2007-03-20 PacketCITYOFALAMEDA.CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL_
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 20, 2007 - - - 6:00 p.m.
Time: Tuesday, March 20, 2007, 6:00 p.m.
Place: City Council Chambers COnference Room, City Hal 1, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street.
Agenda:
1. Roll Call - City Council
2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only,
may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item
3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b)
of Section 54956.9
Number of cases: One
3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources
Director
Employee Organizations: All City Bargaining Units
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment - City Council
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the
rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3
minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during
Board meetings.
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
TUESDAY - - -- MARCH 20, 2007 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Location: Council Chimers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue
and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business
introduced by Board Members may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on
an agenda item.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. Roll Call - APFA
2. Minutes
2 -A. Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Financing Authority
Meeting of March 21, 2006.
3. Agenda Items
None.
4. Oral Communications (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Board in regard to any matter over
which the Board has jurisdiction or of which it may take
cognizance that is not on the agenda.
5. Board Communications
6. Adjournment - APFA
(Communications from the Board)
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 20, 2007 - - - 7 :27 P.M.
Location: Cit Council Chimers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by the Commission may speak for a maximum of 3
minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission.
Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish
to speak on an agenda item.
1. ROLL CALL - Community Improvement Commission
2. MINUTES
2 -A. Minutes of the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and
Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA), and CIC Meetings held on February 20, 2007.
(City Clerk)
3. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
3 -A. Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure
Project Construction update. (Development Services)
4. AGENDA ITEM
4 -A. Public Hearing for the periodic review of the Five -year
Implementation Plan, Fiscal Years 2004 -2005 through 2008-2009,
for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the
West End Community Improvement Project. (Development Services)
5. ADJOURNMENT -- Community Improvement Commission
Beverly Joh o Ch 'r
Community Im e Commission
AGENDA
CITYOFALAMEDA•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
MARCH 20, 2007 -- - - - 7:30 P.M.
[Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall,
Council Chambers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St]
The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows:
1. Roll Call
2. Agenda Changes
3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements
4. Consent Calendar
5. Agenda Items
6. Oral Communications, Non- Agenda (Public Comment)
7. Council Communications (Communications from Council)
8. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address
the City Council
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6 :00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING 7:25 P.M.
AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:27 P.M.
COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Proclamation declaring March 25 through March 31 as Boys and
Girls Club Week.
3 -B. Commendation presented to the family of Ruth Blackwell Herch.
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 Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on February 20, 2007; and Special and Regular
City Council Meetings held on March 6, 2007. (City Clerk)
4-B. Bills for ratification. (Finance)
4 -C. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $198,360 to
Pacific States Environmental Contractors, Inc. for the
demolition of boarded and vacant structures at 110 and 112
Norfolk Road located on Orion Street and 100 and 104 Miramar
Road located on Stardust Place. (Development Services)
4 -D. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Lease Agreement Dated
January 31, 1991, Between the City of Alameda .(Lessor) and the
Alameda Food Bank (Lessee) for Real Property Located at 1900
Thau Way. (Public Works) [Requires four affirmative votes]
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Adoption of Resolution Adopting a Policy for Naming City
Property, Facilities, and Streets. (Recreation and
Parks /Planning and Building)
5 -B. Adoption of Resolution Directing Staff to Monitor the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex Budget, Consider Results of Operational
Review, and Implement Operational Changes to Ensure a Balanced
Budget. (Finance)
5 -C. Adoption of Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No.
12191 by Changing Various Chuck Corica Golf Complex Rates.
(Golf)
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended
8. ADJOURNMENT - City Council
* **
• For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a
written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk
at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please
contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at
least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter.
• Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use.
For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD
number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including
those using wheelchairs, is available.
• Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print.
• Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
• Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda
materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy
the benefits of the meeting.
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND
_REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) , AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 20, 2007 - - - 7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:46 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Board Members /Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA ITEM
(07- CC /07- CIC) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal Year 2007
Second Quarter Financial Report and budget adjustments.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether reserve money is funding the
Golf budget, to which the Finance Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired how much is being drawn from the
reserves.
The Finance Director responded the Fiscal Year would end with a
$500,000 loss; stated depreciation is part of the loss; the net
cash loss is approximately $250,000 to $300,000.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the money used to supplement the Golf
budget was set aside for the Clubhouse; finding a way to stop
spending reserve money is important.
