.5 %. Average annual growth in assessed value of
property in the (BWIP) Area for the same period is 5.3 %. Absolute growth during the
period amounted to 50% in the City while only 30% growth in assessed property value
occurred in the Project Area. The implication here is that resales, new development and
rehabilitation activity in the proposed Project Area has not kept pace with such activity
Citywide, exemplifying the lack of investment in the Project Area." (Report to City
Council: Proposed Redevelopment for the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project, April 1991, Section IV, Page 42.) The Alameda Merger Plan Amendments
adopted by the CIC in connection with the 2003 APIP /BWIP/WECIP combined plan
amendment includes the identification of the real property as having structural
weakness and being underutilized land.
The experience of the Historic Alameda Theatre has been consistent with this lack of
investment in the BWIP project area. The property was allowed to be closed and /or
vacant or underutilized with tenants renting only portions of the building. The interior of
the building shows a lack of maintenance with paint peeling, torn curtains, a broken
neon marquee, holes in walls and no substantial capital investment or rehabilitation over
the years.
In 1999, the BWIP Five -Year Implementation Plan was amended. The Amended Plan
identified programs and potential projects for the area including a program of
"Facilitation of high priority privately or publicly sponsored catalyst development projects
in the form of financial / engineering /architectural /environmental analyses, site planning
and project development, toxic remediation, land acquisition, etc." The acquisition of this
real property will assist with the facilitation of both public and private investment to the
area.
In addition, the Historic Theatre figures prominently in the architectural and cultural
heritage of the city. The Theatre is representative of an increasingly rare type of movie
house. It is listed as a "Historic Monument" by the City's Historical Advisory Board and
is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributor to the Park
Street Historic Commercial District. The CIC's acquisition of the real property, assembly
of the real property with adjacent property owned by the CIC, the redevelopment of the
site with a public parking garage and new multiplex cinema, and the restoration of the
Historic Theatre and integration with the new cinema would return the structure to its
original use as a theater, and will protect and preserve its historic elements and use.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C: \DOCUME- 1 \cm_user \LOCALS--1 \Temp \5 -17 -05 reso for acq..doc
F: CP /Alameda Theatre, Cinema Multiplex & Parking Structure Project/Acquisition /Staff Reports
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
May 4, 2005
Page 5
The proposed acquisition and redevelopment of the real property, including the Historic
Theatre will help draw investment and economic activity to the immediate and
surrounding areas, and will promote economic and cultural activity.
The Proposed Project is Planned or Located in the Manner That Will Be Most
Compatible With the Greatest Public Good and Least Private Injury
The proposed project is planned in the manner that will be the most compatible with the
greatest public good and the least private injury because the Project which includes
development of the new public parking structure and Cineplex and integration of the
new Cineplex with a refurbished Historic Theatre, cannot be achieved without
acquisition of the entirety of the real property.
The proposed project includes the construction of a new public parking structure and
seven - screen multiplex theater that will allow the rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda
Theatre to be an economically viable project. The Historic Theatre was built in 1932 and
operated as a theater until the early 1970s. During the late 70s and early 80s movie
theaters reinvented their product to include stadium seating, new audio sound
equipment and multi screens for viewing options. Older theaters, like the Historic
Alameda Theatre, could not compete with the new changes made by the theater
industry and the Historic Theatre remained closed and /or partially rented out to lesser
users. The rehabilitation only of the Historic Theatre as a stand -alone project is not
financially feasible. The proposed project with the new multiplex theater connecting to a
restored and refurbished Historic Theatre makes the overall project financially viable
and will give the combined theater project the ability to compete with other multiplex
theaters in the market.
The Acquisition is Necessary for the Proposed Project
The acquisition of the real property is necessary for the proposed project because the
real property is needed for new public parking structure as well as the new Cineplex and
there are no feasible alternatives to the Project that would provide for rehabilitation of
the Theatre without the private investment of the new seven - screen multiplex as part of
the project. In addition, the property is required to facilitate the construction of a public
parking structure to serve the entire Park Street Central Business District. The Historic
Alameda Theatre is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and is a
contributing structure listed in the National Register Park Street Historic Commercial
District. The historic nature of the Historic Alameda Theatre constrains the building from
being renovated into other uses while complying with the requirement that any
rehabilitation must be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation. If the new multiplex theater was not being proposed as part of the
project, the Historic Alameda Theatre would not be economically feasible to rehabilitate
due to the costs associated with the rehabilitation, the amount of deterioration that has
occurred to the property, and the competitive nature of the theater industry. The Theatre
and the adjacent parcel are essential to the design and operation of the entire, larger
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C: \DOCUME- 1 \cm_user \LOCALS--1 \Temp \5 -17 -05 reso for acq..doc
F: CP /Alameda Theatre, Cinema Multiplex & Parking Structure Project/Acquisition /Staff Reports
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
project as well as the development of the public parking structure.
May 4, 2005
Page 6
The CIC has Complied with All Conditions and Statutory Requirements Necessary to
Exercise the Power of Eminent Domain to Acquire the Real Property
The CIC has complied with all requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent
domain to acquire the real property. As set forth above, the CIC made an offer to
purchase the real property pursuant to Government Code section 7269.2. The offer was
consistent with the requirements of section 7267.2 and included a written summary of
the basis for the appraisal. Further, the owner of the real property, John Cocores of
Cocores Development Company, was properly notified of this hearing pursuant to a
Notice of Intent to Adopt Resolution of Necessity.
In addition, the CIC has complied with its Owner Participation Rules. In January 2001,
the CIC issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Historic Alameda Theatre and an
associated new multiplex theater. Mr. Cocores was sent a copy of the RFP and invited
to submit a proposal. Mr. Cocores responded that he wholeheartedly endorsed the
City's effort but he did not respond with a proposal. The CIC continued to move forward
with the proposed project and selected Kyle Conner to enter into an Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement (ENA) to build a new multiplex cinema, which would incorporate
a rehabilitated and refurbished Historic Theatre. The CIC negotiated with Mr. Conner
and on May 3, 2005 approved a DDA for the development a new multiplex cinema that
is proposed to connect to and integrate with, a refurbished and restored Historic
Alameda Theatre.
Lastly, the CIC has complied with all the Uniform Relocation Act relocation assistance
requirements. The CIC hired a qualified relocation consultant, Associated Right of Way
Services Inc., to assist with providing relocation services to the Historic Alameda
Theatre tenants. The relocation consultants sent out notices to the Historic Alameda
Theatre tenants advising them of relocation eligibility. Separately, staff has evaluated
the businesses of the tenants and determined that the continued operation could not be
maintained during construction. The operations of the existing tenants, the design of the
spaces, and their uses do not reasonably promote the objectives of the redevelopment
project and are not consistent with the overall redevelopment plan for this site. In
addition the extent of construction required to implement the project and the 14 — 16
month construction period would present undue cost of business closure and disruption.
Therefore the CIC will provide relocation assistance and attempt to relocate all
businesses within the redevelopment area to the extent feasible and desirable.
The CIC has Fully Complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The CIC has complied with CEQA by certifying a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
adopting a mitigation and monitoring program for the Project on May 3, 2005, in
conjunction with approval of the DDA. The Project contemplates acquisition of the real
property. Therefore, no additional environmental review is required. Further, no changes
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
C: \DOCUME- 1 \cm_user \LOCALS -1 \Temp \5 -17 -05 reso for acq..doc
F: CP /Alameda Theatre, Cinema Multiplex & Parking Structure Project/Acquisition /Staff Reports
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
May 4, 2005
Page 7
have occurred with respect to the Project that would trigger an obligation for subsequent
environmental review under Public Resources Code section 15162.
FISCAL IMPACT
The CIC has budgeted funds for the acquisition of the real property and relocation of the
tenants from the 2003 Merged Area Bonds Issue.
RECOMMENDATION
The Executive Director recommends that the Board of the Community Improvement
Commission open the hearing on the Resolution of Necessity, take testimony, close the
hearing and consider adoption of the Resolution of Necessity to acquire the two parcels
located at 2315 -2323 Central Avenue, Alameda, California. The property to be
considered for acquisition is more specifically described in Exhibit A to the proposed
Resolution of Necessity.
Respectfully : bmitted,
Leslie . Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
WCN /LAL /DES:ry
cc: Teresa Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G: \Soto \Theater Project \Staff Reports \5 -17 -05 reso for acq..doc
F: CP /Alameda Theatre, Cinema Multiplex & Parking Structure Project/Acquisition /Staff Reports
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF
LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION; CODE
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.235 et seq. (APN 071 - 0203 -014 and APN
W 071-0203-015; 2315 -2323 Central Avenue, Alameda, California — Alameda
Theater /Cineplex and Parking Structure)
The Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (the "CIC" or
"Community Improvement Commission "), by vote of two- thirds or more of its members,
FINDS, DETERMINES, DECLARES, AND RESOLVES the following:
1. CIC intends to cause development of a public parking structure and new
multiplex cinema project, preservation and rehabilitation of the historic Alameda
Theater, and integration of the rehabilitated historic Alameda Theater with the
new multiplex cinema (collectively, the "project "), and in conjunction therewith,
acquire certain interests in property. The project is a public use and is being
undertaken for redevelopment purposes in accordance with the Community
Redevelopment Law and the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project, in order to eliminate blight within the Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project Area.
2. CIC is authorized by law to acquire the property generally known as APN 071-
0203 -014 and APN 071 - 0203 -015; 2315 -2323 Central Avenue, Alameda,
California — as shown on Exhibit A to this Resolution, by eminent domain,
pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law, and the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Plan. The property constitutes a portion of the project
site. The Community Improvement Commission, a redevelopment agency, is
vested with the power of eminent domain to acquire the property under the
Eminent Domain Law, including California Code of Civil Procedure section
1240.010, and Section 33391 of the California Health and Safety Code and
Section D.1, § 309 of Part III of the Community Improvement Plan for the
Business and Waterfront Community Improvement Plan. The property to be
acquired includes all rights, title and interest in the property, including all
tenancies, leaseholds, and related properties.
3. On April 28, 2005, the NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING ADOPTION OF
RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT
DOMAIN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING
COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND FOR
ORDER OF POSSESSION; CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.235
et seq. ((APN 071 - 0203 -014 and APN 071 - 0203 -015; 2315 -2323 Central
Avenue, Alameda, California — Alameda Theater /Cineplex and Parking Structure)
Resolution #2 -B (CIC)
CounciUCIC /ARRA
5 -17 -05
was mailed to the property owner and all persons known by the CIC to have an
actual interest in the property. The notice was sent to the property owner of
record at the address of the owner and the notice gave actual notice to the owner
of the hearing. The notice advised the owner of its rights to be heard on the
matters referred to therein on the date and place stated therein. The Notice of
Hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit C and is incorporated herein by reference.
4. The hearing referenced in the Notice of Hearing was held on May 17, 2005 at the
time and place stated in the Notice of Hearing. All interested parties were given
an opportunity to be heard. The hearing then was closed.
5. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the Community Improvement
Commission FINDS, DETERMINES, DECLARES AND RESOLVES each of the
following:
A. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project;
B. The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be
most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury;
C. The interest in property sought to be acquired by eminent domain is
necessary for the proposed project;
D. The Community Improvement Commission has complied with all
conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of
eminent domain to acquire the property, as well as any other matter regarding
the right to take said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to,
making the offer required by Govt. Code section 7267.2(a) and complying with
existing business tenant preference requirements of the Community
Redevelopment Law and its Owner Participation and Business Tenant
Preference Rules and relocation assistance requirements;
E. The Community Improvement Commission has fully complied with the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.;
and
F. The Community Improvement Commission has authority under the
Community Redevelopment Law and the Business and Waterfront Community
Improvement Plan to acquire the property by eminent domain.
G. The Community Improvement Commission, a redevelopment agency,
is vested with the power of eminent domain to acquire the property under the
Eminent Domain Law, including California Code of Civil Procedure section
1240.010, California Health and Safety Code section 33391, and section D.1,
section 309, of Part III of the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project, as amended.
H. A map accurately portraying the property to be acquired is
shown as Exhibit B -1 to this Resolution. A map showing the
location of the property in relation to the project for which it is to
be acquired is shown as Exhibit B -2 to this Resolution.
6. Commission Attorney and Special Counsel are hereby authorized to acquire in
the name of the CIC all rights, title and interest in the property described in this
Resolution in accordance with the provisions of the California Eminent Domain
Law and the Community Redevelopment Law, to commence an action in
Eminent Domain, to deposit the probable amount of compensation, to apply to
the Superior Court for an order permitting the CIC to take immediate possession
and use of the property for redevelopment purposes, and to take all steps to
acquire the property under the law.
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL ONE:
A portion of Lot 7 and 8 in Block 49, Map of Lands Adjacent to the Town of Encinal, filed
May 28, 1867 in Map Book 19, Page 53, Alameda County Records. And also a portion
of the land shown on the Map of the Boehmer Property, filed February 28, 1907, in Map
Book 22, Page 41, Alameda County Records, described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the northeastern line of Central Avenue, as widened to 80 feet,
distant thereon northwesterly 100 feet from the point of intersection thereof with the
northwestern line of Park Street, as widened to 80 feet; running thence along said line
of Central Avenue northwesterly 176.46 feet to the northwestern line of said Lot 7;
running thence northeasterly along the last named line 207.66 feet to the northeastern
line of said Lot 7; thence southeasterly along the northeastern lines of said Lots 7 and 8
a distance of 100 feet to the northwestern line of the land shown on said map of the
Boehmer Property; thence northeasterly along the last named line 2.13 feet to a point
distant thereon northeasterly 209.79 feet from said line of Central Avenue; thence
southeasterly parallel with said line of Central Avenue 44.23 feet; thence southwesterly
parallel with the southeastern line of Oak Street 33.79 feet; thence southeasterly
parallel with said line of Central Avenue 32.23 feet to the northwestern line of the alley,
as shown on the map of Boehmer Property; thence southwesterly along the last named
line 176 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL TWO:
A non - exclusive perpetual easement and right of way for ingress and egress of
pedestrians only, appurtenant to Parcel One herein described excepting therefrom the
northwestern 50 feet thereof, over the following described parcel of land;
Beginning at a point on the northeastern line of Central Avenue, 80 feet wide, distant
thereon northwesterly 90 feet from the point of intersection thereof with the
northwestern line of Park Street, 80 feet wide; running thence northeasterly parallel with
the southeastern line of Oak Street 209.79 feet; thence northwesterly parallel with said
line of Central Avenue 10 feet; thence southwesterly parallel with said line of Oak Street
209.79 feet to said line of Central Avenue; thence along the last named line
southeasterly 10 feet to the point of beginning.
Being Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 071 - 0203 -014 & 071 - 0203 -015
EXHIBIT B -1
AS'SESSOR'S MAP 71 Code Area No. 2I-004
/" /o/ o ff&oeh/ne/- Pr o/ ertc/ (ak 22 P9 4/)
.777O/0 c {Lands.c Jacent fo Me Towo ofenc Ina /
S urveyed by Jots rS7`i'o7-7.0 n,) (a/ /9 P9 53)
Scale % ".SD'
56.08
R/8
202
O
1416
2/7
0
NI N
10
97
NI NI MI
cyan fa C /ora
6 .2r
74 So
%venue
2 .4.
o (510
3, l
Sty
n
0
b
•
ti.
Ty
3
so sa
(8 /9..f
9
3
8a
1431_
/7
10
OI
N 6/° 213'1V
Centro/
h
m
c.
res
(97• a /22,9.4
ylo
99.0
a
76.46 /� Z
49.24 19 98.23
,'Tvencue
N
.+1 r
NI NI A
204
L
14.19'
1417
1415
1413
141
1409
140.7
1403
1401
.LS.OVJ( 70
L '1d04S 'V LO- .OZO LLO - SOOZ-400Z 'VO 'epewelV
J
13381S V2JV13 VINVS
EXHIBIT B -2
m
w
W+ O
'
� Ml r
w 8
0 �,
;so
U
xl n
c, z < wily
w
z -�
O N `4
11N3AV 1V2J1N30
3
§1 1
City of Alameda California
April 28, 2005
EXHIBIT C
Re: NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF
NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION
TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION; CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.235 et seq. (APN 071 - 0203 -014 and APN 071 -0203-
015; 2315 -2323 Central Avenue, Alameda, California — Alameda Theater /Cineplex and
Parking Structure)
Dear Property Owners and Interested Persons:
This letter is to advise you that the Community Improvement Commission of the
City of Alameda (the "CIC" or "Community Improvement Commission ") intends to
consider adoption of a resolution of necessity on May 17, 2005. If adopted, the
resolution will authorize the CIC to acquire the property commonly known as the
Alameda Theatre, including adjacent parking lot property, with a street address of 2315-
2323 Central Avenue, Alameda, designated as APN's 071 - 0203 -014 and 071 -0203 -015,
more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A. The
property is proposed to be acquired for redevelopment purposes for the proposed
Alameda Theater /Cineplex and Parking Structure project.
You have the right to appear and be heard on the resolution. The matter is
scheduled for a hearing on May 17, 2005, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, at the City Council Chambers, Alameda City Hall, 2263 Santa
Clara Avenue, Alameda, California. At that time and place, the Community Improvement
Commission will consider whether such a resolution of necessity should be adopted, as
required by California Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.220 for the commencement
of an action in eminent domain to acquire the property.
You have the right to present oral and written information to the Community
Improvement Commission if you choose. The resolution to be considered by the
Community Improvement Commission will include the following findings and
determinations:
A. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project;
B. The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most
compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury;
. Development Services Department
Alameda Point Main Office
950 West Mall. Square,
Alameda, CA 94501-7552
510 749.5800 • Fax 510 749.5808 • TDD 510 522.7538
C. The property sought to be acquired by eminent domain is necessary for
the proposed project;
D. The Community Improvement Commission has complied with all
conditions and statutory requirements necessary to exercise the power of eminent
domain to acquire the property, as well as any other matter regarding the right to take
said property by eminent domain, including but not limited to, making the offer required
by Government Code section 7267.2(a) and complying with existing business tenant
preference requirements of the Community Redevelopment Law and its Owner
Participation and Business Tenant Preference Rules and relocation assistance
requirements;
E. The Community Improvement Commission has fully complied with the
California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq.;
and
F. The Community Improvement Commission has authority under the
Community Redevelopment Law and Business and Waterfront Community
Improvement Plan to acquire the property by eminent domain.
The Community Improvement Commission, a redevelopment agency, is vested
with the power of eminent domain to acquire the property under the Eminent Domain
Law, including California Code of Civil Procedure section 1240.010, California Health &
Safety Code section 33391, and section D.1, section 309, of Part III of the Community
Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, as amended.
If you desire to be heard or to present information to the CIC on this resolution,
you are required by law to file a written request with the Clerk of the Community
Improvement Commission no later than fifteen days from the date of this notice. You
rnust file your request to be heard at the Office of the City Clerk, Alameda City Hall,
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501.
If you mail a request to be heard, please keep in mind that it must be actually
received by the Clerk no later than fifteen days after the date this notice is mailed. See
Code of Civil Procedure section 1245.235(b)(3).
If you elect not to appear and be heard at this hearing, your decision not to
appear and be heard will constitute a waiver of your right to challenge the right of the
Community Improvement Commission to acquire the property by eminent domain.
Thus, the matters described in the resolution of necessity will be deemed to be
established.
The amount of compensation to be paid for the property will not be decided or
heard at this hearing. Your nonappearance at this noticed hearing will not prevent you
from claiming compensation in an amount to be determined by a court of law under the
laws of the State of California. This Notice is not intended to foreclose future or ongoing
negotiations between you and the representatives of the Community Improvement
Commission on the amount of compensation, if any, to be paid to you for your property.
At this hearing, the CIC will not make any determination about the amount of money to
be paid for your property or to be offered to you.
If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Dorene Soto,
Manager, Business Development Division, City of Alameda Development Services, City
Hall West, 950 West Mall Square, Second Floor, Alameda, CA 94501, (510) 749 -5820.
Very truly yours,
Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
DES:ry
Attachments: Mailing Distribution List
Exhibit A — Property Legal Description
H: \Catalyst Project \Resolutlon of Necessity \5 -17 -05 NotIce.DOC
Re: NOTICE OF HEARING REGARDING ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF
NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES; AUTHORIZING COMMENCEMENT OF LITIGATION
TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY AND FOR ORDER OF POSSESSION; CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE SECTION 1245.235 et seq. (APN 071 - 0203 -014 and APN 071 -0203-
015; 2315 -2323 Central Avenue, Alameda, California — Alameda Theater /Cineplex and
Parking Structure)
MAILING DISTRIBUTION LIST:
Cocores Development Company
c/o Park Central Investments
2424 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
Don Lindsey
Gallagher & Lindsey, Inc.
2424 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
Mr. John Cocores
1616 Fernwood Dr.
Oakland, CA 94611
Central Donuts
Attn: Theth Chan
2315 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
Barceluna Cafe & Lounge
Attn: Charles Carlise
2319 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 9501
The Hair Shaper
Attn: Shirley A. Cabral, Nancy Tajima and Van Von Horcke
2321 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
We Are Nails & More
Attn: Ha Nguyen
2323 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAIUNG
MAY SE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL. DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR Pal,
R"."^ Fmm: City of Alameda
Development Services Department
Business Development
950 West Mall Square, Second Floor
Alameda, CA 94501
One Mesa ol =Onto Imdl ntJmwed lo:
Cocores Development Company
c/o Park Central Investments
2424 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
PS Form 3817, January 2001
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
MAY SE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL. DOES NOT
Reoelved 1, ern
City Ol'Alameda
Development Services Department
Business Development t $
950 West Mall Square, Second Flood \;� t�/
Alameda, CA 94501
One Mace or0,d ,ymail addressed w:
Don Lindsey
Gallagher & Lindsey, Inc.
2424 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
PS Fowl 3817, January 2001
e V
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
MAY OE 05E0 FOI DOMESTIC ANO INTERNATIONAL MAIL. DOES NOT
000411EFOPIN511 " "" "'""" ""'�^
Remnant F,om
.-'..k ffipe
City of Alameda j\ !'
Development Services Department ' a0
Business Development
950 West Mall Square, Second Floor �P1�\1J //`�;
Alaineda, CA 94501 L ',..,v..!vi-
- j4ke!;T. i a a e
`�' � 1i�wiADa�
er0[.O'.°141
O N It 9
J . 01
00001000010101,0,4104. oddlessad Id:
Mr. John Cocores
1616 Fernwood Dr.
Oakland, CA 94611
PS Form 3817, January 2001
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAIUNG
MAO DE 05ED FOR m1.11ESTle AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL 00E5 NOT
0,40410E 0011 110000 " ^' 'v.e+...oTrn
City of Alameda
Development Services Department
Business Development
950 West Mall Square, Second Floor
Alameda, CA 94501
nncolved F,oln:
Ono Mace et engrave mea?dammed lo.
Central Donuts
Attn: Theth Chan
2315 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
PS Form 3817, January 2001 •
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
MAY BE USED FOR DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL MAIL, DOES NOT
PROVIDE FOR INSUP0OIP—Prvrrue1TPP
Received Frans
City of Alameda -
Development Services Department'
Business Development l ,-
950 West Mall Square, Second Floof .�''o '
Alameda, CA 94501 ' .'
One lJew 01 arMhery mail addressed lo:
Barceluna Cafe & Lounge
Attn: Charles Carlise
2319 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
1� M
PS Form 3817, January 2001
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
memoMAYBEUSE0100 DOME511IC400 �eNATIONAL MAIL DOES NOT
55UP" "^e
City of Alameda
Development Services Department
Business Development
950 West Mall Square, Second Floor
Alameda, CA 94501
Received Flom:
ys V
Ore pleas of ordinary mod addmaed lo:
The Hair Shaper
Attn: Shirley A. Cabral, Nancy Tajima
and Van Von Horcke
2321 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
PS Form 3817, January 2001
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
P1RAO0 VBIDUO 5R 0WESTIMID W ?NATIONAL MAIL DOES NOT
Ree.Ned Fam:
City of Alameda
Development Services Department
Business Development
950 West Mall Square, Second Floor
Alameda, CA 94501
One Mew el orNe00 malI=drossed Ma
We Are Nails & More
Attn: Ha Nguyen
2323 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
P5 Form 3817, January 2001
o 1
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL ONE:
A portion of Lot 7 and 8 in Block 49, Map of Lands Adjacent to the Town of Encinal, filed
May 28, 1867 in Map Book 19, Page 53, Alameda County Records. And also a portion
of the land shown on the Map of the Boehmer Property, filed February 28, 1907, in Map
Book 22, Page 41, Alameda County Records, described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the northeastern line of Central Avenue, as widened to 80 feet,
distant thereon northwesterly 100 feet from the point of intersection thereof with the
northwestern line of Park Street, as widened to 80 feet; running thence along said line
of Central Avenue northwesterly 176.46 feet to the northwestern line of said Lot 7;
running thence northeasterly along the last named line 207.66 feet to the northeastern
line of said Lot 7; thence southeasterly along the northeastern lines of said Lots 7 and 8
a distance of 100 feet to the northwestern line of the land shown on said map of the
Boehmer Property; thence northeasterly along the last named line 2.13 feet to a point
distant thereon northeasterly 209.79 feet from said line of Central Avenue; thence
southeasterly parallel with said line of Central Avenue 44.23 feet; thence southwesterly
parallel with the southeastern line of Oak Street 33.79 feet; thence southeasterly
parallel with said line of Central Avenue 32.23 feet to the northwestern line of the alley,
as shown on the map of Boehmer Property; thence southwesterly along the last named
line 176 feet to the point of beginning.
PARCEL TWO:
A non - exclusive perpetual easement and right of way for ingress and egress of
pedestrians only, appurtenant to Parcel One herein described excepting therefrom the
northwestern 50 feet thereof, over the following described parcel of land;
Beginning at a point on the northeastern line of Central Avenue, 80 feet wide, distant
thereon northwesterly 90 feet from the point of intersection thereof with the
northwestern line of Park Street, 80 feet wide; running thence northeasterly parallel with
the southeastern line of Oak Street 209.79 feet; thence northwesterly parallel with said
line of Central Avenue 10 feet; thence southwesterly parallel with said line of Oak Street
209.79 feet to said line of Central Avenue; thence along the last named line
southeasterly 10 feet to the point of beginning.
Being Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 071 - 0203 -014 & 071 - 0203 -015
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda in a
Special Community Improvement Commission meeting assembled on the day of
, 2005 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
Commission this day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Community Improvement Commission
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
TUESDAY - - - JUNE 1, 2004 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:53 p.m. Board
Member Kerr led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Board Members Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson. -5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
Minutes of the Annual Industrial Development Authority Meetings of
May 20, 2003 and May 18, 2004.
Board Member Daysog moved approval of the minutes.
Board Member Kerr seconded the motion which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Board Members Daysog, Kerr and Chair
Johnson - 3. Abstentions: Board Members Gilmore and Matarrese - 2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Industrial Development Authority
June 1, 2004
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 3, 2005- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05- ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney.
(05- ) Worker's Compensation Claim; Claimant: James MacKey;
Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda.
(05- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and
Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA).
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, the Council discussed the City Attorney's
performance; regarding Worker's Compensation Claim, the Council
gave instructions to Legal Counsel; and regarding Conference with
Labor Negotiators, the Council gave instructions to Labor
Negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2005
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MAY 3, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 9:29 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05- ) Mayor Johnson moved the Resolutions Appointing Members of
the Golf Commission after the Proclamation.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05- ) Proclamation declaring May as "Older Americans Month."
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Don Oransky,
President, Mastick Advisory Board.
Mr. Oransky thanked the Council for the proclamation.
(05- ) Update on the new main library project.
The Project Manager gave a brief project update.
Vice Mayor Gilmore commended the Project Manager and staff for
putting out many fires that keep the project moving smoothly.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[Items so adopted or enacted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *05- ) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on April
19, 2005; and the Special City Council Meeting held on April 21,
2005. Approved.
( *05- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $ 2,201,788.60.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2005
1
( *05- ) Recommendation to authorize Call for Bids for Legal
Advertising for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2006. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for period ending March 31, 2005. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report
for the period ending March 31, 2005 and approve third quarter
budget adjustments. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to set Hearing to establish Proposition 4
Limit for Fiscal Year 2005 -06 for May 17, 2005. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon
Construction, Inc., for Repair of Portland Cement, Concrete
Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching Phase 5,
Fiscal Year 2004 -05, No. P.W. 08- 04 -08. Accepted.
( *05- ) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Alameda
County to continue participation in the Alameda HOME Consortium and
authorize the Acting City Manager to negotiate and execute
necessary documents. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05- ) Resolution No. 13836, "Appointing Ray A. Gaul as a Member
of the Golf Commission." Adopted.
(05- A) Resolution No. 13837, "Appointing Bill T. Schmitz as a
Member of the Golf Commission." Adopted.
(05- B) Resolution No. 13838, "Appointing Jane Sullwold as a
Member of the Golf Commission." Adopted.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to the Golf Commission members.
(05- ) Ordinance No. 2940, "Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Property within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance
No. 1277, N.S., from R -5 (General Residential) Zoning District to
C -C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, for that Property
Located at 2507 Central Avenue at Everett Street." Finally passed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2005
2
Councilmember Daysog moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous
voice vote -5.
(05- ) Recommendation to accept the West Alameda Neighborhood
Improvement Concept Plan.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager gave a Power
Point presentation on the Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated the Plan would make important changes to the
area; requested staff to review ways to accelerate the Plan; stated
that a member of the Housing Task Force Committee recommended that
the Committee review the Plan, provide input, and delay the vote.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the quality of life at the West
End is important because of the high population density; the Boys'
and Girls' Club brings positive steps to the area; funding sources
are important; he is always concerned with transportation issues;
the Transportation Commission needs to be engaged; requested to see
more detail on the sources of estimates for varied activities;
stated that he has no problem with delaying the acceptance of the
Plan; inquired whether the Plan could be delayed.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded there
has been an extensive public comment process; the draft plan was
presented at a community meeting in February; Board and Commission
input has been requested; there is no problem in delaying the
acceptance; acceptance of the conceptual Plan is requested;
different components would be brought back to Council at various
times.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the short -term, simple
projects could be accomplished quickly.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded in
the affirmative; stated there is funding available for planting
additional trees on an infill basis, and installation of trash
receptacles at the Webster Street and Poggi Street corridor.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the trash receptacles would be
selected by Public works.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded that
BMS Design would select the trash receptacles; BMS Deign is
familiar with materials and installations throughout the City;
connection is critical to Webster Street, the Bayport property, and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
May 3, 2005
Alameda Point.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not see the Plan as West
Alameda, but as the Woodstock /Buena Vista corridor; more could be
done south of Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated
the West End is reaching passed Webster Street.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager stated that
another name could be used.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated that the Plan is great; suggested
purchasing the property between Main Street and Webster Street on
Appezzato Parkway; stated that he hopes that there will be Class 2
bike lanes on the Marshall /Lincoln /Pacific Avenue section; urged
acceptance of the Plan.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she is not in favor of the Housing
Task Force Committee reviewing the Plan; there has been extensive
public input; the Plan is only conceptual; there will be further
opportunity for public input; the Council's charge to the Housing
Task Force Committee was to specifically review ways to prevent
mass evictions and tackle affordable housing within 60 days; the
Task Force needs to remain focused in order to meet the deadline.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he was in favor of delaying
acceptance of the Plan until the Housing Task Force Committee
report is received; the. Committee's and recommendations would be
important to shaping the concept within the Plan; the street trees
and trash cans should be equitably distributed throughout the City;
the high density apartment buildings and the Harbor Island
Apartments are critical to the improvement of the census tract.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would support having the Task
Force review the Plan if there are community meetings with adjacent
neighborhoods to ensure that the Plan includes all of the West End.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's
suggestion to expand the overall scope of the Plan, to which
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the census tract was selected and why
the Plan was not broader.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded the
census tract has the highest concentration of minorities and low
income; the priority was to work with residents to bring more
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
May 3, 2005
services into the neighborhood using Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds; residents voiced concern about not being able
to walk freely through the neighborhood because of the Harbor
Island Apartment and Chipman Middle School; the area to the south
is not a low to moderate income neighborhood.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Plan could be used as a tool to
identify City resources that could be used to improve
neighborhoods; the sidewalks are in horrible condition; the paving
on Santa Clara Avenue is odd.
Mayor Johnson stated the name of the Plan can be changed to be more
specific; there are sidewalk, street, tree, and lighting issues
everywhere in the City; there is nothing more odd than the paving
on Gibbons Drive; increased sidewalk maintenance funding and more
aggressive repair schedules need to be reviewed; CDBG funds could
not be used if the Plan was expanded and could result in a thirty -
year Plan instead of a ten -year Plan; that she does not have a
problem with delaying acceptance until the Housing Task Force
Committee report is received; suggested direction be provided to
rename the Plan.
Councilmember deHaan stated expanding the scope cannot be done with
the existing funding; the West End could be reviewed further at a
later date; that he is uncertain what the impact would be in
deferring acceptance until after the Housing Task Force Committee
review.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are projects that are ready to
move forward; stated the Plan could be accepted with direction to
bring the matter back to Council after receiving the Housing Task
Force Committee report.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded that
tree, trash can, and bus shelter locations could begin to be
determined; staff could synchronize with the Housing Task Force
Committee and report back to Council; the Plan provides a vision of
the future and encourages residents to participate and not allow
development which might become an impediment to the implementation
of the Plan.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review ways to accelerate the
Plan.