The City Manager stated several options are being considered; the
Golf Commission recommended a rate increase be presented to Council
at the March 20 City Council meeting.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she is interested in cost savings
rather than a rate increase; rounds are declining; budget controls
need to be put in place; alarms should have gone off when reserve
money was being spent; a separate, inaccessible account should be
set for a reasonable operating reserve; the money has not been used
for the intended purpose.
Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated a resolution
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
1
could be adopted that states that the Golf Commission cannot spend
more than a certain amount without Council approval.
Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the
approved budget included reducing reserves, to which the Finance
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Golf and
Alameda Power and Telecom funds were used to balance the budget in
2005; inquired whether the amount has been reduced.
The Finance Director responded the Return on Investment (ROI) has
been reduced from 1% to .3%.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she likes Councilmember /Board
Member/Commissioner Gilmore's suggestion; the budget should not use
the net asset balance as part of the regular operating budget; the
intended purpose is not to use the money for operations.
The City Manager stated the matter would be brought back to address
impacts and recommend budget adjustments.
Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a short -term
fix is needed; setting a benchmark would be a healthy start.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the budget would be set, not benchmarks.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
the [General Fund] reserve would be over 20% with the adjustment,
to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese's
inquiry about the amount, the Finance Director stated $415,645.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
spending $400,000 on deferred maintenance would be better, to which
the Finance Director responded that she would not recommend using
the money for deferred maintenance; the.matter could be considered
in the next budget.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese stated the matter
should be included in the next budget.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner Gilmore stated discussions
should address whether and when to build reserves back up to 25%.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested that the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
2
discussion include a review of the reserve threshold needed to
secure good bonding rates.
Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired why the
reserve target is 25%.
The Finance Director responded 25% represents approximately two to
three months of payables; stated 25% has been memorialized as.part
of the City's financial policies; the amount was temporarily
reduced in order to meet deferred maintenance goals.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated the reserve
should get back to 25%; including a 1% to 2% increase in the next
budget cycle would be nice.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue should be discussed; the 25%
reserve was accumulated from deferring maintenance; the goal should
be 25% but not at the expense of accumulating deferred maintenance.
Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the deferred
maintenance backlog should be understood by the next budget.
The City Manager stated an infrastructure update would be
presented.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the
ten -year forecast would be pursued.
The Finance Director responded the mid -year items would be added to
the ten -year forecast; past performance is no predictor of the
future.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the sewer fund is lower than
expected to which the Finance Director responded. the sewer fund is
lower because only a partial payment has been received from the
County.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired when the proposed Golf resolution
could come back, to which the City Manager responded 30 days.
The Finance Director stated the resolution could be addressed at
the March 20 City Council meeting.
In response to Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's
inquiry regarding Golf cost allocation charges, the Finance
Director stated Council could decide not to charge a particular
fund.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
3
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated cost allocations reflect the cost of
doing business; the General Fund or other departments would be
subsidizing Golf operations if cost allocations were eliminated.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated costs are
standard overhead costs that should be a burden against the
activity; the Golf Commission was under the interpretation that the
money was going to the General Fund and being used as discretionary
which is not the case; the Commission needs to understand that the
costs support operations.
The Finance Director stated the general administrative services are
a function found in any business; all operating departments need to
share in the costs.
Councilmember /Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated that he did
not want any confusion.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
the staff recommendation with direction to bring a resolution
forward to mandate a balanced budget in the Golf Fund and to have a
discussion on Reserve funds at the next budget cycle.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the
Council /Board/Commission requested that the resolution come back
within 30 days; a balanced budget could be implemented sooner.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned
the Special Joint Meeting at 10:18 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,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
4
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING_
TUESDAY - - -- MARCH 21, 2006 - -- - 7 :26 P.M.
Chair Johnson
convened the Annual Meeting at 8:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present:
Absent:
MINUTES
Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
and Chair Johnson - 4.
Board Member Daysog --- 1.
(06- ) Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Financing Authority
(APFA) Meeting of March 15, 2005; and the Special Joint Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners and APFA Meeting of April 19,
2005. Approved.
Board Member Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Board Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
voice vote - 4. [Absent: Board Member Daysog -- 1 . ]
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual
Meeting at 8:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Alameda Public Financing Authority
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Annual Meeting
Alameda Public Financing Authority
March 21, 2006
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 20, 2007 - - 7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
(07- ) Minutes of the Community Improvement Commission Meeting
held on January 16, 2007. Approved.
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(07- ) Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking
Structure Project Construction update.
The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief Power Point presentation.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the likelihood of bringing
back value engineering items.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the likelihood is good if there
are no significant surprises.
Commissioner deHaan stated the date has expired on approximately
25% of the items.
The Redevelopment Manager stated the majority of the facade items
have no immediate time limit.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired what is the last date for adding in
the bas-relief; further inquired what type of finish is on the bas -
relief .
The Redevelopment Manager responded staff has requested the
Contractor to hold the price for six months; stated the bas - relief
finish is cast concrete.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
1
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is concerned the cost expended for
the parking garage is 13% and the contingency is 38%; inquired
whether thresholds would be developed for budget constraints and
contingencies.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the City's risks come from the
unknowns; stated most of the unknowns are related to soil
conditions, ground water, and contaminated soil; said risks would
be eliminated in March; there are no design liabilities.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether contingencies would be left if the
same course is continued, to which the Redevelopment Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what art would be placed on the
theater and parking structure.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the City's public art
requirement has been satisfied through the rehabilitation and
restoration of the historic theater.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, outlined concerns with the parking
garage north facade.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda, discussed the visual impacts of the
parking garage north wall changes and street tree selections.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether staff anticipated that the
Cineplex developer would be the General Contractor from the
beginning.
The Redevelopment Manager responded in the negative; stated Overaa
Construction's bid was not competitive.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether staff is satisfied with the
General Contractor's ability, to which the Redevelopment Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the General Contractor plans
on adding back value engineering items, to which the Redevelopment
Manager responded in the negative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the canopies would be
standard.
The Architect responded that the State Architect and Section 106
Consultant requested that the historic theater, Cineplex and
parking structure canopies be different.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
2
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Architect is comfortable
with different canopies, to which the Architect responded in the
affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the north elevation could
be corrected; stated the original design is better.
The Architect responded keeping all facades level is expensive.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired what the cost would be, to which
the Architect responded at least $50,000.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired what would be left in the
contingency fund by putting the sheer wall back or spending $50,000
to fix the wall.
The Architect responded combining the two sheer walls into one wall
saved a lot of money; stated a false sheer wall would cost between
$80,000 and $90,000.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired what would be the remaining
contingency, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded
approximately $260,000.
Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to investigate options to
mitigate the parking garage north wall sloping appearance; stated
the Oak Street presentation is nice.
The Redevelopment Manager stated options would be explored.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired what is the final date to make
decisions.
The Architect responded decisions could be made later because the
issue is not structural.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the timeline is being held to
November.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the timeline is subject to
schedules noted in the Contract.
Commissioner deHaan stated great progress has been made with the
historic theater and parking garage; inquired whether the Cineplex
would dovetail with the historic theater and parking garage
completion.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
3
The Redevelopment Manager responded the Cineplex would take less
time; stated the Contractor is hoping for completion at the end of
this year; the first couple of months of 2008 is more realistic.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
4
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: March 20, 2007
Re: Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project
Construction Update
BACKGROUND
The City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved
construction contracts with C. Overaa & Co. (Overaa) on July 26, 2006 for the
rehabilitation and restoration of the historic Alameda Theater and the design -build new
construction of the Civic Center Parking Garage. The CIC approved the Theater
construction contract for $8,800,000 and approved the parking garage design -build
contract for $9,104,000, with the condition that the garage project be value- engineered
within the CIC's budget before the construction phase commenced. Since contract
approval in July, CIC staff and Overaa finalized the value- engineering for the garage
design, reducing the contract price to within the CIC's budget. The original contract
price of $9,1 04,000 was reduced by $604,000, resulting in a final contract price of
$8,500,000.
The Theater construction contract commenced in October 2006; the design phase of
the parking garage project started in August 2006; and the construction phase of the
parking garage began in October 2006. The overall project consists of an eight- screen
movie theater, including a 484 -seat, single - screen theater in the historic Alameda
Theater and seven screens in the new cineplex, 6,100 square feet of retail, and a 341 -
space parking garage.
DISCUSSION
The parking garage and Theater projects are on schedule and on budget. The status of
both the Theater and parking garage projects, including the budget with contingency,
payments, and schedule, are provided in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. Both
projects are expected to be nearly complete by the end of 2007. Subsequently,
Alameda Entertainment Associates (AEA), the movie operator, will install tenant
improvements in the historic Theater. The grand opening for the Alameda Theater is
Special C1C
Agenda Item #3 -A
03 -20 -07
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
March 20, 2007
Page 2
currently anticipated for early 2008. A summary of the status of each project is provided
below.