The Acting City Manager stated that Council could accept the Plan
with the caveat that the Plan be brought back to Council; the Plan
is dynamic; there needs to be equality in the Public Works
infrastructure and repairs; Public Works would provide an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
May 3, 2005
infrastructure report at the next City Council Meeting; Council
will receive a model showing the performance of the budget over a
period of ten years in late July or early August; reports will
outline what needs to be done to correct problems; funding
recommendations can be discussed.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not be on the Council if
not for the support of residents south of Pacific Avenue and
Lincoln Avenue; many people needed to sell their homes with the
Base closure; the neighborhood faces a lot of development; Council
would be missing an opportunity if there is no coordination with
activities occurring north of Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the Plan,
modifying the title to reflect the Plan's intent to target the most
needy census tract in the City and requiring that the Plan return
to Council coinciding with the Task Force report to revise concepts
in the Plan if needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there is $500,000 in resources
that can go towards activities right away; going forward and
accepting the Plan is prudent; the elements within the first and
third year are very straightforward.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated that she is very concerned
with the infrastructure everywhere in Alameda; the sidewalks and
streets are not in the same condition as a few years ago; Council
needs to address the issues and set priorities on the
infrastructure deficit.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the name redesignation is
important; he is fine with remaining north of Pacific Avenue and
Lincoln Avenue if the Plan is not opened up to Harbor Island Task
Force.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(05- ) Wilbur Richards, Alameda, complimented the Council on the
quality of City services.
(05- ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated the President is
proposing to put oil refineries closed bases, which should not
occur in Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2005
(05- ) Rob Siltanen, Alameda, submitted a letter requesting that
the Alameda Point vision include sensible traffic solutions, middle
class housing, and a small town Alameda feel.
(05- ) Jon Spangler, Cross Alameda Trail Steering Committee,
stated that Saturday, June 4, is National Trails Day; there will be
a trail walk between Main Street and Webster Street.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05- ) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she and Councilmember
deHaan attended the Association of Bay Area Government conference
regarding casinos last week; there appears to be a one size fits
all negotiation strategy; there is no recognition of the obvious
differences between urban and rural casinos; the Governor's
negotiator promised that the Governor would take a hard look at
Indian tribes looking to have land restored; the negotiator was not
aware of anything pertaining to the Koi proposal on Swan Way;
stated tribal lobbying efforts have not made it all the way up the
ladder.
(05- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is a special
June election for a Measure A parcel tax; the tax would allow the
School District to extend the current parcel tax; requested that
Council give direction to place the matter on the next City Council
meeting agenda; stated there is a gap in School District funding; a
County Financial Advisor would be required if the School District
slips into financial disarray; the City does not need a County
person advising how money is spent.
(05- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that the
reservation shopping battle has just begun; some cities want to
move forward with casinos because of economic woes.
(05- ) Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review costs and
funding sources to centralize City administration, particularly the
Public Works and Development Services Departments.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would support the idea.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he assumed that the matter
would be addressed with the budget and the ten -year outlook.
(05- ) Mayor Johnson requested that the Recreation Commission
matter [expansion of Commission size] be placed on the next City
Council Meeting agenda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2005
7
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:38 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 3, 2005
8
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -MAY 4, 2005- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, .deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05- ) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council gave direction to the
recruiter.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 4, 2005
May 12, 2005
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
136057 - 136519
EFT 116
E13473 - E13585
Void Checks:
Amount
Z552,174.84
553,883.09
68,473.13
135653 (1,489.00)
136119 (9,134.13)
132352 (2,250.00)
GRAND TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sibl
Council Warrants 05/17/2005
3,161,657.93
BILLS #4 -B
05/17/05
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: May 4, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Quarterly Sales Tax Report For the Period Ending March 31, 2005, For Sales
Transactions in the Fourth Calendar Quarter of 2004
BACKGROUND
This sales tax report and the accompanying charts relate to sales tax receipts for the
period ending March 31, 2005, and are for sales transactions occurring October —
December 2004 (Fourth calendar quarter).
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Quarterly sales tax revenues decreased by 1.7% as compared to the same quarter of the
prior year after adjusting for one -time payments.
Key declines came from office equipment, miscellaneous retail, leasing and miscellaneous
vehicle sales. The three economic areas vital to the City's sales tax revenue are:
transportation (27.47% of total), general retail (23.86 %) and food products (23.49 %).
These three categories produced 74.82% of the City's sales tax collections during the
fourth calendar quarter.
A comparison of the major business groups is as follows:
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -C CC
5 -17 -05
4th Quarter 2004
4th Quarter 2003
Percent
Change
Economic Category
Total
Percent of
Total
Total
Percent of
Total
- --
Transportation
353,086
27.47
353,095
27.15
-5.5%
Food Products
302,001
23.49
319,478
24.57
-12.0%
General Retail
306,695
23.86
348,531
26.80
21.9%
Business to Business
259,874
20.21
213,108
16.39
-2.4%
Construction
52,880
4.11
54,163
4.16
-8.2%
Miscellaneous
11,092
.86
12,083
.93
-1.7%
Total - Quarter
1,285,628
100.00
1,300,458
100.00
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report #4 -C CC
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 4, 2005
Page 2 of 3
A comparison of the geographic generation of sales tax for the fourth quarter 2004 as
compared to the same period in 2003 follows.
The top five sales tax generators contributed 22.18% of the total sales tax revenue for this
quarter. If we add the next block of five sales tax generators, these 10 businesses
generated 31.73% of the total quarterly sales tax revenues. The top 100 sales tax
generators contributed 74.22% of the total sales tax revenues.
The sales tax digest attached (see page 3) lists the top sales tax producers for the quarter.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Current Year
Prior Year
Percent
Change
Geographic Areas
4th Qtr 2004
Total
Percent of
Total
4th Qtr 2003
Total
Percent of
Total
-1.5
Park - North of Lincoln
277,727
21.6
281,840
21.7
-10.8
South Shore Center
263,824
20.5
295,926
22.8
9.9
Park - South of Lincoln
155,123
12.2
141,098
10.9
64.1
Marina Village Business Park
131,419
10.2
80,073
6.2
6.1
Webster -North of Lincoln
76,507
5.9
72,121
5.5
-5.2
Neighborhood
Commercial Districts
60,989
4.8
64,310
4.9
-35.6
Northern Waterfront
35,695
2.8
55,439
4.3
-3.0
Harbor Bay Landing
57,193
4.5
58,991
4.5
-6.8
Marina Village Shopping Center
36,455
2.8
39,099
3.0
-8.3
Alameda Point
37,784
2.9
41,186
3.2
-0.6
Harbor Bay Business Park
56,922
4.4
57,257
4.4
4.6
Balance of City
41,879
3.3
40,024
3.1
-22.8
Mariner Square
12,041
.9
15,603
1.2
-7.1
Webster - South of Lincoln
30,039
2.3
32,320
2.5
-81.0
Fernside Center
2,395
.2
12,607
.9
-23.4
Ballena
9,568
.7
12,484
.9
-17.5
Heritage Bay
66
--
80
--
-1.1
Total - Quarter
1,285,626
100.0
1,300,458
100.0
The top five sales tax generators contributed 22.18% of the total sales tax revenue for this
quarter. If we add the next block of five sales tax generators, these 10 businesses
generated 31.73% of the total quarterly sales tax revenues. The top 100 sales tax
generators contributed 74.22% of the total sales tax revenues.
The sales tax digest attached (see page 3) lists the top sales tax producers for the quarter.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 4, 2005
Page 3 of 3
Following is a three -year comparison of total sales tax by business class. The percentage
change reflects the change from 2003 to 2004.
Percent
Change
Economic
Category
2004 (as of
4th Quarter)
Percent of
Total
2003 (as of
4th Quarter)
Percent of
Total
2002 (as of
4th Quarter)
percent of
Total
0.1
Transportation
1,548,232
29.64
1,545,961
29.46
1,534,402
30.09
-1.8
Food Products
1,183,868
22.66
1,205,630
22.97
1,122,481
22.01
-12.6
General Retail
1,151,207
22.04
1,317,798
25.11
1,218,895
23.90
20.8
Business to
Business
1,076,369
20.61
891,190
16.98
989,596
19.41
11.0
Construction
221,073
4.23
199,114
3.79
191,667
3.76
-51.8
Miscellaneous
42,702
.82
88,598
1.69
42,207
.83
TOTAL -
QUARTER
5,223,451
100.00
5,248,291
100.00
5,099,248
100.00
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT
Our sales tax projections for 2005 -06 have taken into consideration these trends. We
continue to monitor this revenue source closely.
RECOMMENDATION
This data is provided for informational purposes only and requires no action from the City
Council.
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
JB /dI
Attachment
cc: Rob Ratto, PSBA
G: \FINANCE \COU NC I L\2005 \051705 \SALESTAXreport. doc
eAnn Boy
ief Financial Officer
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
State Overview
City of Alameda
Sales Tax Digest Summary
FIRST Quarter Collection of FOURTH Quarter Sales
11/13/2004 - 02/11/2005
Quarter 4, 2004
M QIA
MBIA MuniServices Company
The overall sales & use tax for California increased 11.6% for the 4th Quarter of 2004 compared to
the same quarter of 2003. The double -digit growth was tempered by the impact of the "Triple
Flip ". The 4th Quarter of 2004 is the first fully impacted quarter under the "Triple Flip ", which
allows the State to temporary "borrow" one - quarter of the local government Bradley -Burns sales
tax to pay back bonds.
Northern California experienced a taxable sales increase of 10.5% for the 4th Quarter 2004
compared to the same quarter of 2003. Northern California welcomed three -year highs in the
general retail, food products, transportation, and construction economic categories. Southern
California experienced a stronger taxable sales increase of 12.4% in the same comparison posting
three -year highs in the general retail, food products, transportation, business -to- business, and
construction economic categories.
Regional Overview
North S.F. Bay
Coast Area
%AYr
%AYr
Central South Coast
Coast
% A Yr
% A Yr
Inland
Empire
% A Yr
Sacramento
Valley
% A Yr
Central
Valley
% A Yr
General Retail
5.0
4.2
1.5
6.1
6.9
6.0
6.2
Food Products
3.7
3.7
2.5
5.1
5.8
2.4
5.6
Construction
15.8
12.3
9.1
17.0
24.0
11.4
21.0
Transportation
8.1
5.2
9.8
7.6
11.3
5.2
7.1
Business to Business
4.0
1.1
0.1
3.2
6.5
2.6
12.0
Miscellaneous
2.1
1.9
8.4
-0.9
-6.2
-1.5
-0.9
Total
7.2
4.4
4.1
6.7
9.5
5.5
8.8
Auto
les
g Vlatls
Retail '
Etectromc
Equipment;
Florist / .
Nursery
Matls..
Wholesale
g Matls
etail .
Service
Stations
Bldg: Marls
Wholesale
nergy Sales
Chenucal
Products
Bldg. Marls.
Retail-
Business •
Services
Energy
Sales
•Bldg Matls:':
Wholesale:
Energy;:
Sale's'
Bldg Matis
Retait , -
Mise
Vehicle. Sale
Segment with
Greatest % Decline
Liquor
Stores
Business
Services
Energy
Sales
Business
Services
Electronic
Equipment
Food
Process Eqp.
Electronic
Equipment
Segment with 2nd
Greatest % Decline
Business
Services
Leasing
Business
Services
Drug Stores
Business
Services
Leasing
Business
Services
Segment with 3rd
Greatest % Decline
Office
Equipment
Chemical
Products
Chemical
Products
Auto Parts
& Repair
Health &
Government
Auto Parts
& Repair
Health &
Government
Segment with the
Most:.Taxable Sales
Department
•,Stores
New Auto
Sales
Restaurants
New Auto
Sales
New Auto
Sales
New Auto
Sales
Department;
Stores
Segment ' "with 2nd.
Most Taxable Sales
New Auto
Sales
Restaurants
Department
Stores
Restaurants
Restaurants
Department
Stores
New Auto
Sales'
Segment: with 3`d
Most Tazable,Sales.
Bldg `;Mans
Retail.. .
Department
Stores
New Auto
Sales
Department
Stores
Department.
Stores
Bldg. Matls.
Wholesale •
Restaurants
(% A Yr - Percentage Change by Benchmark Year Comparing 2004Q4 to 2003Q4)
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company
1
City of Alameda
Reconciliation Summary
SBE Collections Analysis
Local Collections $1,692,013
Share of County Pool (3.01 %) 225,546
Share of State Pool (.14 %) 714
SBE Net Collections 1,918,273
Less: Amount Due County 5.00% (95,914)
Less: Cost of Administration (10,900)
Net 4Q2004 Receipts 1,811,459
Net 4Q2003 Receipts 1,368,052
Actual Percentage Change 32.4%
FOURTH Quarter Economic Performance Analysis
Local Collections
Less: Payments for Prior Periods
Preliminary 4Q2004 Collections
Projected 4Q2004 Late Payments
Projected 4Q2004 Final Results
Actual 4Q2003 Results
Projected Percentage Change
Historical Cash Collections Analysis by Quarter
$1,692,013
(480,564)
1,211,449
74,180
1,285,629
1,300,458
-1.1%
$2 ,0 00
$1 ,8 00
$1 ,6 00
°° • $1,400
al $1 ,2 00
o, $1 ,0 00
4)
,, $800
$6 00
• $4 00
$2 00
$0
(in thousands of $)
•
_ ■
1 . E I •
I ■ ■ MEN ■ ■ ■ ■ •
I ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
■
11111111116111
■ ■ u u ■ ■ ■
3Q2002 4Q 20 02 1Q2003 2 Q2 00 3 3Q2003 4Q 20 03 1Q2004 2Q2004 3Q2004 4Q2004
$1 20
$1 00
on
W
$8 0 r
$60
$40 °
E
'v
$2 0
$0
iiiiiiiiiiiiNet Reeipts WEISta le & C ounty P ool Receipts 0 EA dmi n Fees Due —0—County Sharin g Due
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 2
City of Alameda
City of Alameda Overview
Top 25 Sales /Use Tax Contributors
The following list identifies the top 25 Sales/Use Tax contributors in City of Alameda. The list is in
alphabetical order and represents the most current four quarters. The top 25 Sales/Use Tax
contributors generate 47.8% of the jurisdiction's total sales /use tax revenue.
ALAMEDA ELECTRICAL
ALBERTSON'S FOOD CENTERS
ARCO AM/PM MINI MARTS
CAVANAUGH CHRYSLER/PLYMOUTH
CHEVRON SERVICE STATIONS
DATA 911
EMBARCADERO SYSTEMS
FUTURE COMPUTING SOLUTIONS
GOOD CHEVROLET
LONGS DRUG STORES
MERVYN'S DEPARTMENT STORE
OFFICEMAX
ONE WORKPLACE
PAGANO'S ACE HARDWARE
PINNACLE PRINTING SYSTEMS
PITNEY BOWES INC.
RON GOODE TOYOTA
ROSS STORES
ROUNDSTONE SYSTEMS CORPORATION
SAFEWAY STORES
SVENDSEN'S BOAT WORKS
TRADER JOE'S
WALGREEN'S DRUG STORES
WIND RIVER SYSTEMS
XTRA OIL COMPANY
Historical Sales Tax Amounts
Year End FOURTH Quarter 2002 to Year End FOURTH Quarter 2004
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 3
(in thousands of $)
U4Q2004
*High
IEL.ow
$9 00
$8 00
$7 00
$6 00
$5 00
$4 00
$3 00
$2 00
$1 00
$0
.
e4 ��e `+`c�`� ,off fie, �, s45 , �� �e
oe�� 4�, �e�A S,�eS �a ��a v`�1 ��� e�r� ��e��
F; 0 % 4 c1 6 4
-- C� v'
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 3
City of Alameda
Economic Segment Analysis by Benchmark Year — Top 10 Segments
Largest Sales Tax Dollar Change by Economic Segment
Miscellaneous
Closed Acct - Adjustmt
Health & Government
Business To Business
Energy Sales
Office Equipment
General Retail
Miscellaneous Retail
Apparel Stores
Construction
BIdg.Matls -Whsle
BIdg.Matls- Retail
% Change
-51.8
20.8
-12.6
11.0
$ (000) Change
-27
-13
4
187
-149
-11
20
2
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 4
(in thousandsof $)
$900
■4Q2003
14Q2004
$800
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
1
$0
c
¢
za �+� .s� y,�c`e s� ��1�6 N: Q`a Q9 `.59 04,
4..a
w
Largest Sales Tax Dollar Change by Economic Segment
Miscellaneous
Closed Acct - Adjustmt
Health & Government
Business To Business
Energy Sales
Office Equipment
General Retail
Miscellaneous Retail
Apparel Stores
Construction
BIdg.Matls -Whsle
BIdg.Matls- Retail
% Change
-51.8
20.8
-12.6
11.0
$ (000) Change
-27
-13
4
187
-149
-11
20
2
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 4
Fri
City of Alameda
Quarterly Key Gains and Declines for FOURTH Quarter 2004
Miscel Ian eo us Re to it
Food Processing Eqp
Electron ic Equipment
Ap pare 1 S tore s
Fur ni to re /A pp 1 ian ce
Lea sin g
Energy Sales
H eal th & G ov ern m en t
Heavy Industry
Chem is a l Product s
A u to S al es - U sed
Office Equipment
( in thousands of $ )
-1 9
-12
-9
-7
-4
-3 ■
-2U
-1 '
-1
-I I
2
6 1
-$ 30
-$20 -$1 0
$1 0
$ 20
$3 0
$ 40
$ 50
$6 0 $ 70
Annual Sales Tax by Business Category
4Q 2 00 4
3Q 2 00 4
2Q 2 00 4
IQ 2 00 4
4Q 2 00 3
3Q 2 00 3
2Q 2 00 3
1Q 2 00 3
4Q 2 00 2
3Q 2 00 2
(in thousands of $ )
$0
$1 ,00 0
$2 ,00 0
$3 ,0 00
$4 ,0 00
$5 ,0 00
$6 ,0 00
•General RetaitNiFood Pro ducts Qrransportalion ®C onstrucdon usiness To Business Miscellaneous
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 5
City of Alameda
Five -Year Economic Trend: General Retail
Per Capita by Business Segment: Benchmark Year Ending FOURTH Quarter
Per Capita byB usinessSegment
AutoSales - New
Restaurants
office Equipment
Service Stations
Food M arkets
M iscel la ne ou s R eta it
L ight Industry
D ru g S tor es
Misc.VehicleSales
Dep a rtm en tS tor es
Ap par elS tor es
BIdg.Matls -Whsle
AutoParts/Repair
AL L 0 TH ER S
(in thousandsof$)
$4 50
$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12
$4 00
$3 50
$300
1 1AA 1
$250
'
1 1 1 1 1 1 n n 1 I I
$200
1
1 I I I ' 1 1 I I ' 1 I 1 I " I I I
$150
1
1
I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I
$1 00
1111
I1 I1IIIIII11I1II
$SO
1
1
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
$0
I
I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I
''
a
'
R R a ` a ; a k a 5 a a g g r4
Per Capita by Business Segment: Benchmark Year Ending FOURTH Quarter
Per Capita byB usinessSegment
AutoSales - New
Restaurants
office Equipment
Service Stations
Food M arkets
M iscel la ne ou s R eta it
L ight Industry
D ru g S tor es
Misc.VehicleSales
Dep a rtm en tS tor es
Ap par elS tor es
BIdg.Matls -Whsle
AutoParts/Repair
AL L 0 TH ER S
$0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 6
City of Alameda
THIRD Quarter 2004 Final Results
• $1,406,095 Local net cash collections
• $86,334 Less pool amounts
• $121,069 Less prior quarter payments
• $136,744 Add late payments
• $1,335,436 Local net economic collections after adjustments
• UP BY .4% compared to THIRD Quarter 2003
MMC's Audit Results
MMC performs an on -going audit for the City of Alameda. This quarter, the City received $46,840 in sales
tax from MMC audit efforts, bringing the total sales tax revenue produced by MMC to $1,683,867. The net
return to the City on MMC fees is currently 712.5 %.
Information prepared by MBIA MuniServices Company 7
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 10, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt Specifications and Authorize Calling for
Bids for One Animal Control Vehicle
BACKGROUND
The City's purchasing policy requires that specifications for materials estimated
to cost over $25,000 must first be approved by City Council. The purchasing
policy also requires that the purchase be sent out for formal competitive bid.
In consultation with the Public Works Department's Senior Fleet Mechanic, the
Alameda Police Department has determined a need exists for one replacement
Animal Control vehicle (specifications attached).
The current Animal Control vehicle is a 1997 Ford Pickup with 79,905 miles. The
truck's animal transport compartment has body rust throughout, portions of which
have rusted completely though the metal. The vehicle is no longer presentable
or functional for the needs of the Animal Shelter.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The Alameda Journal is the official newspaper of the City for legal advertising for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005. With Council authorization, the City Clerk
will publish a notice in the Alameda Journal stating Council will receive bids up to
the hour of 2:00 P.M. on Friday, June 3, 2005, for the purchase of one (1) Ford
2005 F -250 SC XL Regular Cab 4x2 pickup truck.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds are available in the General Fund's Equipment Replacement Account to
purchase this vehicle. Furthermore, the City has received a mandated cost
reimbursement from the State of California for Animal Shelter Adoption Fees,
which offsets the financial impact to the Equipment Replacement Fund.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Report #4 -D CC
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
May 10, 2005
Page 2 of 2
The City Manager recommends the City Council adopt specifications and
authorize bids for one (1) Animal Control vehicle.
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
By: Burnham Matthew
Chief of Police
WCN /BEM /mn
Attachment: Specifications
'Dedwated to ExceQence, Committed to Service
Notice to Proposers
SPECIFICATIONS FOR POLICE VEHICLE PURCHASE
The City of Alameda is seeking proposers for the purchase of one (1) Animal Control
Vehicle.
All vehicles must meet the following specifications:
2005 Ford
F -250 Truck
Vehicle Type
SD XL Regular Cab 8 Foot Styleside
Drive System
4x2
Brake Type
Power 4 -Wheel Disc Anti -Lock Braking System
Engine
5.4L 3 -Valve SOHC V8 /California Emissions
Seating Capacity
3 Passengers /Full Bench Seat with Recline
Interior
AM/FM Stereo /Single CD /Clock
Interior extras
Air Conditioning
Exterior Color
White
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 4, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids for Cyclic
Sewer Repair Project, Phase 4, No. P.W. 05 -03 -11
BACKGROUND
The City of Alameda's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes an annual Cyclic Sewer Repair
Project. Locations are based on reports of clogged lines from residents and maintenance call -outs.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Staff has prepared the plans and specifications for the sewer repair project. The work will
rehabilitate by open -cut and pipe bursting methods approximately 11,300 linear feet of sanitary
sewer pipeline and 380 lower service laterals. The work further includes removal and replacement of
36 manholes, installation of 250 sanitary sewer cleanouts and all associated work at the following
locations:
• Sewer line within 10' sewer easement between Bayo Vista Avenue and Fernside
Boulevard (Monte Vista Avenue to the end of sewer line past Fairview Avenue);
• Laurel Street (Clinton Avenue to Powell Street);
• Regent Street (Otis Drive to Central Avenue);
• Walnut Street (Clement Avenue to Clinton Avenue); and
• Willow Street (Central Avenue to Clinton Avenue).
A copy of the plans and specifications are available for review in the City Clerk's office.
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is Categorically
Exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15302 (c) - Replacement of Existing Facilities. The
Planning and Building Department has signed and filed a Notice of Exemption for this project.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Gtvo(Alamada
�
UblicWorks
Department
Public Works JfixYon!
Report #4 -E CC
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
Page 2
May 4, 2005
The original CIP project budget approved by the City Council was based on the assumption that pipe
bursting would be the method of pipe rehabilitation. However, during the design phase, the video
inspection of the existing pipe conditions revealed that at certain locations (approx 25 %) the more
expensive open cut method will be necessary to achieve sufficient pipe slope for proper sewer flows.
When the City Council awards this project, additional monies maybe required to fund the described
construction cost increases. The Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund will have sufficient funds available
to accommodate any increase in construction costs.
The required Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) -34 forms have been filed for this
project.
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt the plans and
specifications and authorize call for bids for Cyclic Sewer Repair Project, Phase 4, No. P.W. 05 -03-
11.
MTN:EK:gc
G: \P UB WORKS \ pwad m in \COUNCIL\2005\051705\sewerp &s. doc
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Edric Kwan, P.E. bb,7c
Associate Civil Engineer
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtyofAlameda
�l16IicWOrks
Department
Public %W. I✓rukv fin Yrnd
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 2, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Recommendation to Authorize Installation of an All -Way Stop Control at the Intersection of
Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street
BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department received a request to install an all -way stop control at the intersection
of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street. This intersection is currently controlled by stop signs on
the northbound and southbound approaches on Sherman Street.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The Public Works Department conducted traffic and pedestrian counts, performed radar surveys and
reviewed the accident history for the intersection. Based on State of California guidelines, the
intersection meets the engineering warrants to justify installation of an all -way stop control.
On April 13, 2005, the Transportation Technical Team (TTT) approved staff's recommendation 2 -1
to have the TTT recommend to City Council to consider installing an all -way stop controls at the
intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street; however, due to concerns raised by residents
which include the potential traffic increase and traffic volumes on Sherman Street not being
consistent with its minor street designation the issue was moved to the May 11, 2005 TTT meeting.
On May 11, 2005, the TTT reconsidered the item and recommended City Council consider installing
an all -way stop control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street. The TTT staff
report is attached for informational purposes.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost for the installation of stop signs, stop bars, and stop stencils for this location is estimated to
be $2,300 for materials and labor.
These activities are considered maintenance and are programmed in the Public Works Department's
budget.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
�U avau.�
impartment
WblicWoda Wads far Yon!
Report #4 -F CC
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE
Page 2
May 2, 2005
Alameda Municipal Code Section 8 -2.2 specifies that the City Council is authorized, by motion, to
designate and establish the installation of stop signs.
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, authorize installation of an
all -way stop control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street.
MTN:BH:gc
Respect �. y submitted,
G
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
,11,44,ct.r-Vaw-A4t6
By: Barbara Hawkins iar
Supervising Civil Engineer
Attachment: TTT report dated May 11, 2005
G:\PUBWORKS\pwadmin\COUNCIL\2005\051705\shermanscstop.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Gtyu(Aknwda
IubIicWorks
?partment
Public Wak: NfArklim »,.!
TRANSPORTATION TECHNICAL TEAM
May 11, 2005 - Staff Report
Old Business - Item No. 1
Request for All -Way Stop Signs at the Intersection of Santa Clara Avenue
and Sherman Street.
Background:
Conor O'Farrell requested all -way stop signs at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue
and Sherman Street to reduce the number of accidents at the intersection. The matter was
discussed at the April 13, 2005 TTT meeting, but was continued based on concerns raised
by residents which include the potential traffic increase and traffic volumes on Sherman
Street not being consistent with its minor street designation.
Discussion/Analysis:
Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street is a four -way intersection. Santa Clara Avenue
is a two -lane street approximately 51 feet wide with parking permitted on both sides of
the street. Bike lane markings are present in both directions on Santa Clara Avenue.
Sherman Street has two -lanes approximately 36 feet wide with parking permitted on both
sides of the street. Parking restrictions for street sweeping exist for both sides of Santa
Clara Avenue east of Sherman Street and for both sides of Sherman Street south of Santa
Clara Avenue. "STOP" signs exist at the Sherman Street approaches to the Santa Clara
Avenue intersection (see Exhibit "1B "). Marked crosswalks are not present at the
intersection. The existing double yellow centerlines at the stop bars on Sherman Street
are faded. Red curb visibility zones are on all sides of Santa Clara Avenue. The nearest
signal or stop sign along Santa Clara Avenue is at Eighth Street to the west and Grand
Street to the east.
Santa Clara Avenue has an Average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 6,993 vehicles per day while
Sherman Street has an ADT of 4,808 vehicles per day.
Pedestrian counts were performed during the morning and afternoon periods. A total of
15 pedestrians and bicyclists were observed crossing north -south (on Santa Clara
Avenue) between 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. on March 11, 2005. A total of 20 pedestrians
and bicyclists were observed crossing north -south (on Santa Clara Avenue) between 2:30
p.m. and 3:30 p.m. on March 10, 2005.
Radar surveys performed on Santa Clara Avenue indicate that the critical (85th
percentile) speed is 31 mph for the eastbound direction and 32 mph for the westbound
direction.
Review of the accident history revealed that 11 correctable accidents were reported at this
intersection during the past five years. Of these accidents, 7 were reported during a 12-
month period between 2000 and 2001.
1
The Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) reviewed the intersection for all -way
stop signs at the August 29, 2001 and October 3, 2001 meetings. At that time, the
intersection did not meet State of California guidelines for installation of all -way stop
signs and the TAC denied the request.
Under State of California guidelines, installation of all -way stop signs may be considered
if certain criteria are met. The major criteria include accident history, traffic volumes,
pedestrian volumes and critical speed (see Exhibit "1D "). Staff's review of this
intersection indicates that it now meets the State warrants for the installation of all -way
stop sign for two of the criteria: number of correctable accidents and traffic volumes.
If the TTT recommends the installation of all -way stop signs, the decision must be
brought forward to the City Council for final approval.
Warranted all -way stop signs help establish vehicular right -of -way, which can effectively
reduce the number of broadside accidents. As demonstrated by the average daily traffic
volumes on Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street, there is a need to provide equal
access for vehicles entering the intersection because a sufficient number of drivers use
Sherman Street. It should be noted however that approximately 50% of the traffic
coming from Atlantic Avenue onto Sherman Street is distributed to other east /west streets
of the City and never reaches the Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street intersection.
Southbound traffic on Sherman Street at Buena Vista Avenue is approximately 5,500
vehicles per day, at Lincoln Avenue it is approximately 3,100 vehicles per day, and at
Sherman Street it is approximately 2,500 vehicles per day. This is one of the main
advantages of having a grid system of streets and as long as the grid system is
maintained, staff does not expect a significant increase in traffic at the Santa Clara
Avenue and Sherman Street intersection when the stop signs are installed.
The traffic volumes on Sherman Street at Santa Clara Avenue are moderate for a minor
street considering that Santa Clara Avenue is also considered a minor street by the
General Plan and has more traffic than Sherman Street.
When Clement Avenue is extended to Atlantic Avenue, it is possible that some of the
traffic from Sherman Street will continue along Clement Avenue. Until then, an interim
measure to install all -way stop signs at Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street is
necessary to establish the right -of -way of the intersection. This establishment will
eliminate the need for red curb visibility zones and will restore on- street parking on Santa
Clara Avenue.
2
Recommendation:
Staff proposes the TTT recommend to City Council to approve the installation of all -way
stop signs at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street. If City Council
approves the installation of all -way stops signs, staff recommends the red curb visibility
zones be reduced to provide for additional on- street parking and marked crosswalks be
installed for the intersection. Staff recommends the faded double yellow centerline
markings be refreshed.
Exhibits:
"lA ": Vicinity Map
"1B ": Existing Conditions
G: \PUB WORKS \LT\ TRANSPORTATION \COMMITTEES \TTT\2005 \051105 \REPORT 1.doc
3
EXHIBIT "2A"
y
VICINITY MAP
City of Alameda
Traffic Engineering
Traffic Engineering
/
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 4, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Use of Measure B Countywide Discretionary
Fund Grant from Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) and
Matching Funds from the City's Local Measure B Allocation to Complete a Citywide
Pedestrian Plan
BACKGROUND
On March 2, 2004, the City Council approved the undertaking of a Citywide Transportation
Master Plan (TMP), which will consist of a number individual mode - specific plans, including a
pedestrian plan. A grant application was submitted to the Alameda County Transportation
Improvement Authority (ACTIA) to solicit funding to complete the pedestrian plan.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The City was recently selected by the ACTIA board to receive $36,000 through its Measure B
Countywide Discretionary Fund to conduct the pedestrian plan. The project work scope, which
was approved along with other elements of the TMP, consists of the following elements:
1. Develop goals and policies that will guide the City of Alameda in retaining its historic
character as a walkable City. These goals and policies would address engineering and
infrastructure regarding streets and intersections, transit, schools and Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) issues as well as education, enforcement, and encouragement.
2. Inventory- Existing Conditions in School Zones — Review the signage and markings at the
12 public and three private elementary schools, three middle schools, three public high schools
and one private high school. Identify faded or damaged markings, signs and needed
improvements.
3. Review of Existing Suggested Routes to School — Review pedestrian collision history in
school zones and at school crosswalks. Review existing Suggested Routes to School; evaluate
appropriateness given changed traffic conditions, new development, etc. since these routes were
developed. Identify needed changes to routes to school and associated improvements (e.g. traffic
control devices, sidewalk maintenance or repair, etc.) along these routes.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
�U of
bhcWorks
Uep rt ent
Public Works Wurkvfru Yo,!
Re: Reso 4 -G CC
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 4, 2005
Page 2
4. Review of Pedestrian Facilities in Business Districts and Alameda Point — Review and
assess all existing sidewalks and crosswalks within the City's business districts and at Alameda
Point. Recommend additional crossings or modifications considering pedestrian demand,
collision history and other factors.
5. Stratify pedestrian recommendations into short and long -range projects.
6. Develop cost estimates and identify cost savings by coordinating with other City projects
and initiatives.