Alameda Theater
The Alameda Theater rehabilitation and restoration has focused primarily on seismic
work including completing concrete pours for the lobby shear wall and storefront
footings. Related to this seismic work, CIC staff allocated $30,000 from the contingency
line item within the overall budget for pending change orders for additional doweling due
to revisions issued by the structural engineer. Additional doweling and reinforcement
may be required by the structural engineer, partially due to existing footing conditions
differing from the original as -built drawings. Overaa has also continued roughing -in
electrical, plumbing, and mechanical systems, including installation of fire alarm and
aisle lighting work.
Cumulative current and pending contract changes are estimated to require the use of
approximately $142,000 in contingency funds, or approximately 13 percent of the CIC's
contingency budget. The total contingency budget for the Theater is $1.1 million
(Attachment 1).
Parking Garage
Overaa has finalized foundation construction including removal of sheet - piling. The first
concrete foundation pour was completed on February 27, 2007, and the second on
March 6, 2007. Hazardous materials were not encountered in the soil or groundwater.
Additionally, there was Tess groundwater at the site than originally expected. Upon
completion of foundation construction, the CIC's risk related to garage construction was
significantly reduced. Based on these favorable conditions and actual expenses to date,
the current dewatering and treatment systems budget projection was reduced by
$25,000, from $155,000 to $130,000. CIC staff will provide a summary of all actual
groundwater dewatering and treatment costs at its April construction update to the CIC.
Additionally, staff has budgeted $15,000 in its contingency budget for changes to
Overaa's current scope of work in the Oak Street public right -of -way, including
relocation of a traffic signal and streetlights. Actual prices for these unanticipated
changes are currently being developed by Overaa. Lastly, CIC staff, in conjunction with
the Police Department, determined that handheld devices for issuing parking citations
outlined in the design -build specifications for the garage would not be necessary,
resulting in a possible credit to the CIC of approximately $15,000.
Current and pending contract changes are estimated to require the use of
approximately $131,000 in contingency funds, or approximately 32 percent of the CIO's
contingency budget. The total contingency budget for the garage is $415,000
(Attachment 2).
Honorable Chair and March 20, 2007
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3
As directed by the C1C at the February 20, 2007 meeting, 010 staff is evaluating options
for creating a more consistent, non - sloping design for the northern elevation of the
garage. The cost of revising the northern elevation design will be presented at the April
cIC update, along with the cost of other potential scope additions (Le., value -
engineering changes) and a recommendation for a minimum contingency that should be
maintained throughout the project.
Cineplex
AEA's construction financing was finalized with Bank of Alameda, and the cineplex
ground lease and historic Theater building lease were executed between AEA and the
cIC, per the approved Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) for the project.
AEA's contractor mobilized on the cineplex site on March 19, 2007.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no proposed changes to the CIC's total budget for the Alameda Theater,
Cineplex, and Parking Garage project.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 Action B I.0 — Renovate /restore Alameda
Theater.
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 — Action F4 -- Consider building a parking
structure as part of a Downtown parking management program.
RECOMMENDATION
This report is for information only. No action is required.
Resp: tf submitted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: 't orene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
Honorable Chair and
March 20, 2007
Member of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4
By: Jen -r •
Red - vel
tt
ment Manager
DK/LAL /D ` S/JO:ry
Attachments:
1. Monthly Progress Status Report for the Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and
Restoration
2. Monthly Progress Status Report for Civic Center Parking Garage
3. Alameda Theater Project Schedule Update
Monthly Progress Status Report
Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and Restoration
City of Alameda
March 20, 2007 CIC Meeting
Construction
Contingency
Total Contract Budget
574.77-7; ELT
Previously Paid
Payment this Period
Total Payment To Date
ATTACHMENT 1
Original Contract Amount
Previous Changes
Executed Change Orders
Add Main Disconnect Switch
Subtotal Executed Changes
Pending Change Orders (Cost Estimates)
Additional Seismic Doweling $30,000
Unforeseen Hazardous Materials Abatement $17,300
Alleyway Sewer Cleanouts /Street Grinding $15,000
AP &T Electrical Changes $30,000
Revise Electrical Room $35,000
Re- Routing Power to Viva Mexico $13,500
Temporary Alleyway Trash Enclosure 2 500
Subtotal Pending Change Orders $143,300
Total Changes $141,688
Estimated Revised Contract Amount $8,941,688
Remaining Contingency $964,352
mma: .,:.11ETS7 7"i'r
Percent
Work Completed
This Period:
This Period:
Continued with Electrical, Mechanical and Plumbing Rough -In
Commenced Fire Alarm and Aisle Lighting Work
Excavated Storefront Footings
Continued with Doweling for Storefront Footings
Formed and Installed Rebar for Lobby Shear Wall
Poured Lobby Shear Wall
Scaffold Auditorium
Begin Installing Electrical Main Service
Begin Installing Fire Sprinklers
Pour Storefront Footings
Begin Marquee Restoration
Finalize Theater Operator Tenant Improvement Coordination
Pro'ect is on Schedule
Monthly Progress Status Report
Civic Center Parking Garage
City of Alameda
March 20, 2007 CIC Meeting
Construction
Contingency
Total Contract Budget
Previously Paid
Payment this Period
Total Payment To Date
ATTACHMENT 2
Original Contract Amount $9,104,000
Value Engineering (Credit) ($604,111)
Revised Contract Amount $8,499,889
Previous Changes $0
Executed Change Orders
Revised Electrical Service (Credit)
Subtotal Executed Changes
Pending Change Orders (Cost Estimates)
Dewatering of Site Groundwater Budget $60,000
Groundwater Contamination Budget $70,000
Long's Driveway Out -of- Sequence $12,400
Potential Site Work Budget $15,000
Deletion of Handheld Device (Credit) `.15 000
Subtotal Pending Change Orders $142,400
Total Changes $131,373
Estimated Revised Contact Amount $8,620,235
Remaining Contingency $294,654
.":4',
mount
A
Completed Foundation Concrete Pours
Removed Sheetpiling for Foundations
Completed Backfill
Completed Dewatering of Site
Completed Testing Groundwater for Contamination
Vacated Cineplex Site
Commence Vertical Concrete Forming and Pouring
Install Underground Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Systems
li 1 T/I.
2,0
d
134)
s
v
v
as
'o
cli"
rz
s
H
ca
co
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 20, 2007
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Re: Public Hearing for the Periodic Review of the Five -Year Implementation Plan:
FY 2004/05- 2008/09, for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project
and the West End Community Improvement Project
BACKGROUND
Section 33490 of Community Redevelopment Law requires that at least once within the
five-year term of an Implementation Plan, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
conduct a public hearing and hear testimony of all interested parties for the purpose of
reviewing the Community Improvement Plan and the corresponding Implementation Plan
for each redevelopment project within the jurisdiction and evaluating the progress of the
redevelopment project.
The current Five -Year Implementation Plan, prepared as a joint document for the Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and the West End Community Improvement
Project (WECIP), was adopted on September28, 2004. (The Alameda Point Improvement
Project is on a different Implementation Plan schedule.) The Implementation Plan outlines
ongoing efforts in economic and housing redevelopment for fiscal years 2004/05 through
2008/09. The CIC must hold a public hearing to review the progress of the Implementation
Plan no earlier than two years and no later than three years after adoption of the
Implementation Plan.
State law specifies a procedure for holding and for noticing the public hearing. Notice shall
be published in the newspaper and posted in at least four permanent places within the
project area for a period of three weeks, and publication and posting shall be completed
not less than ten days prior to the date set for hearing.
DISCUSSION
On February 15, 2007, the Economic Development Commission reviewed and forwarded
the draft Periodic Review Report (Attachment 1) to the CIC. The Report details progress
towards meeting the major goals of the Community Improvement Plans and presents the
information organized in the layout of the existing Implementation Plans. Major
Special CIC
Agenda Item #4 -A
03 -20 -07
Honorable Chair and March 20, 2007
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2
accomplishments within the first half of the current Implementation Plan period include:
start of construction on major catalyst projects (rehabilitation of historic Alameda Theater,
new downtown parking garage), ongoing development of Bayport Alameda and entitlement
of Alameda Landing (conversion and reuse of East Housing and the Fleet Industrial Supply
Center), redevelopment of Bridgeside Shopping Center, completion of Park and Webster
Streetscape projects, and ongoing business recruitment and retention efforts.