7. Prioritize projects and identify roles and responsibilities of various City departments,
state and regional agencies, other potential partners, and potential funding sources.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
In its application, the City offered to contribute $9,000 toward the project, or 20 percent of the
total project cost of $45,000. This funding is available from the City's Measure B allocation.
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council, by motion, adopt a resolution
authorizing the use of Measure B Countywide Discretionary Fund Grant from ACTIA and
matching funds from the City's Local Measure B Allocation to complete a Citywide Pedestrian
Plan.
Res tfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Barbara Hawkins
MTN:BH:gc Supervising Civil hineer
Cc: Measure B Watchdog Committee
G: \PUB WORKS \pwad min \COUNCIL\2005 \051705 \pedplan.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
GtvofAlameda
tublicWorks
Department
Public W rk Nfx* for Km!
ATTORNEY
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AUTHORIZING THE USE OF MEASURE B COUNTYWIDE DISCRETIONARY
FUND GRANT FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
AUTHORITY (ACTIA) AND MATCHING FUNDS FROM THE CITY'S LOCAL
MEASURE B ALLOCATION TO COMPLETE A CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda is widely valued for its character as a walkable
City;
WHEREAS, the pedestrian plan will evaluate and identify needed pedestrian
safety projects in the vicinity, of schools, commercial areas, and other key locations;
w WHEREAS, the pedestrian plan will facilitate updating of the Capital
Improvement Program and Citywide Development Fee project lists;
WHEREAS, on March 2, 2004, the Alameda City Council approved the work
scope for a Transportation Master Plan, including a Citywide Pedestrian Plan;
WHEREAS, ACTIA has selected the Alameda Citywide Pedestrian Plan to
receive $36,000 in funding from its FY 2005/2006 Measure B Countywide Discretionary Grant
Funds cycle; and
WHEREAS, the City has $9,000 in funds available from the Measure B Bicycle
and Pedestrian Program to provide the local matching funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda hereby authorizes the receipt of Measure B Countywide Discretionary Funds from
ACTIA for the Alameda Citywide Pedestrian Plan and authorizes the 20% local match.
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
17th day of May, 2005, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTIONS:
Resolution #4 -G CC
5 -17 -05
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said City this day of 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
Interoffice Memorandum
May 9, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
FROM: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
SUBJ: Adoption of Resolution Extending Period for Providing Low- and Moderate - Income
Housing Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.16 (30 Units Within
Bachelor Officers' Quarters /Alameda Point)
Background
The Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) leases the property at Alameda Point
from the U.S. Department of the Navy. The leased premises include a building commonly referred
to as the Bachelor Officers' Quarters (BOQ). In 1999, the ARRA was in negotiations with a
prospective tenant for the BOQ. A successful project would have converted the 304 existing units
into approximately 210 rehabilitated units. In addition, this project would have created an obligation
to ensure that 30 units be made affordable to very -low income households. As part of project
negotiations, the CIC and ARRA approved an Acquisition Agreement by which the CIC was
authorized to acquire an affordable housing covenant for 30 units at the BOQ. The Acquisition
Agreement authorized the ARRA to sell the covenant to the CIC for $310,000. The City Council
authorized the CIC to use Business and Waterfront Improvement Project housing set -aside funds for
acquiring the covenant.
Discussion
California Redevelopment Law (CRL) requires that any property, including covenants, purchased
with housing set -aside funds, must be developed in support of affordable housing within a five -year
timeframe. Because the initial development project that the ARRA was negotiating for the
rehabilitation of the BOQ never came to fruition, and the ARRA has now moved forward with a
selected master developer, the required affordable housing has yet to be provided. However, CRL
Section 3334.16 allows the legislative body to extend agreements, such as the Acquisition
Agreement, for an additional period not to exceed five (5) years, in order to extend the timeframe for
the entities to initiate activities that will result in the development of affordable housing units.
Consistent with CRL, the CIC and ARRA boards have considered an amendment to the Acquisition
Agreement that extends the term through October 5, 2009. The resolution extends the term that the
CIC may retain its real property interest in the BOQ through October 5, 2009, and is provided for
City Council consideration. The extended term allows staff and the master developer to explore
strategies to renovate the BOQ to include affordable housing. If the housing units are not developed
during the additional five -year period, the CIC property interest will cease and the ARRA will be
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Reso 4 -H CC
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council
May 9, 2005
Page 2
required to reimburse the $310,000, plus interest, to the Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project set -aside fund.
Fiscal Impact
Approving a resolution extending the term to provide affordable housing at the BOQ allows the
CIC's covenant to remain in place for an additional five years. Therefore, the ARRA will not need
to reimburse the CIC $310,000, plus interest, at this time.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution extending period for providing low- and
moderate - income housing pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.16 (30 units within
Bachelor Officers' Quarters /Alameda Point).
LL/NB:dc
Re s e ' lly submi ted,
s 1e it e
Development Services Director
De . bie otter
Base Reuse & Redevelopment Manager
G: \Comdev \Base Reuse& Redevp\Elizabeth Cook\Alameda Point \BOQ \City Council Meeting 051705 \Staff Report BOQ City Council Meeting
051705.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
EXTENDING PERIOD FOR PROVIDING LOW AND MODERATE INCOME
HOUSING PURSUANT TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION
33334.16 FOR 30 UNITS WITHIN THE BACHELOR OFFICERS QUARTERS
AT ALAMEDA POINT
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33334.2, the
Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda ( "Commission ") has set aside a
portion of its tax increment funds for the purposes of increasing and improving the community's
supply of low and moderate income housing and such funds are held in a separate low and
moderate income housing fund pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 33334.3
( "Housing Fund "); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to an Acquisition Agreement ( "Acquisition Agreement ") entered
into between the Commission and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ( "ARRA "),
the Commission used monies from the Housing Fund to purchase an affordable housing covenant
( "Covenant ") with respect to thirty (30) units ( "Restricted Units ") on certain real property
( "Property") located within the Alameda Point Improvement Project ( "APIP ") to be acquired by
ARRA from the United States Department of the Navy; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that real property acquired with Housing Fund monies is
used for providing housing affordable to low and moderate income persons, California Health
and Safety Code Section 33334.16 requires that activities consistent with the provision of
affordable low and moderate income housing must be initiated within five years from the date the
Commission acquires the property interest, unless extended for an additional period not to exceed
five years by resolution of the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council "); and
WHEREAS, due to delays in the ability of ARRA to acquire the Property from the United
States Department of the Navy, ARRA has not yet been able to obtain fee title to the Property
and, therefore, has been unable to encumber the Restricted Units with the Covenant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to extend the period for providing the Restricted
Units on the Property in order to fulfill its goal of providing more affordable low and moderate
income housing within the City of Alameda;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby resolves as
follows:
Section 1. City Council hereby affirms its intention that the Restricted Units be
provided on the Property.
Section 2. City Council hereby extends the period the Commission may retain its real
property interest in the Property for an additional five (5) years for the purpose of providing the
Restricted Units on the Property.
Resolution #4 -H CC
5 -17 -05
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the City Council of the City of Alameda at a
meeting assembled on the day of , 2005, 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 Council this day of , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
2
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date:
To:
May 4, 2005
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re:
Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business
Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2005 -06 and Set a Public Hearing
for June 7, 2004
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 1989, City Council established a Parking and Business Improvement Area (BIA) for the
Park and Webster Street business districts. The City contracts with the Park Street and West
Alameda Business Associations (PSBA and WABA) to administer BIA funds collected from
businesses in their respective areas.
DISCUSSION
The Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 requires Council to appoint an advisory
board to make an annual report and recommendations to Council on the proposed expenditure of
BIA revenues. The appointment of the advisory board is accomplished through annual adoption of a
Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment in which PSBA and WABA are appointed as
2005 -06 advisory bodies for their respective geographic zones of the BIA.
PSBA and WABA have prepared this year's reports pursuant to their existing BIA agreements with
the City. The reports (included as Attachments A and B and also on file with the City Clerk) itemize
activities, revenue and estimated costs for FY 2005 -06. Attachment C provides information that will
enable business owners to determine the amount they will be assessed.
The Council may approve the reports, or modify them and approve them as modified. After report
approval, the Council must adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment for FY
2005 -06.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FISCAL IMPACT
There is an impact on the General Fund in the form of Finance Department staff costs to process BIA
billing and expenditure. BIA billing is done concurrently with Business License billing. Revenues
from the BIA directly benefit business owners in specified geographic and benefit zones through the
promotion of business and similar eligible activities. The impact on the General Fund will be
handled through Finance Department staffing proposed for funding in the FY 2005 -06 budget.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Reso 4 -1 CC
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE
A.M.C. Sec. 6 -7 et seq.
RECOMMENDATION
May 4, 2005
Page 2
The City Manager recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a Resolution of Intention to levy an annual assessment on the Alameda Business
Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2005 -06; and
2. Set a public hearing for June 7, 2005.
WCN /LAL/DES /SGR:ry
Attachments
Re . ec ly submitted, � /,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Busines
ment Division
ussell
Managem -nt Analyst
cc: Economic Development Commission
Park Street Business Association
West Alameda Business Association
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
G:\BUSASSOC\BIA\2005 -06\First staff report - intent.doc
Parking and Business Improvement Area/Assessment/2005 -06
Business Association
April 13, 2005
Sue Russell
Management Analyst
Development Services Department
950 West Mall Square
Alameda, CA 94501
Dear Ms. Russell:
ATTACHMENT A
As President of the Park Street Business Association, I am pleased to submit the attached BIA Report
and accompanying 2005/2006 budget for our Association.
We do not anticipate any changes in the BIA for 2005/2006. We have provided a description of the
activities PSBA is proposing for the upcoming year and the associated line item budget.
This proposed budget was approved by the PSBA Board of Directors in a phone poll conducted this
week and will be confirmed at the May 25, 2005 board meeting. Based on revenue received to date, we
anticipate 05/06 BIA revenue of $81,000, and a carryover of $5,300 resulting from more than
anticipated 04/05 revenues and cost containment by PSBA. This brings our 05/06 BIA budget to
$86,300.
We would be glad to answer any questions you have regarding the attached material.
Sincerely,
Lars Hansson
President
Park Street Business Association
2447 Santa Clara Avenue, Suite 302
Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 523 -1392
A California Main Street Program FAX (510) 523 -2372
PARK STREET BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
2447 Santa Clara Ave., #302, Alameda, CA 94501
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
FISCAL YEAR 2005/2006
INTRODUCTION:
The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) is recommending a BIA budget of $86,300 for the Park
Street Business District for fiscal year 2005/2006. This recommendation is based on the estimate of the
income derived from the BIA assessment in fiscal 04/05 as well as a carryover from the 04/05 budget,
which resulted from more than expected revenue and cost containment by PSBA. The formulas,
budgets, and proposed activities are the result of monthly Board of Director and committee meetings
between December, 2004, and May, 2005.
BUDGET:
The BIA is one of four sources of funding for the activities proposed in this report. The other three
sources are funds raised by the Park Street Business Association, reimbursement from the Landscape
and Lighting Budget, and a proposed grant we will be seeking from the Development Services
Department. PSBA will continue its current activities, as well as implement new ones, that are in line
with the National Trust's Main Street Four -Point plan for revitalizing Main Street Cities.
BOUNDARIES:
We are not proposing any changes this year.
ACTIVITIES:
Attached is a summary of the proposed activities for the fiscal year 2005/2006. These activities are
designed to improve the pedestrian friendly look of the Park Street District, improve the vitality of the
District in order to increase sales and sales tax revenues, promote members' businesses, attract new
businesses to the District and increase the overall business atmosphere in the Park Street District.
Several projects are continuations from the 2004 /2005 fiscal year.
Park Street Business Association
2005/06 Design Committee
Work Plan Outline
1. Streets cape
a. Ensure MTC timeline is met
b. Monitor construction progress
c. Begin Phase II planning and funding
2. Design Guidelines
a. Determine acceptable and not acceptable design criteria
b. write guidelines
c. Submit to PSBA Board for Approval
d. Work with City Staff to have new ordinances presented to City Council
3. Sign Ordinance
a. Begin Enforcement
4. News Rack Ordinance
a. Review New Draft
b. Make additional suggestions for final draft ordinance
c. Review Final Draft
d. Take Final Draft to PSBA Board for Approval
e. Submit final changes to Planning Dept. /City Attorney
f. Review completed ordinance
g. Submit completed ordinance to Council
h. Council Approval
i. Begin Enforcement
j. Review Santa Clara Ave. Newsstand
Park Street Business Association
2005/06 Econ -Revi Committee
Work Plan Outline
1. Identify Locations For New Businesses
a. Work With City of Alameda
b. Work With Commercial Brokers
c. Physical Survey of the District
d. Provide district vacancy list on a monthly basis
2. Ordinances
a. News racks — assist with council passage
b. Vacant Buildings — begin discussions with city staff to beef up ordinance
c. Work with city and ACI for better working garbage contract
3. Maintenance
a. Continue current level of service — 7 days a week
4. Recruitment/Retention
a. Develop and maintain vacancy list for District
b. Contact targeted companies to determine their interest in coming to Park Street
and Alameda
c. Maintain contact with existing businesses to determine additional needs and
attempt to meet them.
Park Street Business Association
2005/06 Membership Committee
Work Plan Outline
1. Conduct Meetings
a. Mixers
b. Special Meeting (October)
c. Programs at half the meetings
d. Holiday Party
2. Awards
a. Continue current awards program
3. Welcome /New Members
a. Update New Members Packet
b. Recruit ambassadors to greet new members
c. Greet new members with packet as they move into the district
4. Newsletter
a. Continue mailing newsletter every month
b. Update mailing list
Park Street Business Association
2005/06 Promotions Committee
Work Plan Outline
1. Continue Special Events
a. Spring Festival (mother's day weekend)
c. Art & Wine Faire (the last weekend in July)
d. Classic Car Show (2 °a weekend in October)
2. Promotions
a. Traditional shopping guide to continue for general distribution
b. Web site (newly improved)
c. Work with ACLO on cross marketing idea
3. Print Advertising
a. Continue Best of Alameda PSBA pages (defines the district and our members)
b. Continue SF Chronicle campaign
c. Continue Holiday campaign
d. Continue Alameda /Oakland Magazine campaign
4. Cable Advertising
a. Continue Spring Festival ads
b. Continue Art & Wine Faire ads
c. Continue Classic Car Show ads
d. Continue Holiday campaign ads
e. Begin Summer time campaign ads
5. Holiday Promotions
a. cable ads two weeks prior to Christmas
b. Free parking on all weekends after Thanksgiving
c. Continue print ads in Chronicle, Sun, and Journal
METHOD AND BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT
Budget: See Exhibit A
CONCLUSION
PSBA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Community Development, Public
Works and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. The increased
participation from the business community and the continued quality of projects has shown the BIA is a
valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize the Park Street Historic Business District.
Exhibit A
Park Street Business Association
2005/2006 BIA Budget Submission
INCOME:
BIA Projection $81,000
Accumulated Carryover $5,300
Total Income: $86,300
EXPENSES:
Program Services - Maintenance
Benefits $7,000
Worker's Comp Insurance $15,600
Payroll Taxes $4,400
Sub -Total $27,000
Personnel Services
Executive Director $2,000
Administrative Assistant $7,700
Payroll Taxes $8,200
Workers Comp Insurance $1,800
Sub Total $19,700
General & Administration
Liability/D &O Insurance $4,000
Printing $400
Newsletter $5,000
Postage $2,200
Equipment $2,000
Meetings /Trainings $2,000
Supplies $1,700
Rent $12,100
Utilities $1,600
Audit /Accounting $8,600
Sub -Total $39,600
Total Expenses $86,300
ATTACHMENT B
WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
PO Box 215, Alameda, CA 94501
(510) 523 -5955 west alamedaavahoo.com
www.WestAlamedaBusiness.com
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR THE
WEST ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
FISCAL YEAR JULY 1, 2005 - JUNE 30, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The West Alameda Business Association (WABA) is recommending the following assessment for
the Webster Street Business District for fiscal year (FY) 2005 -2006. The formulas, budgets and
proposed activities are the result of various Board and Committee meetings. The draft Business
Improvement Area (BIA) Budget will be presented for adoption at the Board of Directors meeting
May 18, 2005.
PROPOSED CHANGES
WABA is not recommending any changes to the Business Improvement Area.
ACTIVITIES
The following is a summary of proposed activities for the fiscal year 2005 -2006. These activities
have been discussed at various Board and committee meetings. WABA's mission is to use these
activities to increase the vitality of Webster Street and West Alameda and preserve Webster Street's
historic character. We seek to generate more foot traffic, increase sales and sales tax, promote
members' businesses and increase the public goodwill and atmosphere in West Alameda.
The BIA is the source of funding for these activities. WABA will continue its current activities and
implement others that follow the Main Street Four -Point Approach established by the National
Trust for Historic Preservation.
It is estimated that there will be no carry forward from the 2004 -2005 budget.
The estimated BIA revenue for 2005 -2006 is $32,000
The following are activities proposed for 2005 -2006. Several projects are continuations from
previous fiscal years.
1
ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING
• Facilitate development of high- potential properties
• Work with the City to attract appropriate businesses
• Monitor the impact of new and re -use housing projects
• Determine the potential for eco- tourism as a West Alameda business opportunity
• Investigate sources of entertainment as a business opportunity for West Alameda
• Work with the City and others to finalize and implement the Strategic Economic Development
Plan, including parking plan, catalyst project and business attraction strategies
• Continue business retention activities
DESIGN
• Finish the Webster Renaissance Project
• Implement Design Guidelines
• Develop beautification program
• Continue helping members with the Storefront Assistance Program
• Build broad -based community support for ongoing projects
• Work with City to implement recent changes to sign ordinance
• Implement newsrack district
• Fulfill public art requirements
SPECIAL EVENTS
• Participate in July 4t'' events
• Produce advertising for the Association and businesses
• Produce year -round Farmers' Market
• Produce Thursday night Farmers' Market during summer months
• Produce Concerts at the Cove
• Produce Third Thursday Arts and Crafts Campus
• Produce Webster Street Wine and Dine Nights
• Produce annual Halloween event
• Produce 4th annual Peanut Butter Jam
• Produce holiday bazaar and visit from Santa
• Produce streetscape unveiling
PUBLIC RELATIONS
• Generate increased favorable publicity about West Alameda
• Maintain contacts with key media representatives
• Update and distribute marketing literature promoting West Alameda businesses
2
• Continue implementing strategic marketing plan, including branding strategy, website, weekly
columns and calendar of events, cooperative advertising program and business attraction
strategy
ORGANIZATION
• Manage the administrative activities of the organization
• Expand community and business participation with WABA
• Develop and implement a fundraising plan, including Community Benefit District
• Organize and host business and community events for members
• Conduct annual self - evaluation of Board members and staff
• Produce and distribute WABA newsletter
• Recruit members from outside the BIA and among residents
• Distribute information door -to -door
• Involve important neighbors e. g. College of Alameda, Marina Village, Alameda Point in
WABA's activities
• Implement enhanced volunteer program, including recruitment, volunteer appreciation activities
and training
• Continue implementing enhanced maintenance program, including clean-up events, keeping up
appearances awards and collaboration with City maintenance staff to resolve issues such as
illegal dumping , littering and public health hazards
METHOD & BASIS OF LEVYING ASSESSMENT
Budget, see Exhibit A
Assessment, see Attachment C
CONCLUSION
WABA would like to thank the Alameda City Council, City Attorney, Development Services,
Public Works, Planning and Finance Departments for their assistance in implementing the BIA. The
BIA is a valuable tool in our continuing efforts to revitalize West Alameda's historic business
district.
3
West Alameda Business Association
BIA BUDGET 05 -06
INCOME
BIA Projection $ 32,000
Accumulated Carryover $
Total Income $ 32,000
EXPENSES
PERSONNEL SERVICES
PR Tax/Benefits $ 6,000
SUBTOTAL $ 6,000
MEMBERSHIP SERVICES
Supplies $ 1,000
Printing $ 3,000
Postage $ 1,000
Newsletter /website $ 2,000
Committees $ 1,000
Equipment $ 500
SUBTOTAL $ 8,500
INDIRECT /OVERHEAD
Accounting /Audit $ 6,000
Utilities $ 5,000
Insurance $ 6,000
Contingency $ 500
SUBTOTAL $ 17,500
GRAND TOTAL $ 32,000
ATTACHMENT C
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - NON - RETAIL
FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06
Professionals and independent contractors who primarily go out into the public to sell to clients
and/or do not operate retail stores.
Accountant
Advertising
Ambulance AREA A = $ 116.00
Answering service
Architect AREA B = $ 76.00
Attorney
Building maintenance
Business services
Construction
Consultants
Contractors
Counselor
Credit Unions with restricted membership
Decorator PRO -RATED FEES
Electrician
Employment A B
Engineer
Gardener $116.00 $ 76.00
Graphic arts
Handyman JULY 116.00 76.00
Health/Medical professions
Importers AUG 106.00 70.00
Insurance
Landscape SEPT 97.00 63.00
Mail order
Manufacturer OCT 87.00 57.00
Manufacturer's /sales reps
Mortuary NOV 77.00 51.00
Newspaper publishing
Nursing facility DEC 68.00 44.00
Painters
Pest control JAN 58.00 38.00
Plumber
Property management FEB 48.00 32.00
Real estate
School/Instruction MAR 39.00 25.00
Security
Stockbrokers APR 29.00 19.00
Tax consultants
Travel MAY 19.00 13.00
Veterinary
Wholesalers JUNE 10.00 6.00
Misc. professional/office
1
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL SERVICE
FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06
Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a service.
Alarm and fire extinguisher service
Appliance service
Athletic/Health Club
Auto glass
Auto upholstery
Auto wash/parking
Auto repair
Barber
Beauty
Cleaners
Electronics service
Furniture repair
Hotel /motel
Keys /Locksmith
Laundromat/laundry
Marine service
Pet services
Photography studio
Printing
Shoe service
Storage
Tailor
Tattoo
Upholstery
2
JULY
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
AREA A = .40/1,000 GR
MINIMUM = $ 116.00
MAXIMUM = $1,536.00
AREA B = .20/1,000 GR
MINIMUM = $ 76.00
MAXIMUM = $754.00
PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES
A B
$11 6.00 $76.00
116.00 76.00
106.00 70.00
97.00 63.00
87.00 57.00
77.00 51.00
68.00 44.00
58.00 38.00
48.00 32.00
39.00 25.00
29.00 19.00
19.00 13.00
10.00 6.00
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA - RETAIL GOODS
FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06
Businesses that operate a store where people go to purchase a product.
Alcoholic
Amusement
Antiques
Appliances sales
Art
Auto dealer
Auto stereo
Auto supply
Bakery
Bar
Bicycles
Books
Clothing
Coin
Computer sales
Drug /variety
Electronics sales
Fishing
Floor coverings
Florist
Food
Furnishings
Furniture
Gasoline stations
Gift
Hardware
Hobby
Jewelry
Magazines /newspaper sales
Marine sales
Market
Medical supplies
Music
Nursery
Office supplies /equipment
Optical supplies
Pet supply
Product rentals
Restaurant
Shoe sales
Sporting goods
Thrift/used merchandise
Theater /club
Video
Other retail goods
3
AREA A = .40/1,000 GR
MINIMUM = $ 231.00
MAXIMUM = $1,536.00
AREA B = .20/1,000 GR
MINIMUM = $ 116.00
MAXIMUM = $ 771.00
PRO -RATED MINIMUM FEES
A B
$231.00 $116.00
JULY 231.00
AUG 212.00
SEPT 193.00
OCT 173.00
NOV 154.00
DEC 135.00
JAN 116.00
FEB 96.00
MAR 77.00
APR 58.00
MAY 39.00
JUNE 19.00
116.00
106.00
97.00
87.00
77.00
68.00
58.00
48.00
39.00
29.00
19.00
10.00
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS/UTILITIES
FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06
Banks
Savings and Loans
Credit Unions operating to the general public
Utilities
AREA A & B = $ 771.00
E
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO LEVY AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT ON THE
ALAMEDA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT AREA OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA FOR FY
2005 -06 AND SET A PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 7, 2005.
WHEREAS, Section 6 -7 of Article II of Chapter VI of the Alameda Municipal Code
establishes the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda (hereinafter "Area ");
and
' WHEREAS, the Area comprises all of the Park Street Business Area, included by
.2 reference on the map and list of inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit A and C,
respectively; and all of the Webster Street Business Area included by reference on the map and list of
inclusive addresses included in this Resolution as Exhibit B and C, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the improvements and activities authorized by the Ordinance include the
general promotion of business activities in the Area, the promotion of the public events which are to
take place on or in public places in the Area, the decoration of any public place in the Area, the
furnishing of music in any public place in the Area, and the acquisition, construction or maintenance
of parking facilities for the benefit of the Area; and
WHEREAS, agreements between the City of Alameda (hereinafter "City") and the
Park Street Business Association (hereinafter "PSBA ") and the West Alameda Business Association
(hereinafter "WABA ") designated PSBA and WABA to administer Business Improvement Area
(hereinafter `BIA ") funds for their respective geographic zones of the BIA; and
WHEREAS, PSBA and WABA have filed reports with the City Clerk describing the
surplus or deficit revenues to be carried over from FY 2004 -05 and describing the improvements and
activities, estimated costs and methods and basis for levying the assessment for FY 2005 -06.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that
PSBA and WABA are hereby designated as the BIA Advisory Body for 2005 -06; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby sets a public hearing to
consider the annual assessment for the Area and to consider any modification of benefit areas or
change in boundary for June 7, 2005, at which time written or oral protests may be made; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise said public
hearing by causing this Resolution of Intention to be published once in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City not less than seven days before the public hearing.
Resolution #4 -I CC
5 -17 -05
•
■,
EXHIBIT A:
Park Street
geographic zone
R-1
ft -
0111
1 1 1
:%4Ltqlt, _
-----Q.Lt4 •
'1
•
lo!diHIP;
Ii L
—11 ID"
• /
R-4
1200
_
Afitir
mit _ten,'
He um
--:- ji_e_efillt
11111 iiii
oudies...o
Egfi
gftionotlift.
ranumntimm IINII I IngIRI
I-5-FID
•PARK STREET
A: Benefit
B: Benefit
COMMERCIAL AREA
Ax_e
Area-- if
C.�
Ns
EXHIBIT B:
Webster Street
geographic zone
c,.
of •
4
•
14-2• G
•
• rri-,
:.J111-11 IRS4
F1 nrrnr E�
•
•
O :
'WEBSTER STREET COIIMERCIALAREA:
k eh.J
A:. Benefit Area. A
B : • Benefit Area B
4
vat
•
pr
EXHIBIT C
LIST OF ADDRESSES WITHIN BIA BOUNDARIES
Combined List of Benefit Area "A" and "B" Zones: Geographic Area:
Alameda Ave. 2300 -2399 odd/even Park St.
Broadway 1400 -1590 odd only Park St.
Buena Vista Ave. 616 -750 odd/even Webster St.
Central Ave. 630 -760 odd/even Webster St.
2300 -2499 odd/even Park St.
2501, 2521 Park St.
Eagle Ave. 633 -707 odd/even Webster St.
Encinal Ave. 2300 -2499 odd/even Park St.
Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St.
Haight St.
629 -728 odd/even Webster St.
Lincoln Ave. 627 -726 odd/even Webster St.
2267 -2499 odd/even Park St.
Oak St. 1300 -1599 even only Park St.
Pacific Ave. 626 -730 odd/even Webster St.
Park Ave. 1300 -1399 odd only Park St.
1400 -1499 odd/even Park St.
Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1999 Park St.
odd/even
San Antonio Ave. 2312 -2399 odd/even Park St.
Santa Clara Ave. 700 -720 odd/even Webster St.
2300 -2599 odd/even Park St.
Taylor Ave. 634 -725 odd/even Webster St.
Times Wy. 2300 -2399 odd/even Park St.
Webb Ave. 2400 -2499 odd/even Park St.
Page 1 of 2
G:\ BUSASSOC \BIA\2004- 05 \LISTA &B.DOC
F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2005 -05
Webster St.
1345 -1999 odd/even Webster St.
Memo: Benefit Area "B" Zone Only
Broadway 1400 -1509 odd only Park St.
Everett St. 1400 -1519 odd/even Park St.
Park St. 1125, 1198, 1200 -1251 Park St.
odd/even, 1600 -1999
Santa Clara Ave. 2500 -2599 odd/even Park St.
Lincoln Ave. 2267 -2499 odd/even Park St.
Central Ave. 2431, 2433, 2440, 2501, 2521 Park St.
Page 2 of 2
G:\BUSASSOC\BIA\2004- 05\LISTA &B.DOC
F: Parking and Business Improvement Area /Assessment/2005 -05
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 , 2005, 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 , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 11, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
RE: Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code to
Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park Commission from
Five to Seven Members
Discussion /Analysis
This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Johnson.
Alameda's City Council created a five member Recreation and Park Commission on
August 15, 1967. The Commission was established to advise, coordinate, and give
guidance to the acquisition, development, maintenance, and operation of parks,
playgrounds, and other recreational facilities in the City of Alameda.
The Recreation and Park Commission is composed of five members appointed to
overlapping terms of four years. The Commission also contains one ex- officio member
who is the City Manager or his /her designee and is not entitled to vote at any meetings or
proceedings.
The City has opportunities to expand parkland and recreational facilities, especially in the
City's redevelopment areas. In light of this increased development activity and the
challenges associated with meeting the community's growing demands for recreational
services with fewer resources, it would be helpful to increase the Commission from five to
seven members. The additional members can use their expertise to advise the Council on
a variety of recreation and park issues in the upcoming years.
In addition to increasing the number of Commission Members from five to seven,
introduction of this ordinance will also increase the number of votes required to take an
action from three votes to four.
Budget Consideration /Financial Impact
Any increase (nominal) in cost for the additional Recreation and Park Commissioners
will be absorbed in the current Recreation and Park Department budget. The funding
for these costs will come from the General Fund.
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
Re: Intro of Ordinance
4 -J CC
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and Page -2-
Councilmembers
Alameda Municipal Code Reference
AMC 2 -7
Recommendation
The Acting City Manager recommends that City Council introduce an ordinance amending
the Municipal Code to increase the composition of the Recreation and Park Commission
from five to seven members.
WCN:DL:CJ:bf
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
By: jj(•.
r
Dale Lillard, A t ng Director
Recreation and Park Department
"Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service"
E
1
0
L
0
y
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNCIPAL CODE TO
INCREASE THE COMPOSITION OF THE RECREATION AND
PARK COMMISSION FROM FIVE TO SEVEN MEMBERS BY
AMENDING SUBSECTIONS 2 -7.2 (MEMBERSHIP;
APPOINTMENT; REMOVAL), 2 -7.3 (QUALIFICATION;
VOTING) OF SECTION 2 -7 (CITY RECREATION AND PARK
COMMISSION)
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that:
0
Section 1. Subsection 2 -7.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
2 -7.2 Membership; Appointment; Removal.
a. The Commission shall consist of seven (7) regular members, and (1) ex
officio member who shall be the City Manager or his/her designee and who
shall not be entitled to vote at any meetings or other proceedings.
b. The seven (7) regular members shall, upon nomination of the Mayor, be
appointed by the City Council. The term of such members shall be for four
(4) years and thereafter until the successor of such member is appointed and
qualified, and all terms shall begin in October. A vacancy in the office of any
such member shall be filled for the unexpired term by appointment in the
mariner hereinabove set forth.
c. A regular member may be removed by the affirmative vote of four (4)
members of the City Council (Ord. No. 1552 N.S.; Ord. No. 1934 N.S.)
Section 2. Subsection 2 -7.3 of the Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended to
read as follows:
2 -7.3 Qualification; Voting.
All members of the Commission shall, at the time of their appointment and
continuously during their incumbency, be residents of the City. The vote of four (4)
regular members shall be necessary for an act of or by the Commission. (Ord. No. 1552;
Ord. No. 1934 N.S.)
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Introduction of Ordinance #4 -J CC
5 -17 -05
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 , 2005, 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 , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Date: May 11, 2005
Re: Resolution Recognizing the Selection of the City of Wuxi, China as
Alameda's Friendship City and Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Formulation and
Implementation of Sister City Relations
In 2004, members of the Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and local
volunteers formed the Alameda Sister City Workgroup. The Workgroup was established to
examine and evaluate the status of Alameda's existing Sister City relationships with
Lindigo, Sweden and Arita - Machi, Japan; and to determine the interest in and commitment
to developing a new Sister City relationship with Wuxi, China. The SSHRB discussed the
proposed project with the City Council at their Joint Work Session in May 2004 and were
encouraged by Councilmembers to continue their efforts.
In separate trips in 2004, SSHRB President Jim Franz and SSHRB Vice President Stewart
Chen visited Wuxi, China and found the city and its residents to be hospitable and very
interested in pursuing the formation of a Sister City relationship. In meetings with Wuxi
officials, a "Friendship City" relationship was proposed as a first step in formalizing Sister
City ties through Sister City International, a non - profit organization that manages Sister City
affiliates around the world.