The Periodic Review Report also includes an assessment of how the CIC has been
meeting its obligations with respect to affordable housing, providing a report of deposits to
the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund for each fiscal year that the Implementation
Plans have been in effect, through the end of Fiscal Year 2005. It also includes an
accounting of new or substantially rehabilitated units produced; indicates how many of
these units are affordable to very -low, low -, and moderate- income households; and
estimates how many additional units will be produced during the remainder of the five -year
period for each Project Area.
Notice requirements for the public hearing are established in Section 6063 of the
Government Code. As required, notices of the joint public hearing were physically posted in
four permanent locations within each redevelopment project area, and newspaper
advertising appeared in the Alameda Journal on February 23, March 2, and March 9, 2007
(Attachment 2 — Public Notice; Attachment 3 — Location Posting Matrix). in addition, notices
were posted at the Main Library and at City Hall.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
Costs associated with the Review are provided for in the adopted CIC FY 2006 -07 budget.
There is no fiscal impact to the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The Periodic Review of the Community Improvement Plans and the joint Five -Year
Implementation Plans for the BWIP and WECIP is consistent with the adopted plans and
with Community Redevelopment Law.
RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a Public Hearing and take testimony and comment on progress on the Community
Improvement Plans and the joint Five -Year implementation Plan for the BWIP and WECIP.
Respef fu ' ubmitted,
Leslie A. ittle
Development Services Director
Honorable Chair and
March 20, 2007
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3
By: Loren= E." oto
Manager, Business Development Division
By: 'achel liver
Development Manager, Housing
DK /LALIDES /RS:ry
Attachments: Attachment 1 - Periodic Review Document
Attachment 2 - Public Notice
Attachment 3 - Location of Postings
ATTACHMENT 1
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
of the
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PERIODIC REVIEW
OF
FIVE -YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
Fiscal Years 2004/05 — 2008/09
BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WEST END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
As Required By
California Health & Safety Code Section 33490
March 2007
City of Alameda
Development Services Department
950 West Mali Square, Second Floor
Alameda, CA 94501
510-749-5800
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND 1
II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .. 1
II -1 Business and Waterfront Improvement Project 1
I1 -2 West End Community Improvement Project 2
III. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS — NON - HOUSING PROGRAMS 3
III -1 BWIP 3
11I -2 WECIP 10
IV. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS — HOUSING PROGRAMS 11
IV -1 Introduction 11
IV -2 BWIP 12
IV -3 WECIP 13
IV -4 Expenditure Targeting Statutory Requirements for Housing 15
1
PERIODIC REVIEW of the COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS and
FIVE YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN for the BWIP AND WECIP
Pursuant to Section 33490 of the California Health and Safety Code, this report reviews
progress of the Community Improvement Plans and Five Year Implementation Plan for
the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and the West End Community
Improvement Project (WECIP). The current Five Year Implementation Plan, prepared as
a joint document for the two project areas, was adopted on September 28, 2004. The
Implementation Plan outlines on -going efforts in economic and housing redevelopment
for fiscal years 2004/05 through 2008/09. The Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) must hold a public hearing to review the progress of the implementation plan no
earlier than two years and no later than three years after adoption of the implementation
plan.
The Implementation Plan identifies specific goals and objectives for each project area and
the specific programs, including potential projects and estimated expenditures proposed
to be made during the five year period. Specific projects listed are intended to be used as
typical examples only, and the CIC may modify programs and projects as need and
opportunities arise.
ii
1. BACKGROUND
In 1982, the City of Alameda established the Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) to take advantage of the unique planning and financing system offered by
California Redevelopment Law (CRL). The law provides the vital financial tools and
legal authority to undertake various projects to improve social, economic, and physical
conditions in the community.
The CIC has established three Redevelopment Project Areas: the Business and Waterfront
Improvement Project (BWIP), the West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP),
and the Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP). The first two project areas have the
same Implementation Plan schedules. APIP follows a different Implementation Plan
schedule.
In 2003, the BWIP/WECIP Redevelopment Plan Fiscal Merger and Amendments were
adopted. While the BWIP and WECIP were merged, fiscally, they are still separate
project areas whose plans must be documented separately. Both progress reports,
however, can be included in one document, which is the format used with this report.
II. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The established goals and objectives of the BWIP and WECIP are provided below. These
were prepared by the CIC at the time of adoption of the Project Areas.