In December 2004 Mayor Johnson received a letter from the Deputy Director of the Wuxi
Municipal Foreign Affairs Office regarding a visiting delegation in Spring of 2005. Mayor
Johnson extended an official invitation to the delegation, which will arrive in Alameda on
May 16, 2005. Their arrival coincides with a community reception and dinner that the
Workgroup has been planning to introduce the Wuxi Sister City project to the community
and to honor financial contributors to the Workgroup. Other activities, including a business
briefing, a tour of the estuary and bay, and an education roundtable are also planned. The
visit will culminate in a presentation to the City Council and this proposed action to enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU, Attachment A) with Wuxi, China.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Reso 5 -A
5 -17 -05
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
Discussion and Analysis
May 11, 2005
Page 2
Wuxi, China is a coastal city of 1.2 million residents, located in Jiangsu province on the
southeast coast of China. It is approximately 150 miles from Shanghai, and shares with
that larger city a very robust and booming economy. It is a transportation hub and one of
the top ten tourist destinations in China. A map and fact sheet about Wuxi is Attachment B
to this report, and more information is available at www.chinapages.com /jangsu /wuxi.
Sister Cities International (SCI) is a non - profit citizen diplomacy network that promotes
peace through mutual respect, understanding and cooperation — one individual, one
community at a time. Originally a part of the National League of Cities, Sister Cities
International became a separate, nonprofit corporation in 1967 due to growth and
popularity of the Sister City movement. SCI's mission statement and goals are outlined in
Attachment C.
Alameda and Wuxi are both current members of Sister Cities International with other Sister
City ties. As previously stated, Lindingo, Sweden and Arita - Machi, Japan are existing
Alameda sister cities. The SSHRB has been looking for local residents who are interested
in working on revitalizing those ties, but has met with little success. Similarly, Chattanooga,
Tennessee is a sister city of Wuxi. Under SCI policies, cities must enter into cooperative
agreements with any existing sister cities before a new relationship can be officially
recognized by SCI. Therefore, Wuxi has proposed and we concur that a Friendship City
designation should be the first step towards official Sister City certification. This affiliation
will provide time for Alameda and Wuxi to develop cooperative agreements with their other
sister cities, while immediately furthering their mutual goals of conducting business, cultural
and social exchanges.
In addition to working towards establishing formal Sister City relations, the proposed MOU
calls on both cities to promote visits between their people and encourage exchanges in the
fields of economy and trade, science, technology and culture. The MOU establishes the
Mayor and City Council as Alameda's representatives, and allows for designees to carry
out some of the day -to -day work of a Sister City relationship. The SSHRB has been
handling the arrangements for the current visit and expects to continue in that role until a
non - profit organization is formed to manage local Sister City activities. Research regarding
formation of a non - profit has already started, with a target date of January 2006 for
spinning off the effort from the SSHRB.
Fiscal Impact
There is no impact on the General Fund. Funds to support the development of the Sister
City relationship between Alameda and Wuxi, China come from private donations of cash
and /or services. Approximately $5,000 in cash and substantial in -kind contributions have
been raised to date. As community interest in the Sister City project grows, it is anticipated
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
May 11, 2005
Page 3
that additional funds will be raised to form the proposed non - profit organization and to
finance various Sister City activities.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution recognizing the selection of the
City of Wuxi, China as Alameda's Friendship City and Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Formulation and Implementation of Sister
City Relations.
Respectful) ubmitt
Jim Franz, SSHRB President
JF /SC /CB:sb
Attachments
Stewart Chen, Sister City Workgroup Chair
cc: Development Services Director
Social Service Human Relations Board
G:SSHRB \WG \SisterCity \Wuxi \051705 Agenda Report
F:SSH RB \W G \SisterCity \Meetings &agendas
F:SSHRB \Council Relations\2005
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
ATTACHMENT A
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the Formation and
Implementation of Sister City Relations between
Alameda, California, the United States of America and
Wuxi, Jiangsu, the People's Republic of China
At the invitation of the City of Alameda, California, USA, the Wuxi
Friendship Delegation visited the City of Alameda, California in May 2005.
During its visit, the representatives from the Wuxi Municipal People's
Government and the Alameda City Council have, through friendly
consultation, reached consensus on the establishment of Sister City
relations, and hereby sign the following Memorandum of Understanding:
1. Based on the principle of equality and mutual benefit, common
development and enhancement of mutual understanding and
friendship, both parties will further promote mutual friendly visits
between their people, actively carry out in -depth and extensive
mutual friendship activities and work towards the goal of
establishing formal Sister City relations.
2. Both parties agree to encourage the government, non - governmental
organizations and enterprises, and the citizens of each city to
conduct friendly exchanges, especially various exchanges and
cooperation in the fields of economy and trade, science and
technology and culture.
3. It is agreed by both cities that the Mayor and City Council of
Alameda and its designees, including the Social Service Human
Relations Board and a future non - profit entity, and the Foreign
Affairs Office of Wuxi, representing Wuxi Municipal Government,
are responsible for formulating and implementing the friendly
exchange and cooperation programs between the two cities.
4. As for other matters not mentioned in this MOU, the two
governments will decide upon them through friendly consultation in
the spirit of mutual understanding.
This MOU is written in both English and Chinese in two duplicates. Both
copies are equally authentic and are valid upon the signing by
fs-r representatives of each party.
0
CIF
red City of Alameda City of Wuxi
et
United States of America People's Republic of China
aI-1 ` , -, Date: Date:
4
G: SSHRB/WG /Sister City/Wuxi Mou.doc
ATTACHMENT B
A Quick Look at Wuxi, China
Geographic Location
Wuxi lies in the central Yangtze River Delta on the southeast coast
of China. It is 128km away from Shanghai to its east; it borders the
Yangtze River to the north while embracing the Taihu Lake to the
south. It is a coastal city of jiangsu Province with a total population
of 4.3 million including 1.06 million in its city proper. Wuxi covers
on area of 4,650km2 inclusive of 517.7 km2 as the city centre's. Warm
and humid, Wuxi has a congenial climate with four distinct seasons.
The annual temperature averages 15.5 C° and the average rainfall up to 1,000 millimetres.
Wuxi boasts its local scenic highlights integrating the Yangtze River, the Grand Canal,
the Taihu Lake, the Spring and a couple of karst caves. Here combined natural landscape
and cultural sights form a delightful attraction and thus cultivate intelligent people. Wuxi
is china's renowned tourist city luring over ten million domestic and international
travellers annually.
The city plan, as is typical of many older Chinese cities, is of a central city with a roughly
circular plan, crisscrossed with older canals, the main canal still seeing heavy barge
traffic. Wuxi itself is on an alluvial plain of deep sedimentary deposits cut between
limestone foothills, making it one of the sources for "scholar's rocks ", the intricately
weathered stones which were used as devices for contemplation. Wuxi ranges from a
very hot summer to a chilly winter, having an average annual temperature of 18 °C,
though it seldom sees snow. Because of its proximity to the East China Sea, it is has a
monsoon season and receives 100 cm of rain annually.
x 1.3MTJA.Ii:imr...,z i... 773r. Y, Yfi)% hV74.1¢I AMIM: r.T 4, i6Mw+- r% S.A,,,,,, M, A:! irzMAIMMfa45V0M[aA!K11&wxIrtY:IMAPftrO iS.4.M%;:
Transportation
Wuxi is equipped with a complete transportation network
and has turned out to be the transportation center of the area.
irport- -Wuxi has a local airport
and the city is l l0km from
Shanghai International Airport.
�MUunanw,�, m:r�.r�rr.
Highways- -The Shanghai Nanjing Expressway and National
ighway 312 traverse the city, joining Wuxi with Shanghai and
anj ing.
Railways - -The Shanghai Nanjing Railway passes the inner city. Meanwhile, the Beijing
Shanghai Expressrail which is being schemed will provide the city with improved
accessibility.
Waterways- -Being the very center of the water carriage system
in southern Jiangsu, Wuxi is only 38km away from Huangtian
harbor and 43km from Zhangjiagang Harbor, which handle
shipment with more than 140 countries and regions in the
world.
Superior Infrastructure
hlospitals:58
Long distance program
controlled exchange
20,000 terminals Exchange
capacity: 722000 lines
Universities and colleges: 9
Vocational institutes: 48
International schools: 2
Research institutes: 48
Technicians and engineers:
over 170 ,000
Annual electric power
supply: 8.66KWH
Yearly gas supply: 0.5$6m'
Economic Status
Daily tap water supply: 940,000.,uT lj
Wuxi is one of the origins of China's modem industry and is regarded as "Little
Shanghai ". Its economic status can be illustrated through the following data:
One of the 14 top -grade cities of China
One of the 40 cities with the best investment climate in China
One of the 15 economic centres of China
One of the 10 leading tourist cities
Currently Wuxi is designated an investment grade city, and has two large industrial parks
devoted to new industry. While current manufacturing centers on textiles, there is a
project to move to electric motor manufacturing and MRP software development.
According to most recent figures (2002) from the local government, 24% of economic
activity is textile trade, and another 25% is industrial based manufacturing, including
motors, molds and casting, with another 8% being light industry.
The GDP per capita was ¥37959 (ca. US$4990) in 2003, ranked no. 11 among 659
Chinese cities.
textiles and garments .24%
Petrochemicals:17
GDP GROWTH CHART WORE 1991.1995(RMBbillionyurit)
80 it ,
ry:25%
•
electronics:8%
light industrlr:7 %o
Utilization of Foreign Capital
91
92 93 94
95
The ace investment climate and the best refund result in the influx of the foreign
investors into the city. By the end of June, 1996, a total of 4,601 enterprises with foreign
investment have been endorsed in the city of Wuxi. Thee overall amount of investment
hits USD 13.6 billion and contracted foreign capital rose to USD 7.5 billion. The total
sum of overseas capital duly absorbed has exceeded USD 3.74 billion. So far, 2,093 joint
ventures, contractual ventures and wholly - -owned enterprises have gone operational.
These include 337 projects with a total investment amount exceeding USD10 million
each. More than 50 MNCs have secured tenancy in Wuxi.
Foreign Trade and Foreign Economic Cooperation
Wuxi is one of the major export bases in China. These are over 2,000 industrial
enterprises manufacturing export products, which cover 17 categories with a range of
several thousand product items delivered to more than 130 countries and regions all over
the world. In recent years, export businesses are continuously booming. The year 1995
witnessed the export volume up to RMB 47 billion. On the other hand, by the end of
June, 1996, Wuxi has established 127 overseas subsidiaries in 26 countries and regions.
In 1995, the turnover of international subcontracted projects reached USD 53.56 million
and a total of 1039 expatriates were employed overseas.
Tourist Resources
Turtle Head Islet
Lingshan Big
Statue
By nature endowed, Liyuan Dev. Zone has
green hills, blue water, fresh air, fascina -ting
scenery. As one of the eight biggest tourism
cities in China. Wuxi has most of its scenic
spots around the Dev. Zone. Plum Garden
and Xihui Park are to the north of the Dev.
Zone. To the west there are three isles and
fairy island in Lake Tai. Going south you and
fairy island in Lake Tai. Going south you can
reach Liyuan Park. Three kingdoms City,
Tang Town, European City. The Wuxi
10,000 -seat Sports Center and the city of
overseas Chinese are to the east. A
distinguished feature of Liyuan dev. Zone is
the tinguished feature of Liyuan Dev. Zone is
the aquatic products in Lake Tai. Well -kept
fish ponds of more than 1000 mu are home to
various fishes. Treasures of arquatic products
- -- "three whites" in Lake Tai (Whitefish,
whiteshrimp and jade fish) are famous in the
world 2000 tons of various acquatic products
are provided annually.
Li Garden
Tang City
Luding Hill Park
ATTACHMENT C
Sister Cities International Mission Statement & Goals
Mission Statement
Promote peace through mutual respect, understanding, & cooperation - one individual, one
community at a time.
Goals
Sister Cities International is a nonprofit citizen diplomacy network creating and tI
strengthening partnerships between U.S. and international communities in an INNOVATION.
effort to increase global cooperation at the municipal level, to promote cultural
understanding and to stimulate economic development. Sister Cities International EXCELLENCF
leads the movement for local community development and volunteer action by
motivating and empowering private citizens, municipal officials and business leaders to conduct
long -term programs of mutual benefit.
• Develop municipal partnerships between U.S. cities, counties, and states and similar
jurisdictions in other nations.
• Provide opportunities for city officials and citizens to experience and explore other cultures
through Tong -term community partnerships.
• Create an atmosphere in which economic and community development can be implemented
and strengthened.
• Stimulate environments through which communities will creatively learn, work, and solve
problems together through reciprocal cultural, educational, municipal, business, professional
and technical exchanges and projects.
• Collaborate with organizations in the United States and other countries which share similar
goals.
http: / /www. sister- cities.org/ share /printerFriendly/ hub ?ur1= /www /sci /aboutsci /mission 5/11/2005
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
RECOGNIZING THE SELECTION OF THE CITY OF WUXI, CHINA
AS ALAMEDA'S FRIENDSHIP CITY AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR TO SIGN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING THE FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF
SISTER CITY RELATIONS
WHEREAS, the Alameda Social Service Human Relations Board initiated a
project to revitalize and expand the Alameda Sister City Program to encourage friendship
and understanding between the peoples of the United States and other nations through the
medium of direct personal contact; and
WHEREAS, the people of the City of Alameda and its officials have
enthusiastically endorsed the concept of forming friendship relations and affiliations with
a foreign city with common concerns and mutual interests; and
WHEREAS, representatives of the City of Alameda have visited Wuxi, China and
have exchanged correspondence with officials in Wuxi, China to learn more about the
City of Wuxi and to determine support for said friendly relations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Wuxi, China has sent a delegation of government
officials to the City of Alameda for the purpose of establishing said relations; and
WHEREAS, officials in both cities have indicated a sincere willingness to engage
in programs which will be beneficial to their peoples, particularly in the development of
business, cultural and social ties and in the development of an exchange program between
the two cities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda does recognize and endorse
said program with the hope that it will lead to a lasting friendship between the peoples of
Alameda and Wuxi, China;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ALAMEDA on behalf of the people of Alameda that the City enter into a Friendship
City affiliation with the government and people of Wuxi, China for the purpose of
creating goodwill and understanding between the peoples of our cities and our two great
nations and working towards the establishment of Sister City ties; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA that the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign a Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the formulation and implementation of Sister City relations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a fully executed and suitably inscribed copy
of this Resolution be presented to the Mayor of Wuxi, China and that another copy be
appropriately displayed in the Alameda City Hall.
* * * **
Resolution #5 -A
5 -17 -05
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
adopted and passed by the City Council of the City of Alameda at a
meeting assembled on the day of , 2005, 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 Council this day of , 2005.
Lara W. Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Memorandum
Date: May 11, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Adoption of Resolution Declaring Support for Measure A, Alameda Unified
School District Parcel Tax
Background
On September 19, 2001, the City Council adopted a resolution declaring support for
Measure A, an Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) parcel tax.
On November 6, 2001, Alameda voters approved Measure A. The proceeds of the
$109 per year per taxable parcel have been used to retain and recruit quality teachers
and staff, prevent further reductions in core educational programs, and prevent further
reductions in student services such as counseling and athletics. This parcel tax expires
on June 30, 2007.
On February 22, 2005, the AUSD Board of Education voted to place Measure A, a $189
per year parcel tax, on the June 7, 2005 ballot to provide local funding to AUSD. If
approved by two thirds of the voters, the special tax of $189 will be collected instead of
the current tax of $109 commencing on July 1, 2005. The new parcel tax will then
continue past the current tax's expiration and will expire on June 30, 2012.
Discussion
Of the 18 school districts in Alameda County, Alameda schools are near the bottom of
list in terms of what is received from the State for education funding. Continuing
reductions in this State funding have required AUSD to make severe cuts to maintain a
balanced budget. Examples of the reductions include laying off of school librarians,
special education teachers, and high school counselors.
Proceeds from Measure A will prevent the elimination of teaching positions; prevent the
elimination of special programs such as music, art, physical education; support the
continuation of student services such as librarians, and prevent class size increases.
Measure A provides an exemption for properties owned and occupied by persons 65
years of age or older. The measure also establishes an Independent Fiscal Oversight
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Reso 5 -B
5 -17 -05
May 11, 2005
Page 2
Committee in order to ensure that all funds are spent responsibly and according to the
proposal placed before the voters.
Fiscal Impact
None.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council, by motion, adopt a resolution declaring support
for Measure A, the Alameda Unified School District parcel tax measure.
WCN:cj
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT MEASURE A
AMEASURE A: To "improve educa-
tion in Alameda schools, retain
experienced teachers ` and attract ,,NO
new qualified teachers, retain teaching
specialists in reading, math and science, preserve educa-
tional programs in music and art and to maintain small
class sizes, . shall Alameda City. Unified -School District
replace its existing $109 parcel tax with a $189 yearly
tax for seven years, providing for an exemption for
senior citizens, no money for administrators, and with all
money to benefit local Alameda schools?
YES
COUNTY COUNSEL'S IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF
MEASURE A .
Measure A, an Alameda Unified School District ( "the Dis-
trict ") special parcel tax measure, seeks voter approval to
authorize the District to levy a special parcel. tax in the
amount. of $189 dollars per year on each .parcel of taxable
real property in the District for seven years, commending
on July 1, 2005, for the purposes set forth in the measure.
A school district, following notice and public hearings, has
the authority to levy special taxes upon approval by two-
thirds of the votes cast on the special•.tax proposal pursuant
to Section 4 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution
and sections 50075 -77, 50079, and 53722 et seq. of the
California Government Code.
The District currently collects a qualified special tax, of
$109 per year per taxable parcel; this tax will expire on
June 30, 2007. If two - thirds of the qualified electors vot-
ing on this measure vote for approval, the special -tax of
$189 will be collected 'instead of $109 commencing on
July 1, 2005, and the tax will continue beyond the current
tax's expiration and will expire on June 30, 2012.
If approved, these tax funds could only be used by the
District for the purposes set forth_ in the measure, which
include the prevention of the elimination of teaching posi-
tions, of programs in music, the arts and "physical educa-
tion, and of teaching specialists in reading, math and sci-
ence.
An exemption from the tax will be made to property. own-
ers 65 years of age or older upon annual application to the
District. The tax will be collected by the Alameda County
Treasurer -Tax collector at the same time and in the same
manner as ad valorem property taxes are collected.
If less than two- thirds of the qualified electors voting on
this measure vote for approval, the measure will fail and.
the District will not be authorized to levy the special tax as
proposed by this measure.
s/RICHARD. E. WINNIE.
County Counsel
ALM -1
ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE A
Of the 18 'school districts in Alameda County; Alameda
schools receive among the lowest amounts of state educa-
tion funding. Several school districts receive $1,000 more
per student per year-than Alameda schools receive.
Continuing and dramatic reductions' in state education f'
funding have forced the district to make severe cuts just to
maintain a- balanced budget. The district has had to
increase class sizes and to layoff school librarians, special
education teachers and high school counselors.. The out-
look for next year is even worse; the latest round of state
funding cuts will cost Alameda schools • approximately
$2..4 million.
Without Measure. A, teachers and reading specialists will
be laid off; critical educational: programs in music, art and
physical education will be eliminated and schools will be
closed.
The Alameda Board of Education has placed Measure A
on the June 7th ballot to provide local funding for
Alameda schools. Measure A is a temporary, $80 annual
increase in existing homeowner assessments, No Measure
A revenue will be spent on administration or administrator
salaries. Measure A funds will only be spent to prevent
teacher layoffs and to preserve the most essential educa-
tion programs.
The state cannot take this money away; every penny will
stay. in Alameda to benefit Alameda schools. Homeowners
aged 65 or older are eligible: for an exemption, from
Measure A.
Measure A will:'
• Prevent teacher layoffs and keep quality -teachers in our . .
community
• Keep teaching specialist positions in reading, math and
science
• Assure adequate training for - teachers supporting chil-
dren with special needs
• Support music, art and other classes
An independent Citizens' Oversight Committee will mon-
itor Measure A expenditures and ensure that all Measure
A funds. are spent on our, community's most critical edu-
cation needs.
Teachers, parents, business .leaders,. seniors, and .commu-
nit), leaders support Measure A.
Please vote" YES on.Measure A.
s /C. RICHARD BARTALINI'
Judge; Superior Court, Retired
s/DENNIS: G. PAGONES
Business Owner
s/WILLIAM D. SONNEMAN
Principal Encinal High School
s /GLENDA McDOWELL
Teacher, President Alameda Education. Association
s/RONALD MOONEY
Parent
NO ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE A WAS
SUBMITTED.
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE A
"To improve education in Alameda schools, retain experi-
enced teachers and attract new qualified teachers, retain
teaching specialists in reading, math and science, preserve
educational programs in music and art and to maintain
small class sizes, shall Alameda City Unified School
District replace its existing $109 parcel tax with a $189
yearly tax for seven years, providing for an exemption for
senior citizens, no .money for administrators, and with all
money to benefit local Alameda schools, by:
(a) preventin the elimination of teaching positions;
(b) preventing the elimination of many classes, and
programs in music, the arts and; physical educa-
tion;
(c) preventing the elimination of teaching, specialists
in the area of reading, math and science;
(d) supporting the ability of the District to attract and
retain the best and most experienced teachers;
(e) preventing the reduction of the number of teachers
who are trained to support children with special
needs;
(f) supporting the continuation of student support ser-
vices such as librarians;
(g) preventing class size increase for all students at
each of the District's schools;
(h) supporting the maintenance of existing education-
al programs at current levels.
An exemption shall be granted for any parcel owned
and occupied as a principal residence by one or more per-
sons 65 years of age, upon completion of an annual appli-
cation for exemption.
To ensure additional accountability,, an independent
volunteer community oversight committee shall be
appointed by the Board of Education to oversee all expen-
ditures funded by the measure to ensure that said funds are
spent wisely and used only for purposes approved by the
voters. This volunteer citizens' committee shall monitor
the expenditures of these funds by the District and shall
report on an annual basis to the community on how these
funds have been spent.
A parcel is defined as a unit of land in the District
which now receives a separate tax bill from the Alameda
County Assessor's Office. All property which would oth-
erwise be exempt from property taxes also will be exempt
from the special tax."
ALM-2
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
DECLARING SUPPORT FOR MEASURE A, ALAMEDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
PARCEL TAX MEASURE
E WHEREAS, children need the support of schools and educational programs in order to
O thrive; and
LL
,0 0 WHEREAS, the Alameda Unified School District ( "District ") has been forced to eliminate
en 0 and curtail essential educational services and risks losing experienced teachers due to inadequate
sea t..- funding from the State due to changes in state education funding; and
a- WHEREAS, the District currently collects a qualified special tax of $109 per year, per
taxable parcel which will expire on June 30, 2007; and
O.
WHEREAS, a District budget committee has concluded that the District must seek additional
sources of revenue in order to continue meeting students' basic educational needs by attracting and
retaining highly qualified teachers, maintaining small class sizes, providing well trained librarians,
computers and to prevent the further reduction of the District's maintenance budget; and
WHEREAS, Measure A, a tax in the amount of $189 per year per taxable parcel, has been
placed on the June 7, 2005 ballot by the AUSD Board of Education to provide local funding to
AUSD for a limited seven year period; and
WHEREAS, proceeds from the parcel tax will be used only for the purposes of retaining
and recruiting quality teachers and staff, preventing further reductions in core educational
programs, and preventing further reductions in student services such as counseling and athletics;
and
WHEREAS, the measure provides an exemption for persons 65 years or older; and
WHEREAS, the use of any local funds raised by such a qualified special tax shall be
reviewed annually by an Independent Fiscal Oversight Committee in order to ensure that all funds
are spent responsibly and according to the proposal placed before the voters; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda, in
keeping with the principle of improving the quality of life for children and youth in Alameda, does
hereby endorse Measure A, the Alameda Unified School District parcel tax measure.
Resolution #5 -B
5 -17 -05
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 , 2005, 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 , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: May 5, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Public Hearing to Establish Proposition 4 Limit (Appropriations Limit) for
Fiscal Year 2005 -06; and Adoption of Resolution Establishing Appropriations
Limit for Fiscal Year 2005 -06
BACKGROUND
Proposition 4, commonly known as the Gann Initiative, was approved by the California
electorate in November 1979. Fundamentally, the purpose of the constitutional provisions
and the implementing legislation is to restrict growth of tax - funded programs and services
by limiting the appropriations of the proceeds of taxes to the 1978 -79 base year limit,
adjusted annually for changes in the population and inflation. Proceeds of taxes in excess
of the limit, with limited exceptions, must be returned to the taxpayers within two years by
refund or reduction in tax rates unless extension of the limit is approved by majority popular
vote.
Proceeds of taxes include (1) all tax revenues, (2) proceeds from licenses and user fees to
the extent that such fees exceed costs of providing services, (3) interest earnings from
investment of tax revenues, and (4) discretionary state subventions. All other revenues,
i.e. federal funds, enterprise fund revenues, and user fees that do not exceed the cost of
providing services are excluded from the limit.
The voters approved Proposition 111 in June 1990. This proposition allows for new
adjustment formulas for the required appropriations limit that are more responsive to local
growth issues. The proposition also requires review by an independent auditor in
conjunction with the annual financial report of the limit calculations.
The significant changes to the original Article XIIIB (Proposition 4) and its implementing
legislation (Chapter 1205/80) as modified by Proposition 111 and SB 88 (Chapter 60/90)
are as follows:
A. Beginning with the 1990 -91 Appropriations Limit, the annual adjustment factors
changed. Instead of using the lesser of the California Per Capita Income or U.S. CPI
to measure inflation, each city may choose:
a. Growth in the California Per Capita Personal Income or
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing and
Reso 5 -C
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 5, 2005
Page 2
b. Growth in the non - residential assessed valuation due to new construction within
the city.
B. Additionally, instead of using only the population growth of the city, each city may
choose to use the population growth within its county.
These changes in population and inflation are both annual elections.
DISCUSSION
The revised annual adjustment factors have been applied to arrive at Alameda's 2005 -06
Limit. The following exhibits detailing the adjustment factors are attached:
1. Exhibit A: adjustment factors for calculation of the City's Annual Appropriations
Limit
2. Exhibit B: revenue sources and estimated proceeds from taxes for 2005 -06
3. Exhibit C: State Department of Finance January 1, 2005 Population Estimates
for cities within Alameda County.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT
The City's estimated proceeds of taxes constitute approximately 65.45% of the limit. The
City's population posted a growth of 0.17% over the prior year while the County posted a
growth of 0.70 %. Personal per capita income percentage change over last year was
5.26 %. These factors (County population change and personal per capita income change)
were used to compute the Appropriations Limit for 2005 -06.
RECOMMENDATION
The Acting City Manager recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to establish
the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2005 -06 in the amount of $71,129,092.
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
By elle -Ann Boyer
Chief Financial Officer
JB:dl
Attachments (3)
G:\FINANCE\COUNCIL\2005\051705\PROP4.05.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF ALAMEDA
ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATIONS
Fiscal
Year
Original
Appropriations
Limit
Adjusted
Appropriations
Limit
Population Population
Increase Increase
Within City Within County
Per Capita
Income
Increase
1985 -86
1986 -87
1987 -88
1988 -89
1989 -90
1990 -91
1991 -92
1992 -93
1993 -94
1994 -95
1995 -96
1996 -97
1997 -98
1998 -99
1999 -00
2000 -01
2001 -02
2002 -03
2003 -04
2004 -05
2005 -06
$25,964,962
27,125,274
28,380,866
29,843,020
31,960,066
33,658,624
36,804,086
$27,125,274
28,442,612
30,217,535
32,361,149
34,182,194
36,804,086
37,307,224
39,111,414
39,798,751
42,206,554
44,553,109
47,445,167
50,476,545
53,501,816
56,734,946
62,254,356
62,459,439
64,509,323
67,104,930
71,129,092
2.12%
1.12%
0.47%
1.81%
1.06%
3.39%
2.02%
2.06%
1.04%
0.14%
0.34%
1.74%
-1.32%
0.60%
0.12%
1.77%
1.25%
0.95%
0.48%
0.17%
2.26%
1.34%
1.51%
1.35%
1.36%
1.48%
1.58%
1.55%
0.97%
1.27%
0.85%
1.74%
2.15%
1.40%
1.08%
1.62%
1.62%
0.82%
0.72%
0.70%
2.30%
3.47%
4.66%
5.19%
4.21%
4.14%
-0.64%
2.72%
0.71%
4.72%
4.67%
4.67%
4.15%
4.53%
4.91%
7.82%
- 1.27%
2.31%
3.28%
5.26%
Fiscal
Year
Adjusted Estimated
Appropriations Proceeds
Limit of Taxes
Taxes as a
Percentage
of Limit
1986 -87
1987 -88
1988 -89
1989 -90
1990 -91
1991 -92
1992 -93
1993 -94
1994 -95
1995 -96
1996 -97
1997 -98
1998 -99
1999 -00
2000 -01
2001 -02
2002 -03
2003 -04
2004 -05
2005 -06
G: \FINANCE \Prop4 \PROP4applimit
$27,125,274
28,442,612
30,275,280
32,422,989
34,247,514
36,874,417
37,307,224
39,111,414
39,798,751
42,206,554
44,553,109
47,445,167
50,476,545
53,501,816
56,734,946
62,254,356
62,459,439
64,509,323
67,104,930
71,129,092
$19,150,006
21,171,824
22,237,185
23,980,762
26,248,017
28,129,049
29,585,533
29,674,315
29,692,284
31,586,117
32,343,115
32,390,148
34,936,993
37,799,889
40,451,148
42,282,136
44,457,196
42,485,083
40,953,416
46,552,735
70.60%
74.44%
73.45%
73.96%
76.64%
76.28%
79.30%
75.87%
74.61 %
74.84%
72.59%
68.27%
69.21%
70.65%
71.30%
67.92%
71.18%
65.86%
61.03%
65.45%
EXHIBIT B
PROP 4 CALCULATION - CITY OF ALAMEDA - FISCAL 2006.06
REVENUE SOURCES
PROCEEDS NON
FROM PROCEEDS
TAXES OF TAXES
PROPERTY TAXES
GENERAL
FRANCHISES
ALAMEDA POWER & TELECOM
CABLE
PG &E
GARBAGE
TAXI
PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX
SALES TAX
Triple Flip Subsidy
TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX
UTILITY USERS TAX
LICENSES
BICYCLE
BUSINESS
CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT TAX
$16,032,780
5,080,000
5,791,607
740,000
7,939,000
1,465,300
550,000
605,000
365,000
200,000
1,789,898
1,678
550,000
1,297,960
500
PERMITS
FIRE CODE 60,000
BUILDING 1,050,000
PLUMBING 165,000
ELECTRICAL 160,000
CONCRETE 0
ENCROACHMENT 4,000
TAXI PERMITS 1,200
PERMIT TRACKING 118,600
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 201,028
FINES & FORFEITURES
FINES 538,075
TRAFFIC SCHOOL FEES 70,000
GOLF SURCHARGE 351,691
MOTOR VEHICLE IN LIEU 5,109,573
ALLOCATION - ABANDONED VEHICLE SURCHARGE 109,164
PAYMENT IN LIEU OF TAXES 2,127,739
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM OTHER FUNDS
COUNTY ALS REIMBURSEMENT 0
POST 84,328
BOOKING FEES 200,000
STATE/LOCAL GRANTS 23,886
STATE HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE 44,200
DONATIONS 109,050
TRANSFERS IN 6,387,083
REVENUE FROM CURRENT SERVICES 7,648,216
MANDATED COSTS REIMBURSEMENTS 200,000
RENTS 102,200
CONCESSIONS 900
HOUSING AUTHORITY IN LIEU FEES 210,000 0
$45,397,690 $22,086,966 $67,484,656
AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL 67.27% 32.73%
INVESTMENT INCOME $1,155,045 $561,955 $1,717,000
$46,552,735 $22,648,921 $69,201,656
*Special Fund
G: \FINANCE \Prop4 \PROP4calc04 -5
f
EXHIBIT C
Enclosure II
Annual Percent Change in Population •Minus Exclusions ( *)
January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2005 and Total Population, January 1, 2005
County Percent Change -- Population Minus Exclusions -
City 2004 -2005 1 -1 -04 1 -1 -05 1 -1 -2005
Total
Population
ALAMEDA
ALAMEDA 0.17 72,961 73,086 74,581
ALBANY 0.20 16,710 16,743 16,743
BERKELEY 0.31 104,210 104,534 104,534
DUBLIN 4.64 36,174 37,852 39,931
EMERYVILLE 7.83 7,661 8,261 8,261
FREMONT 0.72 208,931 210,445 210,445
HAYWARD 1.03 144,533 146,027 146,027
LIVERMORE 2.81 78,517 80,723 80,723
NEWARK -0.03 43,721 43,708 43,708
OAKLAND 0.24 411,319 412,318 412,318
PIEDMONT -0.03 11,058 11,055 11,055
PLEASANTON 0.82 67,102 67,650 67,650
SAN LEANDRO 0.01 81,432 81,442 81,442
UNION CITY 0.78 70,139 70,685 70,685
UNINCORPORATED 0.31 138,973 139,397 139,397
COUNTY TOTAL
0.70 1,493,441 1,503,926 1,507,500
(*) Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions and state and federal
correctional institutions.
Page 1
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ESTABLISHING APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2005 -06
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California, the City
E Council of the City of Alameda is required to establish an "Appropriations Limit" for fiscal year 1997-
98; and
LL' WHEREAS, the Appropriations Limit has been determined in accordance with uniform
0
.
cc guidelines for Article XIIIB of the California Constitution; and
0
ca
WHEREAS, the voters approved Proposition 111 in June, 1990, which allows for new
Pp p
adjustment formulas for the appropriations limit calculation that is responsive to local growth issues.
The adjustment factors used to arrive at the 2005 -06 limit are as follows:
1990 -91 County Population increase of 1.36 %; CPI of 4.21 %
1991 -92 City Population increase of 3.39 %; CPI 4.14%
1992 -93 City Population increase of 2.02 %; CPI of - 0.64%
1993 -94 City Population increase of 2.06 %; CPI of 2.72%
1994 -95 City Population increase of 1.04 %; CPI of 0.71
1995 -96 County Population increase of 1.27 %; CPI of 4.72%
1996 -97 County Population increase of 0.85 %; CPI of 4.67%
1997 -98 City Population increase of 1.74 %; Per Capita Personal Income
4.67%
1998 -99 County Population increase of 2.15 %; Per Capita Personal Income
4.15%
1999 -00 County Population increase of 1.40 %, Per Capita Personal Income
4.53%
2000 -01 County Population increase of 1.08 %, Per Capital Personal Income
4.91%
2001 -02 City Population increase of 1.77 %, Per Capita Personal Income
change of 7.82%
2002 -03 County Population increase of 1.62 %, Per Capita Personal Income
change of- 1.27%
Resolution #5 -C
5 -17 -05
2003 -04 City Population increase of 0.95 %, Per Capita Personal Income
change of 2.31%
2004 -05 County Population increase of 0.72 %, Per Capita Personal Income
change of3.28%
2005 -06 County Population increase of 0.70 %, Per Capita Personal Income
change of 5.26%
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that said
Council hereby establishes the Appropriations Limit in the amount of $71,192,092 for fiscal year
2005 -06.
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 , 2005, 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 , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
Date: May 4, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent Business License Fees
Via the Property Tax Bills
BACKGROUND
The Alameda Municipal Code Section 5 -7.2 provides for the collection of delinquent
business license fees and charges via the property tax bill. In order for this assessment to
be valid, it must satisfy the basic requirements of due process. The owners must be given
fair and adequate notice regarding the assessment and an opportunity for a hearing.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
The Finance Department continually pursues collection of business license tax from
owners and /or managers of commercial and multi - family residential rental properties with
no current business licenses. Although the Business License Ordinance states that a
notice or bill is not required, property owners are notified by mail using the last mailing
address shown in the County tax records and are given ample time to respond prior to
sending the final notices. This year the final notices were mailed on April 20, 2005. There
were originally 46 rental properties identified as not having current licenses. The attached
list is now down to 27 parcels.
The Finance Department has general information flyers in addition to copies of the
Business License Ordinance that are mailed to anyone who requests information regarding
business licensing.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT
Business license fees are due and payable on July 1st of each year and are deemed
delinquent if not paid by July 31st of each year.
Ten percent penalty is imposed for every month the fee is delinquent up to a maximum of
60% of the annual fee. The total late charge included in the amount due as shown in the
attached list is $4,109.06.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing 5 -D
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
May 4, 2005
Page 2 of 2
The City Manager recommends that the City Council authorize collection of delinquent
business license fees via the property tax bills.
JB:dI
G: \FINANCE \COUNCIL\2005 \050305 \DelBusLic.doc
Attachment
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
By. le-Ann B: er
Chief Financial Officer
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
2005 Business License Attachments
(License Fee+I
Late Charge
(O
O
N
384.00 1
O
0
214.40
128.00 1
O
CO
CO
O
N
CO
256.00 1
192.00
128.00 1
512.00
256.00
224.00
0
O
CO
320.00 1
0
O
N.-
0
O
CC
320.00 1
480.00 1
0
O
CO
128.00
256.00
256.00 1
128.00 1
192.00
128.00
O
CO
r
(o
O
CO
00
License Fee
Late Charge
O
o N
r 144.00
1 574.00
80.40
1 48.00
1 322.80
1 247.20
96.00
0
N
r•
1 48.00
1 192.00
96.00
84.00 1
0
N
100.00
0
N-
O O
O
r-- N Oro
O
O
252.00
128.00
O
O
O
96.00
48.00
72.00
48.00 1
0
O
CO
4,109.06 I
'Amount Due
O
0
O
240.00
200.00
134.00
80.00
538.00
412.00
0
O
O
(0
r
O
O
O
N
r
80.00
320.00
160.00
140.00
160.00
220.00 1
y 00.0
0 0
O O
O O
0
N
0
O
O
O
CO
420.00 1
0
0
O
160.00 1
0
0
O
CO
r
80.00 1
0
O
O
N
r
O
O
O
CO
0
O
r
O
r
4,585.00 I
Lincoln Avenue
Morton Street
Bayo Vista Avenue
Lincoln Avenue
Lincoln Avenue
Willow Street
Webb Avenue #A
Webb Avenue #A
Central Avenue
Park Avenue
Pacific Avenue
Santa Clara Avenue
Pacific Avenue
Benton Street
Central Avenue
Fernside Blvd.
Poggi Street
Buena Vista Avenue
Cedar Street
Clinton Avenue
Lafayette Street
Central Avenue
Versailles Avenue
Willow Street
Pacific Avenue
Briggs Avenue
Buena Vista Avenue
r+
O
H
[Location
O
O
r
co
O
N
Lo
r
3255
co
CO
O
r
M
M
O
r
r
r
0)
r
2517
2517
1617
CO
O
r
215
1034
748
0)
O
Lo
r
1610
(0
O
r
N
1825
939
842
r
O
O)
r
r
r
2528
LO
4
co
r
1514
0)
M
r
N
3264
745 1
'Owner's Name
(Kevin Daum /Stratford Financial Services
Lillie Real Properties LLC
Jay Yaksic /Fashion After Passion
Denny Nguyen - Denny's Handyman Service
Denny Nguyen - Rental at 1033 Lincoln
Huonganh P. Silver /SOS Urethane Foam Roofi
Nick R. Santos /N & I Enterprises
Nick R. Santos /Rental at 2517 Webb
John M. Doherty
Cahn M. Du
Thomas E. Mantooth
Jack D. Woods
Diane Pixley
Gregory L. Beattie
Hugh S. Winslow
Clifford E. & Denise Mapes
The Atlantic Apartments
Jesse James Jr.
John W. Clark Jr.
(John W. Clark Jr.
Pat H. Barni
Eric F. & Marie Kayler
Douglas & Diane Lewis
Yuan Tian
Yuan Tian
Robert D. & Susann, K. Nicol
William L. Berg /Sophie Soltani
Parcel #
NI-
O)
O)
CO
72- 346 -10
69- 109 -106
73 -387 -8
73 -387 -8
71 -255 -8
70- 169 -48
70- 169 -48
74- 1230 -57 -1
70- 182 -44
74 -473 -2
73- 391 -27
4
N
�'
r
1"
M
r-
72- 347 -13
72- 316 -3 -1
70- 196 -38
74- 451 -1 -5
73- 382 -15
74- 1225 -2
0
r
CA
CO
N
r
r`
71 -272 -3
ti
.-
ti
r
O
r-
70- 153 -13
71- 234 -26
71- 232 -16
co
LO
CO
ti
(3)
CO
73 -426 -2
IB /L #
014523
023137
012987
027480
028301
CO
CO
CO
CO
r
0
1010476
Q
Z
1008620
N/A
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
015079
029795
Q
Z
004813
004004
003945
003882
005206
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
+.'
C
7
0
0
.,
N
M
LO
CO
r-
co
CA
O
r
r
r
N
r
Cr)
r
r
LO
r
CO
r
r` CO
r r
(A
r
O
N
r
N
N
N
M
N
N
LO
N
CO
N
N-
N
Attach2005.xls
City of Alameda
Memorandum
DATE: May 5, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
RE:
Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's approval of
a Landscaping Plan for planting two Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at
301 Spruce Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development
proposals on the site, was required by the Historical Advisory Board as a condition
for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001. The site is located at 301 Spruce
Street within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Applicant: Bill
Wong for Hai Ky Lam/Appellant: Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader.
BACKGROUND
301 Spruce Street is a vacant lot located at the corner of Spruce and Third streets in the West
Alameda neighborhood. In 2001, the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) gave approval (Certificate of
Approval no: CA01 -08) to remove one oak tree that was damaged by a previous property owner. As
a condition of approval, the Board required the installation of two Coast Live Oaks to replace the
damaged tree. Furthermore, the Board required future proposals for development on the site to
include a landscaping plan for the placement of the two new trees. Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader
of adjacent 305 Spruce Street appealed the Board's decision to the Council, but the Council denied
the appeal after finding no merit in the basis of appeal. The property changed ownership in 2004,
and the current owners have submitted a Design Review proposal for the construction of one single -
family dwelling. In compliance with the 2001 condition of approval, the property owners have
submitted a landscaping plan to the HAB for review and approval. The Board approved the
landscaping plan for the placement of the two new Coast Live Oaks during the April 7, 2005 hearing.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Mr. Lynch and Ms. Nader of 305 Spruce Street are appealing the HAB's approval of the
Landscaping Plan (Attachment 2 — Petition for Appeal). The bases of appeal are highlighted in bold
followed by Staff discussion:
1. The HAB's review and approval of the Landscaping Plan is not exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The HAB's action on April 7, 2005 is limited to the review of the Landscaping Plan for the
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Re: Public Hearing and
Reso 5 -E
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 5, 2005
Page 2
placement of the two new Coast Live Oaks, as required by condition of approval in Resolution
HAB01 -08 from 2001. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(b) - New Landscaping, the
installation of landscaping and planting of two new trees are exempt from CEQA's environmental
review process.
2. The proposed new construction may adversely impact the two existing Coast Live Oaks
and, therefore, the Design Review process should not be exempt from CEQA.
Parallel to the HAB's review of the landscaping plan is a Design Review application for a new single
family dwelling currently under review by Staff. The proposed new construction and the CEQA
determination for the Design Review do not fall within the HAB's purview. Therefore, the
appellants cannot appeal the HAB's decision on the basis that the Design Review should not be
exempt from CEQA. The protection of Coast Live Oaks in Alameda is a local regulation that
reflects the City's desire to preserve these trees, but because Coast Live Oaks are not an endangered
species extensive environmental assessment is not required under CEQA.
Staff will continue to coordinate with the appellants and the property owners to ensure that the
design will be compatible with the oak trees. The appellants were provided opportunities to address
the concerns of the proposed single - family house. Several arborist reports and recommendations
have been requested by Staff to identify necessary measures to protect the existing trees during
construction. Since the HAB hearing on April 7, 2005, the applicants have revised the landscaping
plan to locate the building further away from the trees; the latest plan shows a minimum thirteen -foot
setback from the existing trees. Furthermore, the conditions of approval for the Design Review
approval will require protection of the existing trees and recordation of a Landscape Maintenance
Agreement to ensure proper maintenance of the new and existing trees on the property. The
appellants will also be notified of actions taken by Staff on the Design Review, which may be
appealed to the Planning Board.
ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT REFERENCE
Actions taken on this item would not affect or deviate from any local Codes, Regulations, and
Policies.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS / FISCAL IMPACT
There will be no additional funding in the Planning & Building Department budget necessary
relating to Planning activities for this project.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing, review all pertinent
testimony and information then act to uphold the Historical Advisory Board's approval of the
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 5, 2005
Page 3
Landscaping Plan by adopting the draft City Council Resolution included in the agenda packet.
Should the City Council take no action, the decision of the Historical Advisory Board stands.
By:
ATTACHMENTS:
Respectfully submitted,
J- smack
Interim Planning Director
Allen Tai
Planner III
1. Historical Advisory Board Staff Report, April 7, 2005 (with attachments).
2. Petition for Appeal, April 15, 2005 (with attachments).
3. Draft Minutes of April 7, 2005 Historical Advisory Board hearing.
cc: Chair McPherson, Historical Advisory Board
Hai Ky Lam, Property Owner of 301 Spruce Street
Ivan Chiu/Bill Wong, Applicant
Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader, Appellant
G:\PLANNING \CC\REPORTS\2005 \j -May 17\Spruce301_CAOI- O8appeaLdoc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ITEM NO.:
APPLICATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
STAFF PLANNER:
RECOMMENDATION:
ACRONYMS:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF REPORT
2
Review of Certificate of Approval CA01 -08 — BIIl Wong/Ivan
Chin for Hai Ky Lam — 301 Spruce Street. A review of the
Landscaping Plan for planting two Coast Live Oak trees (Quercus
agrifolia) on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street. The
submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development
proposals on the site, was required as a Condition of Approval by
the Historical Advisory Board under Resolution HAB 01 -08,
which approved the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001.
The site is located within an R -4 Neighborhood Residential
District.
Medium Density Residential
Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section
15304(b) - New Landscaping
Allen Tai, Planner III
Staff recommends approval; specify any additional conditions.
AMC — Alameda Municipal Code
1. Draft Resolution
2. Landscape Plan dated March 23, 2005
3. Certified Arborist Report October 17, 2004 with
recommendations for protecting existing oak trees
4. Previous Arborist Report dated June 15, 2001
HAB -01 -08 Resolution 2001
5.
L BACKGROUND /EXISTING CONDITIONS
301 Spruce Street is a vacant parcel located at the northeast corner of Third and Spruce Streets.
The size of the parcel is 5,000 square -feet (50'0" wide by 100'0" deep). No development ever
occurred on the property. Recent project records indicate that the property had four large trees
including three Coast Live Oaks and one Pine tree. The four trees included:
A) a 26" diameter Coast Live Oak that was located near the rear of the property; (Removed)
B) a 42" diameter Coast Live Oak located along the property line of the street side yard;
C) a 18" diameter Coast Live Oak located at the front of property on the City right -of -way;
Historical Advisory Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 7, 2005
Attachment #1
D) a 27" diameter Italian Stone Pine located at the front corner of the property (Removed)
The history of events began in 1998, when a previous owner damaged Tree A through extensive
trimming. The owners were required to preserve the tree despite it being severely pruned. By
2001 the tree showed signs of deteriorating health, and the Historical Advisory Board approved a
new owner's request to remove the damaged tree in order to allow a proposed residential
development to proceed (Certificate of Approval Application No.: CA01 -08; Resolution HAB-
01-08). The Board's approval was subsequently appealed to the City Council, where the Board's
decision was upheld upon the Council's fording that there was no merit to the appeal.
This public hearing is a result of the Board's approval in 2001 to remove Tree A. The Historical
Advisory Board approved the request with the condition that two new oak trees be planted on the
property. The Board also required the submittal of a landscaping plan for review and approval
by the Board when new construction is proposed on the site. Ownership of the property changed
hands again in 2004 and the current owners have submitted a proposal to construct a single -
family residence on the site. A landscaping plan for the planting of two new Oak trees has been
prepared in conformance with Resolution HAB- 01 -08. The plans for the new construction are
currently under review by Design Review staff. Conditions of approval for the Design Review
will require protection of the existing trees per the arborist and landscape architect's
recommendations, as well as the recordation of a Landscape Maintenance Agreement to ensure
maintenance of the oak trees on the property.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
The review of the subject Landscaping Plan is categorically exempt from further environmental
review pursuant to Section 15304(b) of the CEQA Guidelines — New Landscaping
III. DISCUSSION:
The applicants have secured the services of a Landscape Architect as required by the Board in
2001 to prepare a landscaping plan and recommendations for the location of the two new trees.
The proposed landscaping plan identifies two new Coast Live Oaks located in the rear yard.
The proposed trees will be located approximately fifteen feet from the rear of the proposed
building and five feet away from the rear property line. The new ten -gallon Oaks will also
maintain a separation of fourteen feet.
The applicants have also secured services of a certified arborist who has provided
recommendations for protecting the existing trees during construction.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Historic Advisory Board open the public hearing, review pertinent
information and documents, then act to approve the proposed Landscaping Plan.
Historical Advisory Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 7, 2005
G:\PLANNING\HAB\REPORTS \2005\Apr 07\S pruce301 _CA01 -0 8report.doc
2
CITY OF ALAMEDA
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. HAB -05 -07
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
APPROVING THE LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR TWO NEW COAST LIVE OAK TREES
REQUIRED UNDER CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, CA01 -08, FOR THE REMOVAL OF ONE
COAST LIVE OAK TREE IN 2001 AT 301 SPRUCE STREET.
WHEREAS, the Historical Advisory Board approved Certificate of Approval CA01 -08 in
2001 for the removal of one coast live oak tree and required the installation of two ten - gallon Coast
Live Oak trees as part of any development project on the site; and
WHEREAS, the Historical Advisory Board required the submittal of a Landscaping Plan to be
submitted for review and approval; and
WHEREAS, Bill Wong on behalf of Property Owner Hai Ky Lam on submitted the
recommendations from a Certified Arborist on October 11, 2004 and a Landscaping Plan prepared by
a Licensed Landscape Architect on March 23, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan designation of the site is Medium Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, the parcel is located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District;
and
WHEREAS, the Board has held a public hearing on this application on April 7, 2005 and
reviewed the proposed plan and considered all pertinent documents and testimony; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Historical Advisory Board ofthe City of Alameda
hereby finds that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, Guidelines. Section 15304(b) —
New Landscaping; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Historical Advisory Board of the City of Alameda
hereby approves the Landscaping Plan subject to the following conditions:
1. APPROVED PLANS. The planting of the two ten -gallon Coast Live Oak trees shall be
completed in substantial compliance with the landscaping plan dated March 23, 2005,
prepared by PGA Design Landscape Architects, marked as "Exhibit A ", on file in the City of
Alameda Planning and Building Department.
2. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for the development on the site, the applicants shall sign
and record with the County Recorder's Office a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with the
City to ensure maintenance of the Coast Live Oak trees on the property.
HOLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the
applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents,
officers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the
subject property, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code
Section 65009(c). The City of Alameda shall cooperate promptly, notify the applicant of any claim,
action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly
notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
City.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONDITIONS. The applicant shall acknowledge in writing all
of the conditions of approval and must accept this permit subject to those conditions and with full
awareness of the applicable provisions of Chapter 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code in order for this
approval to be exercised.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
The decision of the Historical Advisory Board shall be final unless appealed to the City
Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision, by Notice of Appeal stating the appellant
claims that either the Board's decision is not supported by its findings or its findings are not supported
by the evidence in the record.
G:\ PLANNING \HAB\RESO\2005 \Spruce301 _CA01- 08reso.doc
::::::uuu•UlUu•uI:::� :ice
OAK TREE PLACEMENT
301 Spruce Street
Alameda, CA
t
CERTIFIED
_ • am
- . i..
MEWL .--
_ ....
MIL
-..
rr. M
r rar411•01•0 • G
ARBORIST
HRISTOPHER W. BOWEN
CERTIFIED ARBORIST
(510) 777 -1551
85 THOUSAND OAKS
OAKLAND, CA 94605
#WC -4204
CA LICENSE # 761555
...Detailed pruning......Careful removal of trees & shrubs......Free estimates...
...Aesthetic approach...
September 14, 2004
Attention: City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board
re: Approving Certificate of approval, CA- 01 -08, 301 Spruce St.
ECEIVED
OCT 17 2004
x3C.RM CENTER
The property owner, Bill Wong, shall plant a minimum of two Live Oak Trees with a
minimum size of 10 gallons as part of any development of the site (see site plan for tree
placement). The two trees will be planted opposite the garage midway between the northern
facade of the proposed residence and the property line. There is a 20 -foot setback which will
allow 10 feet between the trees and the house; and 10 feet to the property line /fence.
Due to the sandy soil the two Live Oaks Trees should be planted slightly high within a
mound to allow for future settling. Two inches of compost material and two inches of mulch
should be spread around the trees in a six -foot diameter circle. A lawn is not appropriate for this
area due to the Live Oaks no summer watering once trees are established after two years of
planting. The 10 gallon or larger Live Oaks shall be staked with two wood poles for each tree
and watered two times weekly during the dry season for the first two years. Fall planting is
preferable.
The Live Oaks shall be maintained during the first three years by a landscaping
professional to ensure proper planting, watering, mulching and staking. The trees should not be
pruned during the first three years. Subsequent pruning shall be done by a certified arborist.
The property owner shall follow tree preservation and other recommendations as outlined
by the Arborist report prepared by Stephen Batchelder 15 June 2001 as part of any development
of the site. The two mature Live Oaks on the site are vulnerable to construction and site
development damage. Care must be taken when excavating the foundation to protect roots larger
than 1 inch in diameter. An airspade is recommended to reveal anchoring roots on the 42"
diameter Live Oak along 3`1 Street. This tool can be obtained by hiring " Treescapes" Inc. -
Oakland. An Arborist from "Treescapes" would excavate around the Live Oak where the
foundation is to be dug to reveal anchor roots and to avoid cutting large roots over a 1" diameter.
A pier and beam foundation may be necessary to bridge over large roots after wrapping them
with burlap.
CERTIFIED
•
ri
.,.
. ._.
•••■ -.
Ina ..tea ► " i
IMP +r..n� 1 it A •
ARBORIST
:HRISTOPHER W. BOWEN
CERTIFIED ARBORIST
(510) 777 -1661
85 THOUSAND OAKS
OAKLAND, CA 94605
#WC -4204
CA LICENSE # 761555
...Detailed pruning......Careful removal of trees & shrubs... ...Free estimates...
...Aesthetic approach...
- Strap hay bales to and around both mature Live Oaks
- Apply 2" compost, then 6 " mulch/wood chips and cover with 1" plywood to minimize root and
soil compaction of area around Oaks, i.e., under their dripline within 8 -20 feet of trees -as
possible.
It is recommended that the property owner secure a bond to protect the two mature Live
Oaks to protect against damage during construction and subsequent decline. This bond would
hold the builder financially responsible for damages. The larger Oak = 42" diameter = $15,000.
Bond. The 16" diameter Oak = $10,000. Bond. Be advised that after damage to these root
systems it may take 10 years for the trees to decline and possibly die.
The two mature Live Oaks ere heavily pruned to remove limbs and branches facing the
property. The trees' canopies are therefore heavy over the street and sidewalk and will require
pruning every 3 years to these branches and reduce overweight for balance and to lessen the risk
of limb failure.
Christopher Bowen
Certified Arborist
Report dated 09/14/2004
Stephen Batchelder, Consulting Arborist
1534 Rose Street
Crockett, California 94525
State Cont. Lic. (C -27) #533675
Phone (510) 787 -3075
Fax (510) 787 -3065
Mr. Hinh
10 Castlebar Place
Alameda, Ca 94502
Date: June 15, 2001
Subject: Tree Review on Potential Development Lot
Location: 301 Spruce Street, Alameda
Date of Slte Visit: June 12, 200
Mr. Hinh requested an assessment for condition and viability of four trees on the lot at 301
Spruce Street, where he is considering developing the property. Prior assessment of the trees
is always advised. This report contains inspection data inspection and recommendations for
tree treatment and care.
SUMMARY
It is recommended that one, and possibly two trees, be removed prior to beginning construction
on the house. Coast Live Oaks tree #1 has suffered severe pruning and is considered to have a
negative value. It is not a good candidate for retention. The Italian Stone Pine is also
recommended for removal or possibly severe pruning. This pine tree shades two valuable
Coast Live Oak trees both recommended for retention.
TREE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION
Supplemental information has been
provided regarding care of native oak
trees on home grounds. Good
specimen oak trees are highly valued.
Photo shows Coast Live Oak tree #1,
recommended for removal. Red
arrow indicates the recent, very large
pruning wound. The remaining
portion of the tree has been previously
headed in a similar manner (large
cuts). There is no practical reason for
retaining this tree, as if will likely have
a negative value if retained.
Attachment #2, Item #2
DESCRIPTION OF TREES
Tree #1 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
DBH 26 inches
Height 25 feet
Recommendation: Remove tree
Tree #2 Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
DBH 35 inches
Height 30 feet
Recommendation: Protection during construction.
Tree #3 Italian Stone Pine (Pinus pinea)
DBH 27 inches
Height 35 feet
Health
Structure
Health
Structure
Health
Structure
Fair to poor
Poor
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Recommendation: Either remove or prune to allow light to the Coast Live Oak trees.
Tree #4 Coast Live Oak
DBH 18 inches Health
Height 25 feet Structure
Recommendation: This tree requires little . care other than protection
(Quercus agrifolia)
Photo to the right shows the
four trees described above.
This report is submitted by;
Good
Good
during construction.
Steve Batchelder, Consulting Arborist
Certified Arborist #228
CITY OF ALAMEDA
HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. HAB -01 -08
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
APPROVING CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, CA- 01 -08, 301 SPRUCE STREET
WHEREAS, Hinh D. Nguyen made an application on June 28, 2001 for a Certificate of
Approval to the removal of a Coast Live Oak tree, a protected species, from his property; and
and
WHEREAS, application complete June 28, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan designation of the site is Medium Density Residential; and
WHEREAS, the parcel is located within the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District;
WHEREAS, the Board has held a public hearing on this application; and
WHEREAS, the Board has made the following findings:
1. The Live Oak Tree has been severely pruned and is in very poor condition.
2. Retention of the Live Oak Tree would significantly restrict the possibility of
development of the site.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Historical Advisory Board of the City of
Alameda hereby finds that the proposal is Categorically Exempt from CEQA, Guidelines, Section
Section 15304 -- replacement of existing landscaping which does not involve the removal of a
healthy tree; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Historical Advisory Board of the City of Alameda
hereby grants Certificate of Approval, CA -98 -6, subject to the following conditions:
1. The property owner shall plant a minimum of two Live Oak Tree with a minimum
size of 10 gallons as part of any development project of the site.
2. The property owner shall secure the services of a registered landscape architect to
provide advice on the best location for planting of the Live Oaks in compliance with
Condition #1.
3. The property owner shall submit the plan for locating the Live Oaks prepared by the
landscape architect to the Historical Advisory Board for review and approval.
4. The property owner shall enter into a Landscape Agreement with the City of
Alameda for a period of not less than three years from date of installation in order to
ensure the maintenance of the required replacement trees.
5. The property owner shall follow the recommendations of the Arborist Report,
prepared by Stephen Batchelder, dated June 15, 2001, and on file in the Planning
Department Offices, as part of any development project of the site.
6. The property owner shall record a deed restriction which would inform any
subsequent owner of the property of Conditions #1 through #5 as part of any
development approval by the City for the site. A copy of the deed restriction shall be
submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
The decision of the Historical Advisory Board shall be final unless appealed to the City
Council, in writing and within ten (10) days of the decision, by Notice of Appeal stating the appellant
claims that either the Board's decision is not supported by its findings or its findings are not supported
by the evidence in the record.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Historical Advisory Board of the City of Alameda
on the 2nd day of August 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: (5) Gill, Tilos, Jacopetti, McPherson, Brady
NOES: (0)
ABSENT: (0)
ATTEST:
Judith Altschuler, Secretary
Historical Advisory Board
G:\PLANNING\HAB\RESO\301 SPRUC. WPD
•
,4 a/ Ootzf
April 15, 2005
City Council
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190
Alameda, CA 94501
PATRICK G. LYNCH
J E A N N E A. N A. D E R
305 SPRUCE. STREET
LAME :A. CA 94501
(510) 522-2165 •
Reference: Appeal of Historical Board Resolution HAB -05 -07
301 Spruce Street
Dear Council Members:
We are appealing the above referenced Historical Advisory Board Resolution. Our interest in
appealing this decision is to ensure two mature Live Coast Oak Trees located on and adjacent to
301 Spruce Street are protected during the development of a single - family home. A third Live
Coast Oak tree had previously been removed from this lot under a set of circumstances that
resulted in revisions to the Historical Preservation Ordinance to prevent other Alamedans from
sharing our disappointing experience.
The Historic Advisory Board made a finding that the project is exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that is not supported by the evidence considered at the
meeting. CEQA includes exceptions, when unusual circumstances exist at a project site, where
a categorical exception is not appropriate. One of these unusual circumstances is when
historical resources, in this case the two remaining Live Coast Oak Trees, may be adversely
impacted.
An arborist report (attached) prepared on behalf of the property owner contained a number of
measures necessary to protect the two remaining trees from mortality during site development.
• Giventhe'1 igh potential that the•two remaining tree s•lh b'e =iadversely impacted by site
development the Historical Advisory Board should have found that the project is not
categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review.
Sincerely
Patrick G. Lynch
eanne A. Nader
Attachment: Christopher Bowen, September 14, 2004, Arborist Report
Attachment #2
CERTIFIED
Bores■.— r
.water Y AIM
a■mmo" I. . 1 ,1111•11•11
NMI
• 1 41. -
■� . / ► ' 1 •
...a.■aaa■. YI- •
ARBORIST
;HRISTOPHER W. BOWEN
CERTIFIED ARBORIST
(610) 777-1561
85 THOUSAND OAKS
OAKLAND, CA 94605
#WC•4204
CA LICENSE # 761555
...Detailed pruning... ..Careful removal of trees & shrubs... ...Free estimates...
...Aesthetic approach... IVED
September 14, 2004
Attention: City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board
re: Approving Certificate of approval, CA- 01 -08, 301 Spruce St.
OCT 17 2004 I
int-c:R.Mrr CENTER
The property owner, Bill Wong, shall plant a minimum of two Live Oak Trees with a
minimum size of 10 gallons as part of any development of the site (see site plan for tree
placement). The two trees will be planted opposite the garage midway between the northern
facade of the proposed residence and the property line. There is a 20 -foot setback which will
allow 10 feet between the trees and the house; and 10 feet to the property line /fence.
Due to the sandy soil the two Live Oaks Trees should be planted slightly high within a
mound to allow for future settling. Two inches of compost material and two inches of mulch
should be spread around the trees in a six -foot diameter circle. A lawn is not appropriate for this
area due to the Live Oaks no summer watering once trees are established after two years of
planting. The 10 gallon or larger Live Oaks shall be staked with two wood poles for each tree
and watered two times weekly during the dry season for the first two years. Fall planting is
preferable.
The Live Oaks shall be maintained during the first three years by a landscaping
professional to ensure proper planting, watering, mulching and staking. The trees should not be
pruned during the first three years. Subsequent pruning shall be done by a certified arborist.
The property owner shall follow tree preservation and other recommendations as outlined
by the 'Arborist report prepared by Stephen Batchelder 15 June 2001 as part of any development
of the site. The two mature Live Oaks on the site are vulnerable "to construction and site
development damage. Care must be taken when excavating the foundation to protect roots larger
than '1 inch in diameter. An airspade is recommended to reveal anchoring roots on the 42"
diameter Live Oak along 3rd Street. This tool can be obtained by hiring "Treescapes" Inc. -
Oaldand. An Arborist from "Treescapes" would excavate around the Live Oak where the
foundation is to be dug to reveal anchor roots and to avoid cutting large, roots over a 1" diameter.
A pier and beam foundation may be necessary to bridge over large roots after wrapping them
with burlap.
CERTIFIED
...._..1
—
mow , AM
-.
...
r to ma r.-
-• iv •• •
ARBORIST
'.HRISTOPHER W. BOWEN
CERTIFIED ARBORIST
(610) 777 -1661
85 THOUSAND OAKS
OAKLAND, CA 94605
#WC-4204
CA LICENSE # 761555
...Detailed pruning......Careful removal of trees & shrubs......Free estimates...
...Aesthetic approach...
- Strap hay bales to and around both mature Live Oaks
- Apply 2" compost, then 6 " mulch/wood chips and cover with 1" plywood to minimize root and
soil compaction of area around Oaks, i.e., under their dripline within 8 -20 feet of trees -as
possible.
It is recommended that the property owner secure a bond to protect the two mature Live
Oaks to protect against: damage during construction and subsequent decline. This bond would
hold the builder fmancially responsible for damages. The larger Oak = 42" diameter = $15,000.
Bond. The 16" diameter Oak = $10,000. Bond. Be advised that after damage to these root
systems it may take 10 years for the trees to decline and possibly die.
The two mature Live Oaks ere heavily pruned to remove limbs and branches facing the
property. The trees' canopies are therefore heavy over the street and sidewalk and will require
pruning every 3 years to these branches and reduce overweight for balance and to lessen the risk
of limb failure.
Christopher Bowen
Certified Arborist
Report dated 09/14/2004
o i. e/ki,
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior to
approval by Historical Advisory Board
2. Review of the Landscaping Plan for planting two Coast Live Oak trees (Quercus
agrifolia) on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan
(as part of new development proposals on the site) was required as a Condition of Approval
by the Historical Advisory Board under Resolution HAB 01 -08, which approved the removal
of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001. The site is located within an R -4 Neighborhood
Residential District.
Ms. Altschuler gave a brief history of the project. In 1988, the previous owner damaged an
Oak tree through extensive trimming. The owners were required to preserve the tree despite
it being severely pruned. In 2001 the tree showed signs of deteriorating health, and the
Board approved a new owner's request to remove the damaged tree in order to allow a
proposed residential development, with the condition that two new oak trees be planted on
the property. The Board also required the submittal of a landscaping plan for review and
approval by the Board when new construction is proposed on the site. The Board's approval
was subsequently appealed to the City Council, where the Board's decision was upheld upon
the Council's finding that there was no merit to the appeal.
The applicants have secured the services of a Landscape Architect as required by the Board
in 2001 to prepare a landscaping plan and recommendations for the location of the two new
trees. The applicants have also secured services of a certified arborist who has provided
recommendations for protecting the existing trees during construction.
Board member Tilos opened the floor for public comment.