11 -1 Business and Waterfront Improvement Project
The Business and Waterfront Improvement Project Area was adopted in 1991. The
original BWIP area includes the Park Street and Webster Street business districts, two
neighborhood commercial districts along Lincoln Avenue, most of the estuary waterfront
from Tilden Way to the former Alameda Naval Air Station, now Alameda Point, the
Civic Center, and the primary entrances to the City. In 2003, area was added to the BWIP
through the amendment process. This area includes approximately 123 acres of former
federal property including the Navy's former East Housing area and a portion of the Fleet
Industrial Supply Center (FISC) facility.
The major goals of the BWIP, which are stated in Section 100 of the BWIP Community
Improvement Plan (CIP), include:
A. The elimination of blighting influences and the correction of environmental
deficiencies in the Project Area, including among others, small and irregular lots,
faulty exterior spacing, obsolete and aged building types, mixed character or
shifting uses or vacancies, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, substandard
alleys and inadequate or deteriorated public improvements, facilities and utilities.
B. The strengthening of retail and other commercial functions in the historic
downtown areas and the Lincoln historic neighborhood commercial areas.
1
C. The strengthening of the economic base of the Project Area and the community by
the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new commercial /light
industrial expansion, employment and economic growth.
D. The replanning, redesign and development of underutilized areas that are stagnant
or improperly utilized.
E. The assembly of land into parcels suitable for modern, integrated development
with improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Project Area.
F. The provision of opportunities for participation by owners and tenants in the
revitalization of their properties.
G. The provision of adequate land for parking and open spaces.
H. The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure high site
design standards and environmental quality and other design elements, which
provide unity and integrity to the entire project.
I. The expansion and improvement of the community's supply of low- and
moderate - income housing.
J. The expansion and improvement of the community's supply of market rate
housing.
11 -2 West End Community Improvement Project
The West End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) was created in 1983 to assist
in the financing of streets, utilities, and other public improvements necessary to alleviate
blight on properties along the OaklandlAlameda estuary and to make private sector
investment economically feasible. The primary accomplishment of the Project is Marina
Village, a successful mixed -use development. The major goals of the WECIP are stated in
Section IV of the WECIl' Community Improvement Plan, and include the following:
A. To provide a more diversified and stable economic base for the Project Area and
community.
B. To provide safer, more efficient, and economical movement of persons and goods
within the Project Area and community.
C. To conserve and improve existing public facilities and to provide new such
facilities as needed for the full and complete development of the Project Area and
community.
D. To provide additional housing opportunities for the Project Area and community.
2
E. To provide additional employment opportunities for residents of the community.
F. To enhance the natural areas of the West End part of Alameda and emphasize its
favorable environmental factors.
III. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS — NON - HOUSING
PROGRAMS
111 -1 BWIP
A. Implementation of recommendations in the General Plan, Economic Development
Strategic Plan, Downtown Visioning Plan or Areawide Strategy, or Citywide
Retail Policy. Examples of programs necessary for high quality development
within the BWIP include regulatory changes (revisions to the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance), fiscal impact analyses, business recruitment coordination,
parking management strategies, and commercial incentive outreach programs.
STATUS:
♦ Regarding implementation of the Economic Development Strategic Plan
(EDSP) and Downtown Visioning Plan, in March 2001, City Council and
the CIC adopted an Implementation Program for the EDSP, the Downtown
Vision and Housing Forum Recommendations.
RESULTS: In 2006, the Economic Development Commission held
community workshops and met with local stakeholders to review and adjust
the overall direction of the EDSP at its five -year mid -point review and to
report to the CIC and the community on the progress of creating office and
industrial jobs, increasing the availability and quality of retail goods and
services, promoting business travel and limited impact tourist attractions,
developing recreational and entertainment facilities, and encouraging
affordable housing for current and future employees.
♦ Regarding implementation of parking management strategies, in September
2006 the City initiated a Parking Demand and Management Study for its two
main street retail districts.
RESULTS: The study expected to be completed in the Spring 2007 will
provide the basis for developing a comprehensive strategy to efficiently use
available parking in the core commercial areas, which will also help foster
in-fill development and the utilization of historic buildings.
f Regarding implementation of business recruitment coordination, and
commercial incentive outreach programs, staff continues with its business
3
retention and attraction programs, including site visits, advocacy and
assistance with the permitting process and a Quarterly Commercial Real
Estate Forum.
RESULTS: Staff visited companies contemplating expansion, nearing the
end of their lease arrangements, or meriting special attention and
appreciation from the City. Staff wrote letters of support for Convergent
Technologies and Ettore Products as part of their applications for Industrial
Development Bonds to help secure their presence in Alameda. The City
hosts a Quarterly Commercial Real Estate Forum, which is attended by a
core group of local commercial property owners, brokers, developers,
financial lenders, and representatives from Alameda Power & Telecom to
discuss what the City can do to better position itself and to discuss issues
related to maintaining the vitality of the business parks.