Patrick Lynch, 305 Spruce St., spoke in opposition of this project. He has several issues with
this application. He stated that the Board should be aware that the conditions contained in
CA -01 -08 have not been complied with and his requests to the City for enforcement have
been ignored. In 2002 a grading permit was issued for the development project at the site
without requiring replacement trees. He is concerned with the recent changes to Alameda's
Historical Preservation Ordinance that allows Oak Trees with a trunk diameters less than 10"
to be removed without a Certificate of Approval. The proposed replacement trees will not
likely have trunk diameters of this size for 10 to 20 years, and could be removed at the end of
the period required for the landscape maintenance agreement. He therefore requests that the
replacement trees have a diameter greater that 10" at 4.5 ft. above the ground. He also
disagrees with staff's decision that this project is categorically exempt from the CEQA
guidelines. The tree removal together with the proposed single - family home project may
cumulatively cause additional and substantial adverse change in the condition of the
remaining oak trees.
Ms. Altschuler addressed Mr. Lynch's concerns as followed:
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
3
Attachment #3
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
Subject to modification prior to
approval by Historical Advisory Board
1. Mr. Lynch's concern with the issuance of the grading permit does not fall under the
prevue of the Historical Advisory Board.
2. To resolve Mr. Lynch's concern regarding the size of the trunk diameters of the
replacement trees, the Board can extend the landscaping maintenance agreement to five years
and require the replacement tree to be larger than 10" diameter.
3. His issue with staff's decision that this project is exempt from CEQA guidelines do not
fall under the prevue of this Board and should be addressed during the design review process.
4. According to city records, the Certificate of Approval CA01 -08 was valid on the day the
tree was removed. The Board approved the request with the condition that two new oak trees
be planted on the property. The Board also required the submittal of a landscaping plan for
review and approval when new construction is proposed. The current owners have submitted
a proposal to construct a single - family residence on the site. A landscaping plan for the
planning of two new Oak trees has been prepared in conformance with Resolution HAB -01-
08. The plans for the new construction are currently under review by Design Review staff.
Conditions of approval for the Design Review will require protection of the existing trees per
the arborist and landscape architect's recommendations, as well as the recordation of a
Landscape Maintenance Agreement to ensure maintenance of the oak trees on the property.
Staff understands that Mr. Lynch has enjoyed living next to a vacant lot, but the owner is
entitled to develop his lot.
Ms. Altschuler advised the Board that the decision before this Board tonight is to approve the
location of the replacement trees as stated in the Landscaping Maintenance plan.
Board member Tilos opened the floor to Board discussion.
Board member Miller is in favor of extending the Landscaping Plan to 5 years. He is also in
favor of requiring the replacement trees to be bigger than a 10" diameter.
The Certified Arborist, Chris Bowen was present. He suggested that the replacement trees be
24" box, which would be close to 8 ft tall when planted. He feels this would improve the
property value.
M/S to approve the Landscaping Maintenance Plan with the following revisions: (1) Change
the replacement trees from two 10- gallon trees to two 24" box trees. (2) Extend the
Landscape Maintenance Agreement from 3 to 5 years.
Minutes of April 7, 2005
Regular Historical Advisory Board Meeting
4
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
UPHOLDING THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD'S APPROVAL OF A LANDSCAPING
PLAN FOR PLANTING TWO COAST LIVE OAK TREES ON THE VACANT PROPERTY AT
301 SPRUCE STREET. THE SUBMITTAL OF A LANDSCAPING PLAN, AS PART OF NEW
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON THE SITE WAS REQUIRED BY THE HISTORICAL
ADVISORY BOARD AS A CONDITION FOR THE REMOVAL OF ONE COAST LIVE OAK
E TREE IN 2001. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 301 SPRUCE STREET WITHIN THE R -4
o NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
u. w
w
o Z WHEREAS, in 2001 the Historical Advisory Board conditionally approved Certificate of
'� ® Approval CA01 -08 for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree at 301 Spruce Street and required a
F-- landscaping plan to be submitted for the planting of two Coast Live Oak trees at the time
4 development was proposed on the vacant parcel; and
H
WHEREAS, Hai Ky Lam, property owner of 301 Spruce Street, submitted a proposal to
v construct one single - family dwelling on the property and a landscaping plan in accordance with the
Historical Advisory Board Resolution HAB- 01 -08; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the
General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning
District; and
WHEREAS, the Historical Advisory Board held a public hearing on April 7, 2005 and
considered public testimony and comments on the proposed placement of the two Coast Live Oak
trees and approved the landscaping plan; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2005 the City Council of the City of Alameda held a public hearing
for the appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's approval and examined pertinent documents as
well as the record of the Historical Advisory Board hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the project is
Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15304(b) —
Landscaping;
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council finds that the proposed
Landscaping Plan complies with the Historical Advisory Board's condition of approval for
Certificate of Approval CA01 -08 for planting two Coast Live Oak trees to replace one tree that was
removed in 2001;
NOW, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council denies the appeal and upholds
the Historical Advisory Board's approval of the Landscaping Plan as required under Certificate of
Approval CA01 -08 and Historical Advisory Board Resolution HAB01 -08, subject to the following
conditions:
Resolution #5 -E
5 -17 -05
1. APPROVED PLANS. The planting of the two Coast Live Oak trees (minimum twenty -four
inch box) shall be completed in substantial compliance with the landscaping plan dated
March 23, 2005, prepared by PGA Design Landscape Architects, marked as "Exhibit A ", on
file in the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department.
2. Prior to issuance of Building Permits for the development on the site, the applicants shall
sign and record with the County Recorder's Office a Landscape Maintenance Agreement
with the City to ensure maintenance of the Coast Live Oak trees on the property. The
Landscape Maintenance Agreement shall be in effect for five years from the date of the
recording.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of this
decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
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 , 2005, 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 , 2005.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
Memorandum
DATE: April 28, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
FROM: William C. Norton,
Acting City Manager
RE:
Recommendation to develop two separate voluntary residential seismic retrofit
programs. The first program will address the retrofit of wood - frame, one and two
story residential structures. The second program will create an inventory of soft -story
residential structures as well as a retrofit program.
BACKGROUND
The existing housing stock in Alameda is built largely of two types of construction that have
performed poorly in past seismic events. The first type of construction is one and two story, wood -
frame structures that do not have adequate foundations, are not bolted to their foundations and/or
lack bracing of walls enclosing a crawl space. This group consists of as many as 9000 buildings.
Many of these structures are included on the City's Historic Building Study List. The second type is
multifamily wood -frame buildings with all or part of the first floor used for parking. This second
type of building is referred to as a "soft- story" building and there may be as many as 1500 of these
buildings in Alameda.
In 1999, ABAG concluded that upwards to 88,000 housing units, in Alameda County, would become
uninhabitable following a 6.9 earthquake centered on the Hayward Fault. The California Seismic
Safety Commission estimates that 84% of all lost housing in a major Hayward Fault earthquake
would involve soft -story construction. ABAG has concluded that while over 50% of single - family
homeowners in the City of Alameda had done some retrofit work; only 18% had adequately
retrofitted their buildings with foundation bolts and plywood bracing. ABAG concluded "Most .
homeowners are not retrofitting — and those that retrofit are not doing all the work needed to
significantly change the likelihood that homes will be habitable following future earthquakes."
USGS earthquake hazard maps indicate that Alameda will experience violent shaking as well as
liquefaction in future seismic events.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Structural retrofit of one and two story, wood -frame houses typically includes a combination of
adding anchor bolts to prevent sliding off their foundations and adding plywood sheathing along
portions of the cripple walls to prevent collapse of these walls. In some cases, existing foundations
need to be rebuilt or strengthened. The structural retrofitting of "soft -story' residential structures is
more complex than for wood -frame homes. The retrofit of soft -story structures needs to involve a
specific solution designed by a structural engineer or other design professional with experience in
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 5 -F
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
April 28, 2005
this type of work. Retrofitting buildings with large openings for parking involves adding bracing
elements, like steel frames or shear walls at the lowest story level, and tying this bracing into the
floor above that level.
Several Bay Area cities have adopted retrofit ordinances that encourage voluntary seismic retrofitting
of residential structures. The City of Berkeley' s program includes a waiver of building permit fees
for all qualified retrofit projects and a rebate of up to one -third of the City's 1.5% property transfer
tax if the funds are used for qualified retrofit projects. San Leandro instituted an aggressive public
education campaign that included practical hands -on workshops with experts, educational videos,
detailed construction drawings and a streamlined package of plans and permits. Albany, Fremont,
Livermore, Los Gatos, Morgan Hill, Oakley, San Rafael, Sonoma, and St. Helena waive permit fees
for homeowners. Several jurisdictions offer grants that vary greatly depending on income and scope
of work. In the early 1990's Alameda, along with all other jurisdiction in California, was required to
inventory and develop a retrofit program for unreinforced masonry buildings. Berkeley, Fremont and
San Leandro have taken that a step further and have inventoried soft story structures. Together these
three cities have 10,300 families living in soft story apartment buildings. In 1999, Fremont adopted
a voluntary retrofit ordinance to reduce the hazard posed by the soft story residential buildings.
Fremont's ordinance included minimum retrofit standards and the waiver of plancheck and
inspection fees. Berkeley is drafting an ordinance that would require engineering surveys, tenant
notifications and retrofits.
While the goal of any seismic retrofit program is to protect the building occupants, these two types of
residential retrofit programs require much different solutions. Retrofitting one and two story wood
frame residential structures is a fairly simple project that can, in many cases, be carried out by the
property owner. The how -to information, tools and engineered drawings are readily available and the
materials needed to complete retrofit are relatively inexpensive. Retrofitting soft -story structures is
far more complex and expensive.
The ABAG Executive Board recently endorsed a standard set of plans entitled "Residential Seismic
Strengthening Plan" as a prescriptive seismic strengthening plan for cripple wall bracing and
foundation sill plate anchorage of light wood - framed residential structures not more than two stories
in height and containing not more than two dwelling units. A committee representing ABAG's
Earthquake Program, building contractors, the California Building Officials (CALBO), the
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), the International Code Council (ICC) Tri-
Chapters (East Bay, Peninsula, and Monterey Bay) and committees of the Structural Engineers
Association of Northern California (SEAONC), developed this plan set. ABAG strongly encourages
local jurisdictions to utilize this Standard Plan Set by encouraging and promoting its use as a
minimum standard for seismic retrofitting.
Several Cities in California, as well as the 2003 International Existing Building Code, have
developed engineering standards for the retrofit of soft -story buildings. These standards give licensed
architects and engineers the needed guidance to properly design seismic retrofit solutions for
individual properties.
The City of Alameda could very quickly establish a retrofit program for light wood frame residential
structures. The plan set endorsed by ABAG is available on line and can be made available to
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 3
April 28, 2005
Alameda property owners by the Planning and Building Department. A retrofit program for soft -
story residential structures would involve establishing an inventory of these structures as well as
adopting retrofit standards. Depending on whether or not incentives are offered by the City,
additional Council action may be required to waive fees and/or relax other City regulations.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FISCAL IMPACT
Any successful voluntary retrofit program needs to include sufficient incentives to encourage
property owners to spend the time and money necessary to upgrade their properties. These incentives
can include the waiving of permit and impact fees, streamlining the development review process,
and/or relax existing construction and zoning code regulations. As noted above several Bay Area
jurisdictions have offered tax breaks or grants.
Fannie Mae and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have partnered to help Bay
Area residents guard their homes against future natural disasters. Below- market interest rates on
loans up to $20,000 are available for improvements such as foundation bolting/repair, chimney
replacement, cripple wall stiffening, shear wall system construction, and plywood sheathing. There
are no income limitations for borrowers. At least 50% of the loan amount must be dedicated to
seismic repairs. The house must be a single family or 1 -2 unit residential home and must be occupied
by the borrower(s) as their primary or secondary residence.
Waiving permit and related impact fees would have a relatively minor impact on City revenues in the
short term. However, the successful retrofit of a number of residential structures would save
considerable money in reduced damage, Possible injuries and death, and the loss of historic
structures, as a result of a significant earthquake.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that the City Council direct staff to develop two separate voluntary
residential seismic retrofit programs. The first program will address the retrofit of wood - frame, one
and two story residential structures. The second program will create an inventory of soft -story
residential structures as well as a retrofit program.
Resp-ctfully submitted,
Grego nn
Building �! -� �.1
G:\Planbldg.adm \Staff Reports \Seismic Retrofit Off Agenda.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 6, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Report on Results of Actuarial Valuations of the Police and Fire Retirement
System (Plan 1079 and 1082) and the Retiree Health Care Plan
BACKGROUND
The closed pension systems for Police and Fire (Plan 1079 and 1082) are required
under Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) rules to have an actuarial
valuation performed once each three years. The report (Exhibit A) attached hereto is in
accomplishment of that requirement.
Further, beginning in June 2007, GASB requires the full disclosure using actuarial
standards of "Other Post Employment Benefits" (see page 17 of Exhibit B for a detailed
discussion). These are defined as any benefit earned by an employee when service is
rendered but paid after retirement. Typically these are granted through Memoranda of
Understanding with various recognized bargaining units in the City. In order to prepare
for this requirement, staff requested the preparation of an actuarial evaluation of those
post employment benefits currently contracted. A copy of that report is also attached.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Police and Fire Retirement System (Plan 1079 and 1082)
The report outlines the demographics, the actuarial assumptions and methods applied
in calculating the value, and the benefits for each plan. The actuarial assumptions are
similar to the revised assumptions used by CaIPERS. Actuarial methods are industry
standard requirements for this type of plan.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Report 5 -G
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 6, 2005
Page 2of3
The demographic summary (Exhibit A, page 6) shows that as of January 1, 2005, there
were:
• 58 members of the two plans,
• at an average age of 84.5 years,
• receiving average monthly benefits of $4,675.
The total annual benefits as of January 1, 2005, are $3,165,000. The Actuarial accrued
liability as of January 1, 2005 for the two plans is $31,683,000. This represents the
amount that would need to be set aside today to fully fund the plans. In June 2002, the
Actuarial accrued liability was $35,082,000. The calendar year liability for 2006 is
$3,088,000 as of January 1, 2006.
This report will satisfy the GASB requirements and the data will be included in the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for June 30, 2005.
Retiree Health Care Plan
The report was prepared in preparation for the required reporting in June 2007. The
various benefits by employee group are described beginning on page 1 of Exhibit B.
Currently, this plan includes the 247 current retires (92 Miscellaneous and 155 Safety
employees) and 685 future retirees or currently active (485 Miscellaneous and 200
Safety) employees. Highlights from the report of the resulting liabilities are:
• Present value of expected future benefits is $108,720,000
• Actuarial accrued liability (obligation through Jan. 1, 2005) is $70,012,000,
and is an unfunded liability
• Annual required contribution as of June 30, 2005 is $6,675,000
The fiscal year liability for 2006 is $1,495,000 on a "pay as you go" basis. By 2014, this
annual amount is projected to be $3,462,000.
With this report completed, staff will begin exploring alternatives that will reduce the
annual contribution amount while still fulfilling the funding requirements. This solution
should be in place prior to June 2007.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Police and Fire Retirement System is funded from current General Fund revenues.
While an exploration of an alternative funding will be done, it is not likely that there will
be a cost savings over the current annual (and declining) contribution.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
May 6, 2005
Page 3 of 3
The Retiree Health Care Plan is primarily funded from current General Fund revenues.
This annual contribution will grow over time and is therefore more likely to be
financeable. Staff will begin exploration of these alternatives with the goal of reducing
and Ievelizing the General Fund contribution.
RECOMMENDATION
No action is required. This report is presented for your information only.
JB:dI
Attachments
Respectfully submitted
William C. Norton
Interim City Manager
e -Ann Bier
ief Financial Officer
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
May 9, 2005
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Actuarial Valuation Certificate
EXHIBIT A
This report presents the City of Alameda Police and Fire Retirement System Plans 1079 & 1082
January 1, 2005 Actuarial Valuation results.
In preparing this report, we relied on plan provisions (summarized in Exhibit 2) and employee
data furnished by the City (summarized in Exhibit 1). We prepared the valuation using generally
accepted actuarial principles and practices, including methods and assumptions summarized in
Exhibit 3.
We have not audited the employee data provided by the City. However, based on the data and
plan summary, we certify this report accurately presents actuarial valuation results.
The undersigned is a member of the American Academy of Actuaries and meets the qualification
standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to render the actuarial opinion contained
herein.
Bartel Associates
John E. Bartel, ASA, EA, MAAA
President
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Table of Contents
Police and Fire Retirement System Page
Plans 1079 and 1082
Background 1
Participant Data 1
Analysis of Assumptions 2
Benefit/Contribution Results 3
Liability Results 3
Interest Rate Sensitivity 4
Forecast Results 4
Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 27 5
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 2005 Participant Count and Monthly Annuity Distribution 6
Exhibit 2 Plan Summary 8
Exhibit 3 Actuarial Methods and Assumptions Summary 9
Exhibit 4 Benefit Disbursements Forecast 10
Exhibit 5 Reporting and Disclosure Information 11
c: \documents and settings \john bartel\my documents \clients \city of alameda \p &f pension \1 -1 -05 valuation \p & f 1 -01 -05 report.doc
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Background
The City of Alameda Police and Fire Retirement System Plans 1079 and 1082 provide pension
benefits to two closed groups of retirees and surviving spouses. Exhibit 2 summarizes plan
provisions; Exhibit 3 outlines actuarial methods and assumptions.
This valuation was prepared at January 1, 2005, based on January 1, 2005 participant data.
Exhibit 1 summarizes participant information used in the valuation.
Exhibit 5 provides sample Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 27 (GASB
27) reporting and disclosure information.
The following table summarizes valuation results:
Participant Data
This valuation was prepared as of January 1, 2005 based on January 1, 2005 participant data.
There are 56 participants included in Plan 1079 and 2 participants included in Plan 1082.
Exhibit 1 summarizes participant information used in the valuation.
1 This amount is a 15 year amortization of the actuarial accrued liability, without regard to actual benefit payments.
The final annual required contribution is not permitted to be less than actual benefit payments.
June 30, 2002
January 1, 2005
Plan
1079
1082
Total
1079
1082
Total
• Participant count
67
2
69
56
2
58
• Total Annual benefits
('000)
$3,386
$38
$3,424
$3,215
$39
$3,254
• Actuarial accrued
liability (`000)
34,310
772
35,082
30,839
843
31,683
• Present value of benefits
being paid (`000)
26,627
592
27,219
24,138
645
24,783
• Assets (`000)
0
0
0
0
0
0
• Annual Required
Contribution' (`000)
3,328
75
3,403
2,720
74
2,794
• Interest Rate
5.5%
4.0%
Participant Data
This valuation was prepared as of January 1, 2005 based on January 1, 2005 participant data.
There are 56 participants included in Plan 1079 and 2 participants included in Plan 1082.
Exhibit 1 summarizes participant information used in the valuation.
1 This amount is a 15 year amortization of the actuarial accrued liability, without regard to actual benefit payments.
The final annual required contribution is not permitted to be less than actual benefit payments.
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Analysis of Assumptions
For Plan 1079 there was a $537,000 actuarial loss since the last valuation. For Plan 1082 there
was a $64,000 actuarial loss since the last valuation.
The mortality rates have been changed from Ca1PERS' 1988 — 1992 Experience Study in the last
valuation to Ca1PERS' 1997 — 2002 Experience Study. Exhibit 3 provides sample mortality
rates. The interest rate has been changed from 5.5% to 4 %. There are no other changes in
actuarial assumptions since the last actuarial valuation.
The following table shows how the actuarial accrued liability was calculated (000s omitted):
Plan 1079 Plan 1082
1. June 30, 2002 actuarial accrued liability $ 34,310 $ 772
Benefit payments (3,365) (38)
Interest 1,795 41
June 30, 2003 expected actuarial accrued liability 32,740 775
2. June 30, 2003 estimated actuarial accrued liability $ 32,740 $ 775
Benefit payments (3,378) (39)
Interest 1,708 42
June 30, 2004 expected actuarial accrued liability 31,069 778
3. June 30, 2004 estimated actuarial accrued liability $ 31,069 $ 778
4. Benefit payments (7/1/04 - 12/31/04) (1,600) (20)
5. Interest 832 21
6. January 1, 2005 expected actuarial accrued liability 30,302 779
[(3) + (4) + (5)]
7. Actuarial (gain) /loss 537 64
8. January 1, 2005 actuarial accrued liability 30,839 843
1(6) + (7)]
2
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
(Gain) /Loss
The following table shows how the $537,000 loss for plan 1097 and $64,000 loss for plan 1082
were calculated (000s omitted):
Plan 1079 Plan 1082
1. Change Interest Rate (5.5% —* 4 %) $2,967 $156
2. Change Retiree and Disabled Mortality Table $ (492) $ 63
3. Benefits increased more /(less) than expected 823 (17)
4. Correct Uniform Allowance /1082 payment form (402) (99)
5. Benefit changed for Lola Crawford (268) 0
6. Other (2,091) (40)
7. Total (gain) /loss 537 64
Benefit /Contribution Results
Since the June 30, 2002 valuation, the average monthly annuity has increased from
$4,211 /month to $4,784 /month for Plan 1079 and from $1,589 /month to $1,629 /month for Plan
1082. Total annual benefits have decreased from $3,386,000 /year to $3,215,000 /year for Plan
1079 and increased from $38,100 /year to $39,100 /year for Plan 1082. Exhibit 1 shows the
distribution of benefits by age and marital status.
Liability Results
Actuarial Accrued Liability
The actuarial accrued liability is the value, at valuation date, of all expected future payments,
including future cost of living increases. The January 1, 2005 actuarial accrued liability is
$30,839,000 for Plan 1079 as compared to $34,310,000 as of June 30, 2002. The actuarial
accrued liability for Plan 1082 is $843,000 as of January 1, 2005 as compared to $772,000 as of
June 30, 2002.
The change since the prior valuation follows (000s omitted):
1. Experience and assumption (gain) /loss
2. Interest
3. Benefits paid
4. Total changes [(1) + (2) + (3)]
3
Plan 1079 Plan 1082
$ 537 $ 64
4,335 104
(8,343) (97)
$ (3,471) $ 71
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Present Value of Benefits Being Paid
The present value of benefits being paid is the value, at valuation date, of all expected future
payments, excluding future increases. The present value of benefits being paid at January 1,
2005 is $24,138,000 for Plan 1079 and $645,000 for Plan 1082.
Interest Rate Sensitivity
Valuation liabilities are calculated using a 4.0% interest rate. The following table illustrates the
effect on valuation results (000s omitted) using a different interest rate assumption:
4.0% 5.0%
Plan 1079 1082 Total 1079 1082 Total
• Actuarial Accrued Liability $30,839 $ 843 $31,683 $28,801 $ 734 $29,534
• Annual Required 2,720 74 2,794 2,708 69 2,777
Contribution
(without regard to actual benefit
payments)
Forecast Results
Exhibit 4 shows the results of our benefit disbursement forecast, based on the same mortality
assumption as the actuarial study. Highlights are:
• For Plan 1079, payments are projected to be $1.9 million at January 1, 2015 compared to
$3.1 million estimated at January 1, 2005.
• For Plan 1082, payments are projected to be $43,000 at January 1, 2015 compared to $39,000
estimated at January 1, 2005.
• For Plan 1079, the January 1, 2015 average monthly benefit is expected to be $6,880
compared to $4,784 at January 1, 2005.
• For Plan 1082, the January 1, 2015 average monthly benefit is expected to be $1,792
compared to $1,629 at January 1, 2005.
4
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 27
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement No. 27 (November
1994) to establish accounting and financial reporting standards for state and local governments
that provide or participate in pension plans. GASB further issued (June 1997) a Guide to
Implementation for this statement. Statement 27 is effective for fiscal years beginning after June
15, 1997. Exhibit 5 provides sample reporting and disclosure information. However, there are
some important items to note:
• The City has no initial Net Pension Obligation (NPO) at transition for Police and Fire
Retirement System Plans 1079 and 1082. This is based on the following:
• Although the plans do have some allocated assets, the City makes benefit contributions to
the Plans on a pay -as- you -go basis.
• For fiscal years beginning after December 15, 1986 and before adoption of Statement 27,
actuarially determined Annual Required Contributions (ARC) were not calculated and
therefore are not available.
Consequently, according to the City's external auditors, the City's NPO at June 30, 1999 is
zero.
• For future fiscal years, the plan's ARC is based on the greater of:
• 15 year amortization of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability and
• actual benefits paid during year.
• The 2004 /05 ARC - without regard to actual benefit payments - is $2,720,000 for
plan 1079 and $74,000 for plan 1082. If actual benefit payments are more than
this amount, then the ARC will equal actual benefit payments. If actual benefit
payments are less than this amount, the difference must be recognized into
expense and increases the Net Pension Obligation. For example, 2004/05
expected benefit payments are approximately $3.1 million for Plan 1079. If
actual benefits paid equal this amount, or any amount greater than $2,720,000,
the ARC for Plan 1079 will equal the actual benefit payments. However, if
benefit payments are less than $2,720,000, the ARC for Plan 1079 will equal
$2,720,000.
5
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Exhibit 1.A - Plan 1079
2005 Participant Count and Monthly Benefit Distribution
January 1, 2005 Participant Count
Single Lives Married Lives Grand
Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Total
<70 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
70 -74 1 3 4 0 0 0 4
75 -79 0 7 7 5 1 6 13
80 -84 0 8 8 6 0 6 14
85 -89 1 9 10 6 0 6 16
90+ 2 5 7 2 0 2 9
Total 4 32 36 19 1 20 56
January 1, 2005 Monthly Benefit Distribution
Single Lives Married Lives Grand
Age Male Female Total Male Female Total Total
<70 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
70 -74 4,241 17,535 21,776 0 0 0 21,776
75 -79 0 31,855 31,855 23,308 6,038 29,346 61,201
80 -84 0 34,602 34,602 30,575 0 30,575 65,177
85 -89 4,498 39,107 43,605 31,193 0 31,193 74,798
90+ 10,992 25,580 36,572 8,383 0 8,383 44,955
Total 19,731 148,679 168,410 93,459 6,038 99,497 267,907
Notes: Average age: 84.41 years
Proportion of males /females: 41 %/59%
Average monthly annuity: $4,784
6
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Exhibit 1.B — Plan 1082
Participant Data
As of January 1, 2005 only two participants (age 48 and 66) are in Plan 1082. These two
participants receive monthly pension benefit of $2,003 and$1,256.
z..
7
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Exhibit 2 Plan Summary
A. ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS
Closed groups of public safety members and their survivors not participating in Ca1PERS.
B. RETIREMENT BENEFIT
Employees with 25 or more years of service receive annual pension benefits
equal to 50% of annual salary for the rank/position held 1 year before retirement.
Employees terminated after 10 but before 25 years of service receive annual
pension benefits in proportion that the number of years of 'service bears to 25.
C. DISABILITY BENEFIT
Employees who become disabled from service- related causes receive annual
pension benefits equal to 50% of annual salary for the rank/position held at the
date of disability, reduced by any workers' compensation benefit received.
D. COST OF LIVING INCREASES
For Plan 1079, benefits are adjusted to reflect wage increases granted current City
employees.
For Plan 1082, benefits are adjusted annually by a maximum of 2% per year cost -of- living
adjustment.
E. DEATH BENEFITS
For Plan 1079, benefits continue to a surviving eligible spouse at participant's death.
For Plan 1082, 50% benefits continue to a surviving eligible spouse at participant's death.
No other death benefits are payable.
F. CHANGES IN PLAN PROVISIONS SINCE PRIOR REPORT
No changes in plan provisions have occurred from July 1, 2002 through January 1, 2005.
8
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Exhibit 3 Actuarial Methods and Assumptions Summary
A. Actuarial Methods
Calculation of Actuarial Accrued Liability and Actuarial Present Value of
Accumulated Plan Benefits: Actuarial accrued liability and actuarial present value of
accumulated plan benefits were determined by multiplying pension benefits accrued to the
valuation date by present value cost factors, based on applicable actuarial assumptions
below. Note that future wage increases are included in this calculation.
Calculation of Actuarial Present Value of Benefits Being Paid: Actuarial present value of
benefits being paid was determined by multiplying pension benefits accrued to valuation date
by present value cost factors, based on applicable actuarial assumptions below.
B. Actuarial Assumptions
• Investment return
4.0% per year
• Wage Increases
• Actuarial accrued liability Plan 1079 — 4% per year
Plan 1082 — 2% per year
• Actuarial present value of benefits paid N/A
• Mortality
Age
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
100
Ca1PERS' 1997 — 2002 Experience
Study Table
(sample rates below)
Annual Rate /1,000 Participants
Male Female
4.29 2.53
7.21 4.42
13.02 7.95
21.35 12.76
37.16 21.56
62.56 38.83
101.95 72.19
173.79 125.92
347.24 320.36
9
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Exhibit 4 Benefit Disbursements Forecast
(000s Omitted)
Plan 1079
Plan 1082 Total
Year Expected Expected Expected
Beginning Number Benefit Number Benefit Number Benefit
January 1 of lives Payment of lives Payment of lives Payment
2005 56 3,126 2 39 58 3,165
2006 53 3,048 2 40 55 3,088
2007 49 2,957 2 40 51 2,997
2008 46 2,853 2 41 48 2,894
2009 42 2,739 2 41 44 2,780
2010 39 2,614 2 42 41 2,656
2011 35 2,480 2 42 37 2,522
2012 32 2,340 2 42 34 2,382
2013 29 2,195 2 43 31 2,238
2014 26 2,048 2 43 28 2,091
2015 23 1,899 2 43 25 1,942
10
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Exhibit 5 - Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 27
Reporting and Disclosure Information
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement 27 (November 1994)
to establish measurement recognition, and display standards for pension expenditures /expense
and related liabilities, assets, note disclosures and, if applicable, required supplementary
information in the financial reports of state and local governmental employers. Statement 27 is
effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 1997.
Statement 27 supersedes all previous guidance, including Statement 5. This means that once an
employer adopts Statement 27, the previously required standard pension disclosure, PBO, is no
longer required. Instead, sponsors will disclose information consistent with their funding policy.
Employers that sponsor a single employer defined benefit pension plan will report an annual
pension cost (APC) equal to the annual required contribution (ARC) plus an adjustment for the
cumulative difference between the APC and the employer's actual plan contribution. The
cumulative difference is called the Net Pension Obligation (NPO)2.
The APC equals the ARC:
• plus one year's interest on the NPO,
• minus an amortization of past contribution deficiencies (or plus an amortization
of past excess contributions) already included in the ARC - the amortization
equals the beginning of year NPO divided by a present value factor (provided by
the actuary).
The GASB has made it clear that, prospectively, the plan's actuary should provide plan sponsors
a single ARC and that contributions different from the ARC generate an NPO.
Statement 27 requires the following items be disclosed in the footnotes to the City's financial
statements:
• Plan Description
• Funding Policy
• Annual Pension Cost (APC) and $ amount of contributions made -
components of APC (ARC, interest on NPO, adjustment to ARC).
• Three years of data:
► APC
► % of APC Contributed
► NPO at end of year
• Actuarial valuation date, actuarial method(s) and significant assumptions
used to determine ARC.
2 Unless otherwise mentioned, NPO also refers to Net Pension Asset.
t
11
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Following is a draft June 30, 2005 footnote disclosure:
Note XX: Plans 1079 and 1082
Plan Description: The City of Alameda sponsors the City of Alameda Police and Fire
Retirement System Pension Plans 1079 and 1082. Plan 1079 provides pension benefits to a
closed group of retirees and surviving spouses based on 50% of current salary for employees
at the rank/position the retiree held one year before retirement. The benefits include wage
increases to current employees and 9% Ca1PERS contributions for certain years. Plan 1082
provides pension benefits to a closed group of retirees and surviving spouses with benefits
increased each year based on a cost -of- living adjustment (not to exceed 2 %).
Funding Policy - Although the plans have some allocated assets, the City's contribution
policy is to fund the plan on a pay -as- you -go basis. The annual required contribution equals
to the greater of:
• 15 year amortization of the unfunded actuarial accrued liability, and
• actual benefits paid during the year
Annual Pension Cost - Government Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 27
(Statement 27) requires the City to determine the plan's annual pension cost based on the
most recent actuarial valuation. The annual pension cost equals the plan's annual required
contribution, adjusted for historical differences between the annual required contribution and
amounts contributed. The actuary has determined the City's annual required contribution as
the greater of (a) a 15 -year amortization of the unfunded actuarial liability or, (b) actual
benefit payments made for the year.
For fiscal year ending June 30, 2005, the City's annual required contribution was $2,720,000
for Plan 1079 and $74,000 for Plan 1082. This amount compares with City's actual
contributions of $3,126,0003 for Plan 1079 and $39,0003 for Plan 1082. The required
contribution was determined as part of the January 1, 2005 actuarial valuation using the
projected unit credit actuarial cost method. The actuarial assumptions included (a) 4.0%
investment return (net of administrative expenses), (b) the Ca1PERS 1997 — 2002 Experience
Study table for Males and Females, (c) projected annual benefit increases of 4% a year for
Plan 1079 and cost -of- living adjustment of 2% per year for Plan 1082. Both (a) and (c)
include a 3% annual inflation component.
3 Estimated as of January 1, 2005.
12
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
The following table provides 8 years of historical information of the Annual Pension Cost:
Annual
Pension Cost Percentage of Net Pension
Fiscal Year (APC) APC Obligation
Plan Ending (000s omitted) Contributed (000s omitted)
1079 6/30/98 $3,094 100 %4 N/A
6/30/99 3,503 100 %4 N/A
6/30/00 3,492 94% $201
6/30/01 3,346 94% 402
6/30/02 3,316 98% 458
6/30/03 3,345 101% 438
6/30/04 3,358 101% 418
6/30/05 2,6995 116 %6 (9)
Annual
Pension Cost Percentage of Net Pension
Fiscal Year (APC) APC Obligation
Plan Beginning (000s omitted) Contributed (000s omitted)
1082 6/30/98 $37 100 %4 N/A
6/30/99 36 100 %4 N/A
6/30/00 67 55% $30
6/30/01 68 114% 21
6/30/02 65 58% 48
6/30/03 73 53% 82
6/30/04 71 55% 115
6/30/05 695 57 %6 145
4 Annual Pension Cost information for fiscal years before July 1, 1999 was provided by the City.
5 Equal to ARC, which is based on January 1, 2005 accrued liability of $30,839,000 for Plan 1079 and $843,000 for
Plan 1082, plus interest on NPO minus amortization of past contribution deficiencies already included in ARC.
6 Estimated as of January 1, 2005.
13
City of Alameda
Police and Fire Retirement System
Plans 1079 and 1082
Statement 27 requires the following items be disclosed as required supplementary
information to the City's financial statements:
• Actuarial valuation date, actuarial asset value, actuarial accrued liabilities, total unfunded
actuarial liabilities, actuarial assets as % of actuarial accrued liability (funded ratio), annual
covered payroll and ratio of unfunded liability to annual covered payroll.
• Factors significantly affecting trends in the above amounts.
Following is a sample required supplementary information:
SCHEDULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS ($ Amount in Thousands)
Unfunded UAAL as a
Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial Actuarial % of
Valuation Value of Accrued Accrued Funded Covered Covered
Plan Date Assets Liability Liability Ratio Payroll Payroll
(A) (B) (B —A) (A/B) N/A N/A
1079 1/1/97 $1,811 $39,908 $38,098 4.5% N/A N/A
6/30/98 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6/30/99 N/A 35,998' N/A N/A N/A N/A
6/30/00 0 34,597 34,597 0% N/A N/A
6/30/01 0 34,369 34,369 0% N/A N/A
6/30/02 0 34,311 34,311 0% N/A N/A
6/30/03 0 32,740 32,740 0% N/A N/A
6/30/04 0 31,069 31,069 0% N/A N/A
1/1/05 0 30,839 30,839 0% N/A N/A
1082 1/1/97 $114 $697 $583 16.4% N/A N/A
6/30/98 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
6/30/99 N/A 7597 N/A N/A N/A N/A
6/30/00 47 762 715 6.2% N/A N/A
6/30/01 88 767 679 11.5% N/A N/A
6/30/02 0 772 772 0% N/A N/A
6/30/03 0 775 775 0% N/A N/A
6/30/04 0 778 778 0% N/A N/A
1/1/05 0 843 843 0% N/A N/A
Please note only 3 valuation years of historical information are required to be disclosed.
7 June 30, 1999 Actuarial Accrued Liability based on June 30, 2000 valuation.
14
City of Alameda
Retiree Healthcare Plan
S S ()(1: I AT E L LC
January 1, 2005
Actuarial Valuation
ACTUARIAL VALUATION CERTIFICATE
May 2005
This report presents the City of Alameda Retiree Healthcare Plan January 1, 2005 actuarial
valuation results. The purposes of this report are to:
• Determine the plan's January 1, 2005 obligations
• Calculate the City's 2004 /05 fiscal year accrual as if the Governmental Accounting Standards
Board Statement No. 45 (GASB 45 ) standard were adopted for this fiscal year
• Provide information that may be helpful to the City for the Retiree Healthcare Plan's future.
Report contents are outlined below:
• A summary of major results is in Section 1
• GASB 45 OPEB accounting treatment, including 2004/05 accrual and projected June 30, 2005
City reserves, is in Section 2
• Details of the actuarial obligations and 10 -year benefit payout projections are in Section 3
• Sensitivity analysis in Section 4 compares results using an alternative interest assumption
• Costs and liabilities in this report are based on the demographic data, plan provisions, and
funding method/actuarial assumptions shown in Sections 5, 6 and 7
• In Section 8 we discuss GASB 45
This report presents Bartel Associates' best estimate of Retiree Healthcare Plan costs in accordance
with accepted actuarial principles and our understanding of GASB 45.
The undersigned are members of the American Academy of Actuaries and meet Academy
Qualification Standards to render the actuarial results and opinions in this report.
Respectfully submitted,
Bartel Associates LLC
John E. Bartel, ASA, MAAA
President
Bianca Lin, ASA, MAAA
Actuarial Consultant
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Staff Summary
Accounting Information
Principal Actuarial Results
Sensitivity Analysis
Demographic Information
Plan Provisions
Actuarial Methods and Assumptions
GASB OPEB Summary
Page
1
2
4
7
8
13
14
16
Acronyms used in report
Actuarial/Accounting Terminology
• AAL — Actuarial Accrued Liability
• AOC — Annual OPEB Cost
• ARC — Annual Required Contribution
• EAN — Entry Age Normal Cost Method
• GASB 45 — Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 45
• NOO — Net OPEB Obligation
• OPEB — Other (than pensions) Post Employment Benefits
• PVPB — Present Value of all Projected Benefits
Miscellaneous Bargaining Groups
• ACEA — Alameda City Employees Association
• APPT — Appointed
• Elected — Elected Officials
• EXME — Executive Management Employees
• HARE —
■ IBEW — International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245
• MCEA — Management and Confidential Employees Association
• PANS —
■ PT —
Safety Bargaining. Groups
• APMA — Alameda Police Management Association
• APOA — Alameda Police Officers Association
• AFMA — Alameda Municipal Fire Management Association
• IAFF — International Association of Firefighters, Local 689
\\ Baserver \bartel_associates_d\Clients \City of Alameda \ OPEB \Reports\Report 1 -1 -05 Alameda.doc
SECTION 1
STAFF SUMMARY
The City of Alameda provides postretirement healthcare benefits to eligible employees, including:
• Miscellaneous employees who service or disability retire directly from the city, and
• Safety employees who service or disability retire directly from the city with varying service
requirements depending on bargaining unit and hire date.
Coverage for healthcare is provided through PEMHCA. For miscellaneous employees, the city
pays the PEMHCA minimum premium only for healthcare benefits. For Safety employees, the
city pays the full PEMHCA premium for retiree and spouse healthcare benefits, and the full cost
for retiree and spouse dental benefits. More detailed description of plan benefits is provided in
Section 6.
The value of benefits at January 1, 2005 and costs for the 2004/05 fiscal year follow (amounts in
$000' s):
Misc. Safety Total
• PVPB $ 10,921 $ 97,799 $ 108,720
Total present value of all expected future benefits
based on certain actuarial assumptions, is a measure
of total liability or obligation. Essentially, the PVPB
is the value (on the valuation date) of the City's
promise to current employees and retirees.
• AAL 5,368 64,644 70,012
Liability or obligation for benefits earned or allocated
through the valuation date, based on certain actuarial
methods and assumptions
• 2004 /05 ARC1 757 5,918 6,675
Normal Cost (value of benefits being earned or
allocated during a year), plus the amortized unfunded
liability (or less the amortized excess assets).
• 2004/05 AOC 757 5,918 6,675
The first year an agency complies with the new
standards, the AOC equals the ARC. In subsequent
years, the AOC will equal the ARC, adjusted for prior
differences between the ARC and AOC.
• 2004/05 expected benefit payments 17 1,304 1,322
The balance of this report provides detail and support for the above results.
1 The ARC reflects a 20 -year, level amortization (as a percent of payroll) of the unfunded AAL.
City of Alameda . Page 1 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
SECTION 2
ACCOUNTING INFORMATION
The effective date for the GASB 45 accounting standard is fiscal year beginning after
December 15, 2006, with deferred effective dates for GASB 34 phase 2 and 3 governments (see
Section 8). Adoption before this fiscal year is recommended but optional. Following are the 2004/05
ARC, AOC, and June 30, 2005 NOO, assuming the City adopts the accounting standard for fiscal year
2004/05.
Annual Required Contribution (ARC)
A reasonable method for determining the City's retiree healthcare accrual, consistent with the
GASB 45, includes both the Normal Cost and an amortization of the unfunded AAL. Accordingly,
the following shows the City's 2004/05 accrual based on a 20 -year amortization of the unfunded
AAL as a level percentage of payroll (amounts in $000's).
Misc. Safety Total
• Normal Cost $470 $2,459 $2,929
• AAL amortization 287 3,459 3,746
• Total ARC 757 5,918 6,675
• ARC as % of payroll 2.4% 27.7% 12.8%
Annual OPEB Cost (AOC)
GASB 45 will require the AOC to equal the ARC, except when an agency has a NOO at the
beginning of the year. When that happens an agency's AOC will equal the ARC adjusted for
expected interest on the NOO and reduced by an amortization of the NOO. This results in the
following for fiscal 2004/05 (amounts in $000's):
Misc. Safety Total
• ARC $757 $5,918 $6,675
• Interest on NOO 0 0 0
• Amortization of NOO 0 0 0
• Total AOC 757 5,918 6,675
• AOC as % of payroll 2.4% 27.7% 12.8%
City of Alameda Page 2 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
Section 2
Accounting Information
Net OPEB Obligation (NOO)
An agency's Net OPEB Obligation is the historical difference between actual contributions made and
the ARC. If an agency has always contributed the required contribution, then the NOO equals zero.
However, an agency has not "made" the contribution unless it has been set aside and cannot legally be
used for any other purpose.
Based on the AOC developed above, the City's projected June 30, 2005 NOO is (amounts in
$000's):
Misc. Safety Total
• June 30, 2004 N002 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
• AOC 757 5,918 6,675
• Expected interest on NOO 0 0 0
• Expected benefit payments 17 1,304 1,322
• Expected June 30, 2005 N003 740 4,614 5,353
2 Assumes June 30, 2004 Net OPEB Obligation is zero.
3 Actual reserves would use actual 2004/05 benefit payments.
City of Alameda Page 3 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
SECTION 3
PRINCIPAL ACTUARIAL RESULTS
This section presents actuarial obligations and benefit payout projections for the City's retiree
healthcare program.
Actuarial Obligations
The following basic actuarial definitions are used:
• The Present Value of all Projected Benefits (PVPB) is the total present value of all
expected future benefits, based on certain actuarial assumptions.
• The Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL) is the liability or obligation for benefits earned or
allocated through the valuation date, based on certain actuarial methods and assumptions.
• Normal Cost is the value of benefits expected to be earned or allocated during the year,
again based on certain actuarial methods and assumptions.
Our report develops the AAL and Normal Cost using the Entry Age Normal actuarial cost method.
It is designed to produce a Normal Cost that, if all assumptions are met, will generally be a level
percent of payroll. The following graph illustrates the PVPB, with the shaded area representing the
unfunded AAL:
Normal Cost
City of Alameda Page 4 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
Section 3
Principal Actuarial Results
The following table shows results by participant status (amounts in $000's).
Misc. Safety Total
• PVPB
➢ Actives $ 10,002 $ 62,169 $ 72,171
➢ Retirees 919 35,631 36,549
➢ Total 10,921 97,799 108,720
• AAL
➢ Actives 4,449 29,013 33,463
➢ Retirees 919 35,631 36,549
➢ Total 5,368 64,644 70,012
• Assets 0 0 0
• Unfunded AAL 5,368 64,644 70,012
• Normal Cost 470 2,459 2,929
• Payroll 30,899 21,349 52,247
• Expected benefit payments 17 1,304 1,322
City of Alameda Page 5 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
Section 3
Principal Actuarial Results
Cash and Accrual Projections
The following chart shows projected cash flow (benefit payments) and accounting accruals (AOC)
over the next 30 years.
$15,000,000
$12,500,000
$10,000,000
57,500,000
$5,000,000
$2,500,000
5-
30 Year Projection
20
s
20
j0
201
2O2
t Open Group Benefit Payments . - AOC
2O3
The following table lists the projected cash and accruals for the next 10 years (amounts in $000's).
FYE Beginning of Year Annual OPEB
June 30, Net OPEB Obligation Cash Cost (AOC) Payroll
2005 $ - $ 1,322 $ 6,675 $ 52,247
2006 5,353 1,495 6,873 54,335
2007 10,732 1,707 7,063 56,571
2008 16,087 1,928 7,255 58,771
2009 21,415 2,168 7,389 61,005
2010 26,637 2,427 7,571 63,151
2011 31,780 2,703 7,755 65,390
2012 36,833 2,959 7,945 67,687
2013 41,819 3,207 8,141 70,032
2014 46,753 3,462 8,349 72,475
City of Alameda Page 6 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
SECTION 4
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Results in this report are based on a 4.0% interest rate. This rate was selected based on the long
term expected return on City funds. The following compares the results using a 4.0% and 6.0%
interest rate (amounts in $000's).
Interest Rate
4.0% 6.0%
• PVPB $ 108,720 $ 70,930
• Funded Status
• AAL 70,012 51,159
> Assets 0 0
> Unfunded AAL 70,012 51,159
• ARC
> Normal Cost 2,929 1,739
> UAAL Amortization 3,746 3,246
> Total Accrual 6,675 4,985
> Accrual as % of payroll 12.8% 9.5%
City of Alameda Page 7 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
o
F
v1
Tr
N
c
O
0
cf.;
o0
69
$56,762
O
VD
rn
h
h
00
os
0000
O
N
■O
N
142
O
N
O
il
Cr)
O
O
0
N
0
Single
91
0
N
0
0
64
:tv
28
Blue Shield
CU
V)
EA
PERSCare
PORAC
0
.---
Total
O
O
s
ON,--1
N
G
3
-
O
01
69
Q7
EA
ON
00
00
I APM
$165,
EA
‘.O
l-
u!1
00
N
'T
01
69
64
Cp
a
N
42.5
v'i
O
O
EA
EA
71-
oo
a;
o
CI
3,z
N
GS
EW
`r
1.
o
00.
WC)
69
69
:ellaneous
L'OL
GS
N
1F
)S`I
00
69
l---
M
O
VD
N
E/9
ec
N
69
N
CN
V
—
00
C>
c;1
00
EA
00
69
O
h-
CEA
22
47.
10.
0
s
00
VD
EA
6S
Count
Ave Age
Ave Svc
Ave Pay
0 0
o � o
a..
Total
M
—
00
,--I
----
O
N
O
VD
200
Family
VD
48
VD
O
N
O
cd
142
2 Party
----
e-1
O
il
Cr)
O
O
0
24
Single
91
0
N
0
0
0
28
Blue Shield
CU
V)
PERS Choice
PERSCare
PORAC
0
Waived
Total
Retiree Demograhics
Grand
Total
2474
Cl
Lan
54.0
1
SI
kr)
00
—
Total
v�
—
N
\O
—
to
N
.--1
d'
O)
O
bili
emi
4
18
4
CO
O
Li
Ot
d'
CA
d-
O
O
OD
.-
CA
Service
Retirement
O
64.4
0.17
,--4
Total
N
a1
M
VD
01
t
[iscellaneous
Disability
Retirement
00
Q1
49.8
PERSCare
o
a
WHA HMO
Non Ca1PERS
00
Servicf
Retiremei
8
• 70.
C;
Ln
Count
Ave Age
Ave Ret Age
Total
00
Cr)
1
SI
,-.1
VD
h
VD
Family
N
M
N
.--1
,--t
r-i
O
20
18
2 Party
18
O
Li
Ot
d'
O
d-
O
O
OD
.-
CA
Si
d.
d-
,--4
O
N
N
cn
M
a
b
a>
MI
Kaiser
PERS Choice
PERSCare
o
a
WHA HMO
Non Ca1PERS
Total Health
Self insured plan
Type of Coverage
Health
Dental
Miscellaneous
u
u
cA
tr)
�cNy�,
"'
O
N
l�
M
00
01
58
58,715
N
'--+
O
98
(Ten
M
men
VD
001
32
N
t-1
01
M
kr) 00
d'
125 & Over
1
'
1 '
1
'
1
1
N
■-,
N
rn
)!1
06
oo
—1
N
N
01
N
00
.-4
M
VD
1
1
N 00
N o0
00
Ilis
1 20 -24
'
'
1
'
1 '
'
1
,--i
00
s
VD
d
a1
en
81
4[
3C
0 00
N
-
tie
i
i
i
i
i
8Li`8Z
Z
VD
N
O
N
,M-i
Vim)
v::,
16
N
S
t
O
N
N
0000
'I
-
C
1
'
.
.
M
dam'
(-.4
,-+
01
lD 4
M
15
00
0
O)
0 VD
00
~
00
N
lt-
M
0
V')
--1
M
,--i
NN
kr) d'
0
cA
O1
'
'
,--1
O
■D
)n
O
,�
■-i
oo
\D
�
oo
N 0
00
,-1
M
O
00
N
N
,--(
d'
VD
19
N
-
N
01
VD
00
00
\D
M
00
,---
01
,�
V')
7r
7r
— 00
,- i 01
.�
01
VD
0
"'
N
00
00
00
M O
N
N
N
N
h
25
00 N"-
-+ N
VD
14
01
VD
0
VD
M
VD
M
V7
V
1 Under 1
1
'ct
O
kr) l�
71-
i 1
N N
00
N
N
v')
0
7
21
r-i
00
Ny
r
1
1
M 0\
N 0
vD
Count
Count
Count
Count
Average Salary
Count
Count
Count
Countl
Count
Count
Count
Average Salary
1 Age
1 Under 25
C1
el
N
7t
en
O
M
C■
en
M
O
,I'
O■
11)
O
1r)
T
In
et
O
1 65 & Over
Total
V
1 Total
1 83,419
N
,--1
,--r
t
10
00
M ,--a
\O
O1
,--1 'n
V1 00
N
0\
kn 7t
0
,--i
\O N
M N~
N
,--I
N N
0000
■-r
1O
N
C\
M
,--i
,--I
000
Cr,
'
1
O
N l
O
,--i
125 & Over
1 1
1
1
01
,--1
N
d
M
.�
\O N
O
l-
00
N
,- -(
M
,--I
s
N
00
,--i
,--i
,-1
in
s
00
O1
01
1
1
19
128,247 ,
1 20 -24
•
i
1 1
1 1
O0
01
OM
17
71. VD
00
00 ■
,-E
01
N
1
1
1
1
N O
00
M N
,�-�
CO
O
,---
,-(
M
N
.
,--+
V1
.r
l
0
O
Il
,--1 00
N
'
00
,
,
,
'Cr N
N 01
p
7-■1
10 -14
'
N
a000
,--
N 10
,—( 00
- +
O
,--,
00
r
e•I
,--
O
,--i
kn
N
0
O
,--
r•+ a1
O. O-
O
,--
,1
N
00
,—
1
1
1
1
,--, 00
M N
ON
c)
O
5 -9
i
,—,
N
V
bOO
O
t 00
~ N
01
00 ,-1
N
Cl,
,�
,-,
p
�
0
1
1
1 1
1
1
1
1
i
1
,--i
O
a\
ON
.�y.
~i
,--I
00
M
VD
01
O
,1
■0
N
00
00
13
93,454
ON N
10
00
01
2
'
1
,-1
\O
O1
00
000
1
\O 01
Cr) 01
M
C1
1 Under 1
00
t---
00
N o0
Average Salary
Count
Count
Average Salary
Count
Average Salary
Count
Count
Count
Average Salary
Count
Count
Count)
Count
Average Salary
1 Age
01
e4
tA
N
d
en
O
M
0\
en
Co)
'7
O
01
un
et
'[C
O
in
0■
In
1f)
eF
p
1p
65 & Over
Total
3
H
Service
1 Total
00
cn
M
\D
N kin
en O
\p
6s
109
77,838
N N
—1 \O
,-+ D1
00
134
80,242
■•+
I
•---,
\O
N
N
a1 '71-
\O N
00
N
M C.
en 00
N
,--I
Q
O\
en
en
ti') M
00 N
\O N
N
125 &Over
i
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
9
134,421
00
,1
88,631
11
75,325
en O
t�
,---
00
00
1
1
,--1 \O
00
N
et
N
C
N
i
1
1 1
1
1
1 1
00
71..
O■
M
,�
00
N 00
in
O
,--I
,--i
M
N [
s ON
7t. HO
OO
,--i
N
3C
O
M
a,
ON
---i
IA
'
'
' '
'
,
d- O
N
N�
N O~
00 co
O
r-
,--E
en en t
00~ N
t- N
O
N
\O
00
83
77,684
'�i
i
0
'
,---, '-Y
en
t----
O
O\
N
O\
18
86,572
23
73,659
en N
,—i
N
N
O\
en 00 kn
O
C N
kn ,--,
\O
CA
M
,-�
dl-,
ON
N
\O \O oo
- h-
5 -9
i
1
911`6L
Z
27
53
81,174
N O
d-
00
24
68,412
O1 S N N
,--1 \o
N 00
4
83,368
.--I
O1
7t
00 ,--i
N
--I
I-n
,--i
In
O
N
N'
M
O
N
,-1
en
O
\O
\l
\O
N M
en O1
O
�
1/4.0 O
a1
N d-
N
I ON
N en
O
N
00
,--
67,627
15
72,343
O\ \O
O
kn
N
CT ,--1
� \p
Under 1
M
en
t
5
49,577
i 1
N N
00
4
104,562
C
N
N
2
I60`ZOI
1
1ZO`£I i
,-1 O
N
M
M
Count
Count
Average Salary
Count
Count
Average Salary
Count
Average Salary
Count
Average Salary
Count
Average Salary
Count
Average Salary
Count
Average Salary
Count
Count
Average Salary
1 Age
Under 25
ON
til
N
•r
M
M
o\
M
M
et
er
ON
er
et
1n
ON
tf?
in
et
\p
vD
65 & Over
O
Fl
z
o
z
o
U i
Wa
O
0
.
fal GA
cn 'y
O
• s.
1 Flo
ao co,
a
0 O
0
0
En
an i
a.
Safety
•"
Gs
13.83
G
z
d
a
V-)
crk
N
Yes, city pays full cost for retiree and spouse. Dependent coverage can be included with additional cost.
280.24
• Service (age 50 with 5 years of service) or disability retire directly from the city
N
o
z
U
w
a
City pays full monthly premium for retiree and spouse. After age 65, City pays Medic
APOA APMA
• Hired < 7/1 /1995 — None
• Hired > 7/1/1995 — 20 YOS
d
U
a
• Hired < 7/1/1995 —15 YOS
• Hired > 7/1/1995 — 20 YOS
¢
a
Miscellaneous
8
z
)04
City pays PEMHCA
Minimum only. APPT
has same benefit as
Safety.
No, except APPT which
has same benefit as
Safety.
107
Eligibility
Service
Requirement
Health
Coverage
Health
Benefit
N
Retireess
•"
Gs
13.83
L.O
0
h
—1
0
—I
N
V-)
crk
N
five
1oyee
280.24
.40
0
80
00
S
VD
M
CM, 0
' cos;
\O
0
C
M
1
.1.
O
N
WI
n l
eat
)04
0
0
107
2008
41
V
$315.22
N
N
544.77
0
In
O
It
Al
0
s
N
69
243.22
279.60
289.32
o
o
M
280.24
O
N
< 65
VD
°'
•
00
m
Gs
VD
in
M
S
VD
M
CM, 0
' cos;
\O
0
C
M
322.44
.1.
O
N
WI
n l
N
rn
M
64
273.86
VO
0
Cr)
O
fn
c
M
351.00
280.24
41
V
$315.22
o
M
349.41
544.77
O\ o°o
M
N
1:1
Po
b
75
cn
Kaiser
PERS Choice
PERSCare
PORAC
0
a
a)
a)
0
oM
co
en
b;4'
II
.5
00
¢ +
li
awu
0
o
0.
II
a)
U
50
(N1
aw
a.)
SECTION 7
ACTUARIAL METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Actuarial Methods
The actuarial cost method used for this valuation is Entry Age Normal. Under the EAN cost
method, the plan's Normal Cost is developed as a level percent of payroll throughout the
participants' working lifetime. The Actuarial Accrued Liability is the cumulative value, on the
valuation date, of prior Normal Costs. For retirees, the AAL is the present value of all projected
benefits.
The unfunded AAL is amortized over 20 years as a level percent of payroll. This is consistent
with GASB 45 and this plan's demographics.
The plan is assumed to be ongoing for cost purposes. This does not imply that an obligation to
continue the plan exists.
Actuarial Assumptions
Assumptions used in the valuation are as follows:
•
Interest rate
4.0 %, representing the long -term expected rate of return on City funds. The GASB OPEB
standard requires the interest rate to represent the underlying expected return for the source of
funds used to pay benefits. Unless the City sets up a separate trust, this source is City funds.
•
Demographic assumptions
Ca1PERS 1997 -2002 experience study for salary increases, withdrawal, mortality, disability,
and retirement rates (2 % @55 for miscellaneous and 3 % @50 for safety).
•
Healthcare cost increases
Year HMO PPO
2005 13.0% 14.0%
2006 12.1 13.1
2007 11.2 12.2
2008 10.3 11.3
2009 9.4 10.4
2010 8.5 9.5
2011 7.6 8.6
2012 6.7 7.7
2013 5.8 6.8
2014 4.9 5.9
2015+ 4.0 5.0
•
Dental claim cost
> $31 /month/person
•
Dental cost increase
> 3% per year
City of Alameda
Retiree Healthcare Plan
Page 14
January 1,2005
Actuarial Valuation
Section 7
Actuarial Methods and Assumptions
•
Participation
> Covered: 100%
> Not covered: 80%
•
Dependents
> Actives:
• Covered
— current marital status
• Not covered
—80% married
> Retirees: current marital status
•
Medicare Eligible
> 100% eligible for Medicare
•
Medical Plan at Retirement
> Currently covered - same
> Waived — 80% covered at retirement using average premium rates for covered employees
•
Spouse Age
> Females 3 years younger than males.
•
Aggregate Payroll
> Assumed to increase 3.25% per annum (used to amortize unfunded AAL)
City of Alameda Page 15 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
SECTION 8
GASB OPEB SUMMARY
On June 21, 2004, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board approved Statement No. 45 (GASB
45), accounting standards for other (than pensions) postemployment benefits (OPEB). Accounting for
these benefits — primarily postretirement medical — can have significant impact on state and local
government financial statements. This section summarizes GASB 45.
Background
Historically, most public sector entities have accounted for OPEB using a "pay -as- you -go" approach;
very few have prefunded or even accrued for these benefits. This means OPEB costs are ignored while
an employee renders service and recognized only after an employee retires. GASB argues this delayed
recognition shifts "costs" from one taxpaying generation to another. The GASB position is that OPEB,
like pension benefits, are a form of deferred compensation. Accordingly, GASB 45 requires
recognizing OPEB (in the fmancial statement) as employees render service (and consequently earn the
benefit), rather than when paid.
Effective Dates
GASB 45 effective dates are phased in similar to GASB's Statement No. 34:
• Fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006 for GASB 34 phase 1 governments (total annual
revenue of $100 million or more)
• Fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2007 for GASB 34 phase 2 governments (total annual
revenue of $10 million to $100 million)
• Fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008 for GASB 34 phase 3 governments (total annual
revenue less than $10 million).
What Benefits are OPEB?
OPEB includes most postemployment benefits, other than pensions, that employees are entitled to after
leaving employment:
• Retiree medical
• Dental
• Prescription drug
• Vision
• Life insurance
• Outside group legal
• Long -term care
• Disability benefits outside a pension plan
OPEB does not include vacation, sick leave, COBRA, or ad hoc early retirement incentives, which fall
under other GASB accounting statements.
Accounting Standards
Under GASB 45, pay -as- you -go accounting is replaced with accrual accounting. This is virtually
City of Alameda Page 16 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
Section 8
GASB OPEB Summary
identical to GASB's approach under Statement No. 27, with the key financial statement components
being an Annual Required Contribution, an Annual OPEB Cost, and a Net OPEB Obligation.
• Annual Required Contribution (ARC): GASB 45 doesn't require an agency to make up any
shortfall (unfunded Actuarial Liability) immediately, nor does it allow an immediate credit for any
excess Plan Assets. Instead, the difference is amortized over time. An agency's ARC is nothing more
complicated than the employer current Normal Cost (value of benefits being "earned" during a year),
plus the amortized unfunded Actuarial Liability (or less the amortized excess Plan Assets). Simply put,
ARC is the value of benefits earned during the year plus (or minus) something to move the plan toward
being on track for funding. GASB 45 allows actuaries to amortize the unfunded Actuarial Liability
(or excess Plan Assets) on a level dollar or level percent of payroll basis. We believe most agencies
will want to use a level percent of payroll amortization because it's more consistent with the budget
process and how pension contributions are usually calculated. ARC must be based on the
underlying OPEB promise (as understood by the plan sponsor and employees).
• Annual OPEB Cost (AOC): The first year an agency complies with the new standards, the AOC
equals the ARC. In subsequent years, the AOC will equal the ARC, adjusted for prior differences
between the ARC and AOC.
• Net OPEB Obligation (NOO): An agency's NOO is the historical difference between actual
contributions made and the ARC. If an agency has always contributed the ARC, the NOO equals zero.
However, an agency has not "made" the contribution unless it has been set aside and cannot legally be
used for any other purpose.
Implementation Process
The implementation process will be relatively straightforward: An agency will hire an actuary to
calculate the ARC. The first time an agency does this, their AOC equals their ARC. The agency then
decides whether to contribute all, none, or part of the ARC into a Trust that cannot legally be used for
any purpose other than paying OPEB.
If an agency always contributes the ARC, then each subsequent year's AOC equals their ARC — and the
NOO is zero. The first year an agency does not contribute the ARC, they must establish an NOO equal
to the difference between their actual contribution and the ARC. The subsequent year's AOC equals
the ARC, adjusted for interest and amortization of the NOO.
Disclosure Requirements
This may be the most important aspect of GASB 45. When disclosed, some agencies will show large
OPEB unfunded liabilities, while others will show small or no unfunded liabilities. These differences
may require an adjustment in an agency's bond rating. Plan sponsors must disclose in their financial
statement footnotes:
• Basic plan information
> Plan type
> Benefits provided
> Authority under which benefits were established
City of Alameda Page 17 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
Section 8
GASB OPEB Summary
• Plan funding/contribution policy information:
> Required contribution rates for active members and employers shown in dollars or as a percent
of payroll
• Plan Funded Status information:
> AOC and the dollar contributions actually made
> If the employer has a NOO, also
• Components of the AOC
• NOO increase or decrease during the year
• End of year NOO
> 3 -year history of
• AOC
• Percent of AOC contributed during the year
• End of year NOO
> Most recent year's plan Funded Status
> Actuarial methods and assumptions used to determine the ARC, AOC, and Funded Status.
In addition, plan sponsors must provide 3 years of historical required supplementary information:
• Valuation dates
• Actuarial asset values
• Actuarial Liability
• Unfunded Actuarial Liability (excess Plan Assets)
• Plan funded ratio
• Annual covered payroll
• Ratio of unfunded Actuarial Liability (excess Plan Assets) to annual covered payroll
• Factors that significantly affect comparing the above information across the years.
Defining the Plan
GASB 45 refers to the substantive plan as the basis for accounting. It may differ from the written plan
in that it reflects the employer's cost sharing policy based on:
• Past practice or communication of intended changes to a plan's cost sharing provisions, or
• Past practice of cost increases in monetary benefits.
The substantive plan is the basis for allowing recognition of potential future plan changes. This
approach requires entities to acknowledge the underlying promise, not just the written plan.
What if retirees participate in the active healthcare plan, but are charged a rate based on composite
active and retiree experience? (This was a contentious issue during the statement drafting, with one of
the 7 board members dissenting from Board adoption of the final statement.) In general, GASB 45
requires recognition of the implied subsidy. However, if benefits are provided through a community
rated plan (premium rates based on experience of multiple employers rather than a single employer),
and the same premium is charged for active and retired participants, it is appropriate to value unadjusted
premiums.
City of Alameda Page 18 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
Section 8
GASB OPEB Summary
Actuarial Assumptions and Discount Rate Requirements
Under GASB 45, the actuary must follow current actuarial standards of practice, which generally call
for explicit assumptions — meaning each individual assumption represents the actuary's best estimate.
GASB 45 also requires basing the discount rate on the source of funds used to pay the benefits. This
means the underlying expected long -term rate of return on Plan Assets for funded plans. Since the
source of funds for unfunded plans is usually an agency's general fund, and California and most other
state law restricts what investments agencies can have in their general fund, unfunded plans will need to
use a low (for example, 5 %) discount rate. If an agency sets up a Trust and diversifies Trust Plan
Assets, however, the discount rate might be much higher (such as 7 %) depending on the Trust fund's
expected long -term investment return.
Transition Issues
Typically, new accounting standards allow transition from old to new requirements. Because historical
ARC calculations will rarely be available, GASB 45 takes a prospective transition approach: there is no
requirement for an initial transition obligation. But if AOCs, before transition, were calculated
consistently with the standard, a NOO at transition can be established at an agency's discretion.
Valuation Frequency Requirements and Small Plans
GASB 45 requires an actuarial valuation at least every 2 years for plans with more than 200 (active,
inactive, and retired) members. Plans with fewer than 200 members will need a valuation every 3
years. In a significant departure from prior standards, though, GASB 45 allows plans with fewer than
100 members to elect a simplified measurement method — not requiring an actuarial certification.
City of Alameda Page 19 January 1, 2005
Retiree Healthcare Plan Actuarial Valuation
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 6, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Presentation of the Proposed Operating and Capital Improvements Budget for
Fiscal Year 2005 -2006
BACKGROUND
The City Council considered a two year financial plan for the Fiscal Years 2004 -2005 and
2005 -2006 in May 2004. In July 2004, the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement
Budgets for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005 were adopted and funds appropriated. During the past
year, several major amendments to that budget have occurred. As a result, staff has
constructed a new Fiscal Year 2005 -2006 operating and capital improvement budget for
your consideration.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Revenues
General Fund revenues are estimated to increase 4.04% over the Fiscal Year 2004 -2005
estimates to a total of $68,610,023. The major revenue items are as follows:
> Property Taxes $17,330,740
➢ Utility Users Tax $ 7,939,000
> Current Services $ 7,638,216
> Sales Taxes $ 6,028,946
➢ Property Transfer Tax $ 4,969,907
25.3% of the total
11.6% of the total
11.1`)/0 of the total
8.8% of the total
7.2% of the total
All of these sources with the exception of Property Taxes are volatile. They will fluctuate
with severe economic changes. Therefore, these estimates are relatively conservative.
Other major revenues
Redevelopment, Community Development, Commercial Revitalization, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment, and FISC, all under the aegis of Development Services, total
$47,293,449. The majority of this revenue is from property tax increments, lease revenues,
drawdowns from previously sold bonds, federal grants and other state or county grants.
The details of these revenues can be found in a comprehensive overview.
Dedicated toce(Cence, Committed to Service
Report 5 -H
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
July 14, 2004
Page 2
Measure B (ACTIA) provides approximately $2.2 million in revenues to be used for specific
transportation purposes. The majority of these funds are used for Capital Improvement
Projects.
Enterprise Funds (Golf, Sewer Service, and Ferry Services) have significant revenues that
are from rates set by the Council to meet operating and capital costs. The proposed
budget does not include any proposed rate increases for these activities.
Total Revenues for all funds, including, for memo purposes only the Housing Authority and
Alameda Power & Telecom, total $270,693,088.
Appropriations
The underlying assumption is that only those ongoing programs and costs that can be
realistically paid by ongoing revenues are included herein. In order to achieve a balanced
budget, there were several measures employed. These reductions total $1,976,156 and
are detailed on the attachment. They involve not funding 12 police and fire positions,
leaving two manager positions vacant and not funding four positions including three layoffs.
The General Fund Operating Budget has increased 4.1% over the prior year's amended
operating budget. The total General Fund Operating Budget as proposed totals
$68,865,895. In addition, the General Fund Equipment Replacement budget has
increased 30% from $395,600 to $515,537.
In comparison to the prior year's amended budget, various categories represented the
following proportion of the total General Fund Operating Budget:
Category
FY 04 -05
FY 05 -06
Administration
9.5%
8.8%
Public Safety
56.8%
59.9%
Planning & Building
4.3%
4.8%
Public Works
8.4%
7.9%
Recreation& Parks
5.4%
5.2%
Maintenance Projects
1.7%
1.5%
Non Departmental
0.6%
0.3%
Debt Service
1.5%
1.4%
Library
2.2%
2.2%
Fire Police Pension
6.9%
4.3%
Retiree Health Care
0.0%
2.1%
Risk Management
1.2%
1.2%
Capital Improvement
1.4%
0.3%
Urban Runoff
0.1%
0.1%
TOTAL
100%
100%
Dedicated to E,,Cceffence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
General Fund increases for 2005 -06 include:
a) PERS increase:
Miscellaneous $855,637
Public Safety ($383,104)
Total $472,533
b) Capital Outlay $ 74,084
c) Retiree Health Care $256,778
d) Plan 1079 and 1082 ($589,200)
e) Maintenance Projects ($111,222)
Other funds appropriations
July 14, 2004
Page 3
Redevelopment, Community Development, Commercial Revitalization, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment, and FISC, all under the aegis of Development Services, total
$58,990,554. The majority of these expenditures represent projects and programs
approved by the Community Improvement Commission and the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority,
Capital Improvement Projects total $4,116,493 and include work on the Congestion
Management Program, Krusi Recreation Center Replacement, Street Resurfacing,
Sidewalk Repairs, and Sewer and Storm Drain Upgrades.
Enterprise Funds (Golf, Sewer Service, and Ferry Services) have significant appropriations
to accomplish their specific missions. The total appropriations are $12,034,108.
Total Appropriations for all funds, including, for memo purposes only the Housing
Authority and Alameda Power & Telecom, total $287,494,060.
BUDGET /FISCAL IMPACT
The Proposed Budget as presented is balanced. If adopted as presented, there will be no
impact on the General Fund reserves, which represents 26.9% of the operating budget.
Any reductions of revenues or increases to expenditures will require an equal and
offsetting increase to revenues or decrease in expenditures. The alternative is to authorize
the use of reserves for one -time expenditures.
Dedicated to ceCence, Committed to Service
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDATION
July 14, 2004
Page 4
The Acting City Manager recommends the City Council review the document as presented
and hear from the Departments regarding the impacts of this budget; and, further, to adopt
the Operating and Capital Improvement Budget for Fiscal Year 2005 -2006 at its June 7,
2005 meeting.
JB /dI
Attachments: General Fund Budget Summary
G:\ FINANCE\ COUNCILl070604 \BUDGET0406.CC.doc
Respectfully submitted,
William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
By:'JuelleAnn toyer
Chief Financial Officer
Dedicated to Excel-knee, Committed to Service
N
0
O
Fm
0
0
Ew)
ma A
w
0)
0 3 to
V
5.46'
cc o
LL
0
0
O.
0
0
0)
o.
0
Cs 0 0 W m N r n
O .- Cl. to 0/ r 1 N
n N- M N r 0 M
a .M- o M Or1 m' W
a s-
w
000
V 0 N
(0(4)
0)
0)
(o
n (r0 000100)
0O .- N a0 0 r
O ^ V m N
e-
N N (O O N 0 0
N O0) _0_9N011..-
(Ia) a0") N ((010 0 m n
0 a- O M 0 0' r
1)
w
N 0,MNN00 V
M 000)0)00)0
✓ r N N 0 V 0 N
0 • N 0)00 N0() o
0) '0100000
00- 0 s-
w
00
00
0
O
N
O (COO 0 a-Mn
a- 0 m( V M
CO. a-N (•)0)
r
M �)(1)(1)0)Q)�)0)
N m 0 0 M r 0
o (4)00010.00
N V 0 10 0
w 0 m m o O r
aO N s-
0
e ee e e e
m� CO CO V
0 00 V a0 N r
O
n M 0
taf C110
• N O—
O) am
ma
• 0 m
(o v
N
W m M1
M M N
• O a g
h (0 O
CO rs 10 CO CO
VN 1)) M ci
moo
-:00
0 N N
N
V
00 0 0 0
.-00N0 M000.-
V N 0
e eeeeee e
N V N O N 009 O7 O
O 'N0,0 O
O
N 0 O O N O V r
O) 0 m 000000.. O
009 0 V 00 0 0 N 00) Oa'
W
✓ W N
0 0 0
0
W 0 000 0
(o
N
M N (0i M
M M
eel °o A
r V M
a r ' ci
CO
CO
of
N 0 O 0 r 0
r N N 00 M a0)
N
O CO ( CO M CO
W 0 a- r W
N Q N a0) r
a m V N m
O 0 10 0 ) 16
e ( 0 o e e
r M 0 r N M
✓ MO! n 0 N
CO 0 V V n N
N
O) 0N-0
0) 04.00
0 V 0 0
a 0 00'))
0 000
0 N M 0
a N 0) N
0 ON.
m vr
om
(+9
0 0
o 0 'n
N a
m , N-
0 V 1
Ca O W 0
NCO
00 N(O
M 0.0303
as • o(°0n
0 0 0 0
(O a-0N
N a-
N m 0) 0 n
0 CO 00 r
(d m M (0 0
N CO a (N0 O
• M N C) IMO
(O00)O
O O
N N 000
00°
0 0
M N
O V
N 000000 0 O 0 N 0 V 0
N .N- OON000) 000 00D N O n A
aT (O,- 0061-0) M r 0 o16 00
.-- V .- , M 00 Om 01 r
e- .- V 0
O e e e e e e e e
(O M V NOer -NO 0
O ,0C11,00 O
0
0 000000 00030000 N
0 (00 0 V 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 N M
0 O O O N V r 0 0 0 V
O (O. -00) O 0 0,— 00(0 N
V . m CO W N V 0O N 0 0 t0+) • 0
a- N 0) Of a.
N
0 r
0 0 0)
M
0 0 y
IS M
N
V 0) 0)
0 0 0 0
N. N N N
N
N
O M 0) H
V h ID
0
0 (4) 0- O
N CO CO N V
O N n N r
00 r
0 r 0 V IO 0 0°
N 0 0 N 00
a0 M R N a0 ea
V N M 0 n M V
V) M N C
V (0
0 0
0 O a- 0 0 0 N
t0+) R! 0°00) 00)
N
O N 0 0 0 0
0 0 x 0 0 0
vr000
00 O O a f)
0 N V O 0
0 (n V 0 N
co aarls-m
O wn4ma
N0 (0)00
N. 0000., -100)
E
4. m
Q c
�E 0 c
a N .. a U) O U C
we u _° �°) °) n U E
;-9.2 c ?
m ,E to a F tU N = m •• c'w
i2 !n Q ¢ a' c) v E m >. m ¢ mQ o �, w o W 20.
U u U 5 a 9 `� to (.1 d (0 p 2 L)1 a U a m m ~ 7 o c
— w °) >, o c o m' w LL d m ac) E ' a o m U m m' E E' 3 .. Na °. c�
,�mwE v F- ~ aif Y`o c C7 eaci c 2QUtgQh O$ omac� a3 W c>gd
oco 105 rn 4 �ceT m a :Z TOE'S `�Ern1m
oma)vcm o_ m 22-E0— mc ar wd am c z 2E00`
U U Q E E H u N E u 2 S p e m m c 0 00 2 O o
... 2 ° o d d m g 8 m m !4 c a t y a r m m E a LL
E 0 0 0 U iL x 5 a E a a a m 2 a a¢ H z 4-0O0 m f U S m a Q c
y 0 0) 0(0 0
0 'O w 9] m O
O
O C a. N U
Oi
Q ovm a
z
C7 a (i > cc
n
10
0
0
5/10/20059:13 AM
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 9, 2005
To: Honorable Mayor and
• Councilmembers
From: William C. Norton
Acting City Manager
Re: Update on City's Infrastructure Investment Challenges
BACKGROUND
The City of Alameda is the guardian of an extensive infrastructure system that was established
largely by and for our citizens. According to the June 30, 2004 Comprehensive Annual Finance
Report (CAFR), the City's infrastructure discussed in this report is valued at $518 million. This
represents a sizeable investment that directly affects Alamedans' quality of life and requires on -going
maintenance to insure its long -term sustainability. A proactive maintenance program is very costly
and the City does not have the necessary funds available to implement such a program.
The City of Alameda is not an anomaly in our infrastructure concerns. Throughout California, local
streets and roads are urgently in need of repair. Based on the most recent statewide survey of
counties and cities, there is a current backlog of $13 billion in locally needed pavement repairs.
Furthermore, instead of increasing funding to meet the demand of infrastructure needs, the trend in
state funding has declined over the years. According to the League of California Cities' May 2005
edition of "Western City", state per capita spending on infrastructure has been consistently declining
from a peak in the 1950s of $180 per capita (in 1996 dollars) to less than $20 per capita in the 1980s
and 1990s.
DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS
Overall Assessment of Required Maintenance Costs:
During the CIP budgetary process and through various Off - Agenda Reports, the City Manager's
Office has advised past City Councils of the need to allocate additional funds beyond the historic
allocations to sustain the City's infrastructure. To continue this flow of information, the Acting City
Manager directed the Public Works Department to prepare this report summarizing the collective
challenges associated with our infrastructure investment. Staff reviewed the City's existing
infrastructure records and developed an updated assessment of underfunded maintenance needs
based on maintenance records and past Master Plan studies. Exhibit "A" reflects this assessment and
contains the tabulation of the following:
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
cnvofnlameai
PpublicWorks
Department
nmfieWork w *r far Yon!
Report 5 -1
5 -17 -05
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 2
May 9, 2005
➢ Preventative Maintenance of the City's Infrastructure investments that is underfunded
➢ Required annual amounts to maintain the infrastructure system at "Good" condition
➢ Budgeted annual amount per type of infrastructure
➢ Overall amount of deferred maintenance to bring infrastructure to "Good" condition
➢ Eligible and potential funding sources
The tabulations in Exhibit A show that City of Alameda will need to fund approximately $33 million
to bring the existing infrastructure to a "Good" condition. A "Good" condition constitutes an
infrastructure system which:
➢ Functions and performs as designed without interruption to service
D Requires minimum on -going maintenance and operation costs
D Contains very low financial, health and safety risk
Furthermore, the tabulations indicate that the current budgeted annual amounts do not adequately
fund the on -going maintenance needs of our infrastructure investments by $2,700,000 dollars to
maintain the existing infrastructure at its current condition.
Although the approach to calculate the overall deferred maintenance was conducted through a
simplified straight -line deduction method, and adjusted by the current construction cost index, the
actual reduction in infrastructure integrity due to lack of on -going maintenance is not linear and the
amount of deferred maintenance may be greater. To fully and more accurately assess the total
amount of all the City's infrastructure investment challenges more detailed studies are necessary. Of
course, additional funding will be necessary to prepare the required studies. Anticipating this need,
the Public Works Department updated the pavement conditions report in 2004 (previously updated in
2000) and City Council recently authorized funding for the development of the Sanitary Sewer
Master Plan. Staff estimates the sewer study will commence during fiscal year 2005 -2006.
Street Resurfacing Program:
The annual street resurfacing program is based on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's
(MTC) Pavement Management Program (PMP) which was updated in 2004. Most cities in the Bay
Area use this program and, in fact, the City is required to use it to be eligible for grant funds to
resurface streets. The program evaluates street segments for three street types (arterial, collector, and
residential) using the asset management methodology as opposed to a straight -line deduction
methodology. Based on field observations of the street pavement surface, the amount, type and
severity of distress of each street segment is estimated. In addition, information on traffic loading
(including adjustments for buses and trucks) and pavement design criteria (including soils and
pavement thickness) is provided. This information is used by the program to calculate a pavement
condition index (PCI). Please note, this rating is a general approximation of the overall condition of
the street pavement.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Gtyafuameda
PLubli(Works
Department
Public Works Wrurl frn Km!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
PCI ratings are described as follows:
76 -100 Excellent
71 -75 Very Good — MTC's Target Rating for Bay Area Cities
50 -70 Good
25 -49 Poor
0 -24 Very Poor
Currently the City's street system is categorized as follows:
Page 3
May 9, 2005
35.35% (47.53 miles) Excellent
15.83% (21.28 miles) Very Good - MTC's Target Rating for Bay Area Cities
38.25% (51.43 miles) Good
9.91% (13.33 miles) Poor
0.66% (0.89 miles) Very Poor
According to MTC, Alameda's City overall pavement system is rated 68, which ranks it slightly
above the Bay Area average. A copy of the complete PMP is on file in the Public Works
Department.
The City uses the PMP as a guideline in determining what street segments should be included in our
annual resurfacing program. The City adjusts the selection of streets based upon additional
information including utility trenching plans, development plans, new surface distress observations
and cost constraints. The City then determines the appropriate repair method based on an evaluation
of effectiveness of different types of repair. The effectiveness is dependent upon the type of failure
(base, surface, weathering, lateral dislocation, etc.), estimated longevity of the repair, estimated life
cycle increase associated with the repair, and the estimated cost of the repair. Types of repair
included in the annual program are: breakout and reconstruction of failed areas only; grind and
replace asphalt surface; asphalt overlay; and, to a lesser extent, slurry seal and crack seal. In many
cities, slurry seal and crack seal are performed by Public Works maintenance staff; however,
Alameda does not have the expertise, staff or equipment available to perform this work.
Major repair costs range from $12 to $80 per square yard (SY) depending on the type of repair
(reconstruction, grind and replace, or overlay). The estimated cost to repair the City's streets rated
poor to very poor is nearly $2,500,000. The costs to repair the City's streets rated good but less than
our current PCI of 68 is another $10,500,000.
Asset Management Versus Straight -Line Deduction - Annual Funding for Resurfacing:
The differences between calculations using the straight -line deduction method versus the asset
management method can be illustrated by the street resurfacing program. Using the 2004 PMP and
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
atvominid,
Pp blicWorks
apartment
Public Wrnls W Irks fir Y s!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 4
May 9, 2005
the City's historical annual funding of between $350,000 to $500,000 for resurfacing; after 10 years
of appropriating $500,000 annually for street resurfacing, the City's overall pavement condition will
be reduced from the current "good" PCI of 68 to a (borderline) "good" PCI of 50. This will
consequently increase the pavement shortfall from $13 million dollars to $74.9 million dollars. If
calculated using the straight -line deduction method, the pavement shortfall would be estimated at
$43.1 million dollars. The PMP calculation reflects a higher yet more accurate pavement shortfall
values because the method incorporates the escalating costs as the pavement ages.
Additionally, the street resurfacing program also exemplifies the notion of "pay now or pay more
later ". According to the PMP information, the City should be allocating $2.75 million annually for
street resurfacing and preventative maintenance. As shown in the chart below, if this funding level
was provided annually for 10 years, the existing "good" pavement condition index (PCI) of 68 would
be maintained. However, since we are not able to bring all our streets to a "good" condition the total
pavement shortfall would be $37 million dollars. Comparing the two alternatives shows that
although the City will be spending $22 million dollars more (over 10 years) with the PMP
recommended amount, it will actual yield a total savings of $15.9 million dollars after 10 years, the
difference in the total amount of shortfall ($37.9 million) less the difference in expenses over 10
years ($22 million).
Pavement Management Program, Based on 10 -Year Plan
Savings from using recommended budget in 10 years =
$15.9 million
Exhibit B, a graph prepared by the California State Association of Counties and League of California
Cities, illustrates the impact of deferred maintenance, as road quality deteriorates over time, it
becomes more costly to make the needed repairs. Exhibit C, the pavement deterioration curve,
shows that after a street has reached a certain level of deterioration it rapidly declines over time.
Pothole Repair Program:
Because the City was not adequately funding its preventative maintenance program for street
resurfacing, the City Manager recommended and Council approved the establishment of a dedicated
pothole repair crew of two (2) maintenance workers in 2001. However, with the recent 20%
reductions in Public Works Department personnel, we have been required to combine the work of
pothole crew and the sidewalk repair crew. The crew responds to customer service calls as well as
making their own scheduled inspections. Inspections are targeted first to main arterials then
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Gtvofu.iwda
PpublicWorks
epartrnent
Public WMS Nfilaf Gnr!
Historic Funding
PMS Recommended
Funding
Cost Difference
Annual Amount
$ 0.5 million per year
$ 2.7 million per year
$ 2.2 million per year
10 -Year Amount
$ 5.0 million
$27.0 million
$ 22.0 million
Shortfall
$74.9 million
$37.0 million
$ 37.9 million
Savings from using recommended budget in 10 years =
$15.9 million
Exhibit B, a graph prepared by the California State Association of Counties and League of California
Cities, illustrates the impact of deferred maintenance, as road quality deteriorates over time, it
becomes more costly to make the needed repairs. Exhibit C, the pavement deterioration curve,
shows that after a street has reached a certain level of deterioration it rapidly declines over time.
Pothole Repair Program:
Because the City was not adequately funding its preventative maintenance program for street
resurfacing, the City Manager recommended and Council approved the establishment of a dedicated
pothole repair crew of two (2) maintenance workers in 2001. However, with the recent 20%
reductions in Public Works Department personnel, we have been required to combine the work of
pothole crew and the sidewalk repair crew. The crew responds to customer service calls as well as
making their own scheduled inspections. Inspections are targeted first to main arterials then
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
Gtvofu.iwda
PpublicWorks
epartrnent
Public WMS Nfilaf Gnr!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 5
May 9, 2005
collectors and finally local streets. The goal is to have repairs made within 5 days, when asphalt
material is available. Asphalt plants periodically close because of plant failure or because large
paving projects require exclusive use of the facility. On average, the City patches 84 potholes per
month (based on 2004 data). A complete list of locations requiring repair is kept on file in the
Maintenance Superintendent's office. Since patching is not feasible during the rainy season, this
activity occurs primarily during April to October. A new pothole patching vehicle was purchased by
the City in 2002.
Sidewalk Repair Program:
The City has approximately 250 miles of sidewalks. The City's process for evaluating sidewalk
condition is based upon regular field inspection by City inspectors and resident telephone calls.
Based on case law, and in consultation with the Risk Manager, Alameda (as do most cities) considers
a displacement in the sidewalk of three - quarter inch (3/4 ") or greater to be deficient. For purposes of
sidewalk inspection, the City is divided into five geographic areas, (Alameda Point, West End,
Central Island, East End, and Bay Farm Island). Each area is walked once every five (5) years. In
addition to the geographic inspections, high use pedestrian areas are inspected annually. High use
pedestrian areas include the blocks adjacent to schools, parks, institutions (hospitals, etc.), and major
retail commercial districts. This inspection program was developed in consultation with the Risk
Manager.
City Repairs:
The City repairs sidewalk displacements of 3/4" or greater when said displacement is caused solely
by a City owned street tree. City forces make the repair. Repairs generally fall into the following
categories:
1. Temporary asphalt repair consists of placing asphalt fillets at locations where a sidewalk
portion has lifted or settled by more than 3/4 -inch from the adjacent sidewalk section. The
Maintenance Division performs these repairs within four weeks of receiving a complaint.
2. Permanent grinding repair consists of grinding a section of concrete to eliminate vertical
differences between two sidewalk sections of % -inch or less. Grinding larger vertical
separations is not considered feasible because of equipment limitations and possible
structural failure of reduced section thickness. The Maintenance Division performs these
repairs within four weeks of receiving a complaint.
3. Permanent concrete replacement repair consists of removal and replacement of the sidewalk
sections. This work is performed by an annual fiscal year contractor. Accounting for design,
administration, and inspection, the cost per location is approximately $1,000.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
cmorawm,a.
Pp blkWorks
Pepartrnent
Public work Workf You!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 6
May 9, 2005
As of mid-April 2005, there are 1670 pending locations, some dating back to the middle of 2001
requiring permanent repair. In order to complete all pending repairs, additional funds of $1,500,000
would be needed. Since the repair program looks at one of five districts every year, staff estimates
that there could be an additional $1,500,000 in unknown additional sidewalk repairs citywide.
Property Owner Repairs:
Section 5600 of the California Streets and Highways Code states owners of lots fronting public
streets "shall maintain any sidewalk in such condition that the sidewalk will not endanger persons or
property and maintain it in a condition which will not interfere with public convenience." The City
of Alameda has reduced property owners' responsibility by agreeing to make repairs to sidewalk
displacements caused by a City street tree. For property owner repairs, the City issues sidewalk
repair tags to the property owner and requests the repair be performed within 15 days. The City
offers the use (and associated cheaper price) of the annual sidewalk repair contract to property
owners provided they pre -pay for their location. Approximately 120 property owner responsible
locations were repaired through this pre - payment approach this past fiscal year.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The tabulations in Exhibit A show that City of Alameda will need to fund approximately $33 million
to bring the existing infrastructure to a uniformly acceptable condition. At the current level of
funding, the condition of the City's infrastructure is deteriorating at a rate greater than the present
rehabilitation efforts. This trend will continue to accelerate with time, unless the optimum level of
funding is achieved. The optimum level of funding would be an amount that allows the
infrastructure to function and perform as designed without interruption to service over the lifetime of
the infrastructure. In essence, the rate of deterioration would match an equal amount of
rehabilitation.
Street Resurfacing Program:
The City historically budgets between $350,000 to $500,000 annually for street resurfacing. A few
years ago, prior to the current budget situation the City was successful in obtaining federal and state
grants to supplement this amount (approximately $700,000 in FY 2001/2002); however, these funds
when available can only be used on specific routes determined by the State to be of regional
significance and are not a guaranteed annual funding source. In addition, in 2002 the Governor
distributed $525,000 in excess State General Fund monies through the Revenue Alignment Budget
Authority (RABA) to cities for street maintenance purposes. The RABA funds were also used to
augment the City's resurfacing program.
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
arfu.neda
I ublicWorks
epartlnent
Public Wales Nor/ far You!
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 7
May 9, 2005
Although the City currently receives approximately $1.4 million annually in gas tax funds, a decrease
of approximately $300,000 from past years, these monies are not available for resurfacing because
they pay staff costs (approximately $1.2 million per year) and on -going debt service for past
undergrounding costs and streetlight studies. In addition, from 1986 to mid -2004 when gas tax
revenues were higher and staff costs lower, the City paid approximately $470,000 per year for debt
service for bonds that were issued in the mid- 1980's to provide a large -scale city -wide resurfacing
project. City staff from Public Works and Finance looked at reissuing bonds using gas tax and/or
Measure B funds but it would not provide a sufficient pool of money to repair the streets that are
currently in need of repair and would severely constrain the City's street repair options because all
future funds would be committed and no funds would be available for unplanned emergencies or to
provide local matches for future grant applications.
Sidewalk Repair Program:
The City budgets $250,000 to $300,000 per year for the annual sidewalk repair program which funds
approximately 250 to 300 City sidewalk repairs. The estimated cost to do the backlog of repairs is
$1,500,000. In the past, the City also allocated approximately $200,000 in general fund monies to
fund the sidewalk repair program; however, this funding was stopped in Fiscal Year 2000/2001.
Options:
Exhibit A lists the eligible funding sources for each type of infrastructure; however, currently there
are not sufficient existing local funding sources available to adequately maintain the City's
investment in our infrastructure. To augment existing funds, the City applies for grants on a project -
by- project basis using federal/state funds when available; however, as the federal and state
governments grapple with increasing deficits, grants for street resurfacing and sidewalk repairs are
not easily available. The Public Works Depaitrnent has also worked with new large residential
developments to provide an alternative on -going funding stream through assessment districts to fund
the ongoing maintenance of newly constructed public infrastructure. In addition, Public Works has:
revised the sidewalk standard to allow for wider planting strips and requested developers plant
slower growing trees to reduce future sidewalk displacements; implemented a rubberized sidewalk
pilot program; and started work to develop a pilot program to install high - quality manufactured turf
currently used in soccer and football fields in our smaller landscaped medians using a $50,000
recycled product grant.
Since federal and state dollars will not be available in the short-term for the on -going maintenance
needs of local government, the City should consider developing a long -term, annual funding stream
for our preventative maintenance needs. Alternative funding sources could include: establishing
assessment district(s), landscaping and lighting district(s), or local community improvement districts
within existing developments; increasing existing fees (such as the Construction Improvement Tax);
establishing new fees; having property owners responsible for all sidewalk repairs as provided by the
Streets and Highway Code; require all City projects (new parks, buildings, landscaping, etc.) to
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
�lI Gyof
Department
Public Wak N4xihvl Yb !
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
Page 8
May 9, 2005
identify a reliable funding source to pay for on -going maintenance needs as part of City Council
approval of the project; reallocate funding sources from new capital projects to fund deferred
maintenance needs; and use CDBG funds and redevelopment funds whenever possible to provide for
infrastructure needs.
The League of California Cities' May 2005 edition of "Western City" recognizes that the magnitude
of the infrastructure investment deficit cannot solely be addressed on the local level in the long -term
and must be solved jointly on a federal, state, and local level. Therefore, the City should work with
our federal and state lobbyists to secure an ongoing funding stream from the federal and/or state
governments for infrastructure maintenance.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends the City Council consider the infrastructure investment challenges
presented in this staff report, discuss possible options and direct staff to further investigate selected
options as part of the next budget cycle.
Resptfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Alice I. Stoner`, P.E
City Engineer
MTN:AS :gc
Attachments
G: \PUB WORKS \pwadmin\ COUNCIL\ 2005\051705 \infrastructure - matt.doc
Dedicated to Excellence, Committed to Service
avofuameda
uubIicWorks
apartment
Public Works Work, fr Ynu!
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT CHALLENGES - EXHIBIT "A"
Source of Information
Pavement Management System (September 2004)
Sidewalk backlog requests ($1.5M), Estimated Req'd Repairs
Citywide ($3M) (April 2005)
Based on Request Forms all Departments during FY04 -06 CIP
budget cycle.
Maintenance Records (May 2005)
Maintenance Records (May 2005)
AP &T has no budget for this item for FY05 -06.
AP &T Streetlight Maintenance Budget. The Maintenance Division
contributes $5K for for lights mounted on traffic signals.
Maintenance Records (May 2005)
Best guess estimate. No reliable data available. Additional detailed
study required."
Best guess estimate. No reliable data available. Additional detailed
study required.
Maintenance Records (May 2005)
Maintenance Records (May 2005)
Maintenance Records (May 2005)
Recommended replacement list of sewer mains from Maintenance
Records (December 2004)
Storm Drainage Facilities Rehabilitation and Repair Report by Harris
& Associates (August 1998)
Maintenance Records (May 2005)
AP &T Historic Streetlight Study (2003)
O)
c
C N
u
L U
L 2
a) 3
a
W
Measure B,
Gas Tax, CIT
Measure B, CIT
General Fund,
DUT, CIT
General Fund,
CIT
Gas Tax, CIT
AP &T
AP &T
General Fund,
CIT
DUT, CIT
Measure B, CIT
Gas tax, CIT
General Fund,
CIT
Measure B,
Gas Tax, CIT
Sewer Fund
Urban Runoff
Sewer Fund,
Urban Runoff
1-
Q
WN
EA
co y c •O CO d
>m O r+ - 0 C
°Y c<
�aS9 ,n
O 0 C
- E p V �
Q' Q
O
0
N
-4
ER
$ 3,100,000
$ 1,960,000
$ 690,000
$ 80,000
$ 490,000
$ 170,000
$ 50,000
$ 660,000
$ 360,000
$ 350,000
O
O
6
N
ER
$ 220,000
$ 5,080,000
O
0
O
co
Cr:
N
CO
'
ER
O
0
N
.0.
a-
ER
O
co 'O C
C U
o a) O
Q f Q .......co
O 9
2
$ 1,950,000
o
O
6
ER
$ 340,000
$ 150,000
ER
o
O
6
O
ER
$ 2,850
o
O
CO
O
O
O
ER
$ 110,000
$ 40,000
$ 80,000
o
O
ER
0
O
N
co
CR
$ 275,000
'
ER
$ 198,000
i.i
a) co E
> co a) Q
w° O 0, N
O m C LL N
$ 750,000
0
oo
_
O M
ER
$ 250,000
0
00
C9
0
Oo
'c)
EA
.
ER
$ 77,150
$ 30,000
,
E9
'
ER
$ 120,000
$ 180,000
$ 112,500
O
0
O
69
ER
$ 450,000
Oo
O
ER
m
To _
"O M) C C_ c
C.) o C O ai 'O O
0 g Q C 0 :�
Q LL *1) O
U
0
$ 2,700,000
$ 400,000
$ 590,000
O
CO
fi3
$ 50,000
0
COO
ea
$ 80,000
$ 40,000
O
0
CO 0
ER
$ 110,000
O
0
CO 0
Ea
O
0
6
ER
O
0
6
ER
$ 590,000
$ 275,000
$ 450,000
$ 350,000
Q
— °
m 0
w° c
> c `0 0
7 }0 O m O •O
Q} P o U C
0
O
0
O
$ 3,000,000
$ 1,620,000
$ 540,000
$ 80,000
$ 430,000
0
0
0
COO
$ 40,000
$ 500,000
$ 250,000
$ 310,000
$ 210,000
0
0
o
N
N
$ 5,900,000
$ 2,700,000
0
0
0
6
Major Infrastructure
Components
Street Resurfacing
Sidewalk Repair
City Building
Upgrades
Street Tree Pruning
Traffic Signal Painting
Street Light Pole
Painting
Street Light
Replacement
Street Tree Removal
and Planting
Park Pathways
Curb Ramps
Traffic Striping
Landscape Median
Maintenance
Traffic Signal
Controller
Cyclic Sewer Repairs
Storm Drainage
Repairs
Sewer /Storm Pump
Station Upgrades
Historic Street Lights
TOTALS $ 30,180,000 $ 6,665,000 $ 4,017,650 $ 2,647,350 $ 32,850,000
Updated for May 17, 2005 Council Meeting
Prepared by Edric Kwan, P.E.
EXHIBIT "B"
GRAPH SHOWING COST OF REPAIR OVER TIME
The following graph illustrates what happens when road pavement is not maintained in a
timely manner. As road quality deteriorates over time, it becomes more costly to make
needed repairs. The public will have to pay five times as much for fixing a road in the
future as opposed to paying for it now. The saying, "Pay me now or pay me later"
directly applies.
COST OF REPAIR OVER TIME
TIME
Y'7
Very Poor
Q
w Poor
Ct
o 0 F41r-
c m
Good
c
Very Good
$ f R Ft . tf1i f3 Ei
$2 53 • S4
DOLLAR COST Of REPAIRS
This Graph was Prepared By:
CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES
1iClti.1 Suite 14141
Sacra memo, California 93 4
916.527.7500
fax: :tr16.s41$ O7
w .v.v,csac,rolan.t.i a,'.i.ur4;
With assistance from:
$5
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES
143. #1R h. `t,re:n
SAcrametito, California 45814
9 1 i >.ti 8,S OI)
fax: 9 i 6.. 58A2,ID
SMITH & KEMPTON
Consulting and Governmental Relations
U
H
Fa
1
x
W