B. 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. Catalyst projects will focus on initiatives that cost - effectively
achieve the goals of the BWIP, encourage private investment, increase BWIP
assessed value, and help achieve energy conservation and transportation system
management objectives. Possible projects include: development or rehabilitation
of commercial or entertainment facilities in commercial districts; reuse and/or
redevelopment of underutilized sites in the Northern Waterfront as may be
identified in the Northern Waterfront Plan; adaptive reuse of existing industrial or
commercial sites including, but not limited to, non - traditional residential activities
such as live /work spaces, and acquisition, disposition or reuse of underutilized
public or privately owned properties.
STATUS:
� Regarding Alameda Theater Project - The CIC has approved a Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) with a theater developer.
RESULTS: Developer has completed project design review; submitted
construction drawings for plan check; and secured equity investment and
conditional construction financing from local bank. CIC acquired historic
Alameda Theater and adjacent property to facilitate development of all
components of the Alameda Theater Project. Additionally, CIC executed a
construction contract for the rehabilitation and restoration of the historic
Alameda Theater. Project also includes a parking structure discussed in
section E below.
♦ Regarding conversion and reuse of East Housing and the Fleet Industrial
Supply Center ( "FISC ") the CIC negotiated and executed a Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) with Catellus Corp. for reuse of 215 acres
4
of closed federal property, the first phase of reuse of the former Naval Air
Station, and the area known as East Housing, was originally included in a
portion of the APIP and was merged into the BWIP in 2003.
RESULTS: Demolition, grading and public backbone infrastructure
improvements are complete. As of October 31, 2006, the CIC has
conveyed 438 out of 485 lots to the Master Developer, issued 374 building
permits for construction. As of the same date 273 out of the 485 homes
have been sold. Build out of the residential phase of the Project is expected
by the end of 2008. Construction of 52 affordable low and very low rental
units and 10 moderate - income homeownership units were complete in June
2006. A new K -8 school was completed and opened in August 2006. The
new community neighborhood park opened in December 2006.
In December 2006 the second phase of development at the FISC was re-
entitled from 1.3 million square feet of office, research and development
space to a mixed use development which will consist of 400,000 square feet
of office, 320,000 square feet of retail and an additional 300 units of new
residential housing.
♦ Regarding reuse and redevelopment of Bridgeside Shopping Center, staff
negotiated a DDA with Regency Realty Group, Inc. for purchase of the
Bridgeside Shopping Center and redevelopment of the community shopping
center. The City Council approved the DDA on December 3, 2003.
RESULTS: The Center is currently under construction, and some of the
smaller tenants opened at the end of 2006. Construction is expected to be
completed in March 2007 with the opening of the anchor tenant Nob Hills
grocery.
Regarding reuse and redevelopment of the vacant lot at the Southwest
corner of Pacific and Webster, the CIC entered into an Owner Participation
Agreement with Alameda Hospitality, LLC (Sandip Jariwala) for
construction of a $4.75 million, 50 -room Hawthorne Suites hotel and 1,150
square feet of first-floor retail space at 1628 Webster Street (cross street
Pacific Avenue). The OPA provides for $121,000 of tax increment funding
to cover a portion of the total $270,000 for fees and mitigation, which
funding is conditioned upon completion of the project. Repayment of funds
would be obtained through increased tax increment as a result of the
project.
RESULTS: Construction completed in June 2003. Developer recently
submitted plans to increase hotel size with 16 additional rooms.
Regarding re -use and redevelopment of under- utilized sites in the Northern
Waterfront, in 2006, the CIC amended the BWIP Redevelopment Plan so
5
that land use designations in the BWIP would refer to the General Plan as
amended from time to time, eliminating the need for future BWIP
redevelopment plan amendments for the remaining parcels in the Northern
Waterfront area.
RESULTS: Warmington Homes is currently obtaining design review and
other entitlements for Grand Marina Village, a 40 -unit residential project.
♦ Regarding preparation of a Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment
encompassing areas of both the BWIP and the WECIP, the Plan will
determine the future land use, and the transportation and circulation systems
for the area.
RESULTS: Staff has completed a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) that will facilitate
redevelopment of the remaining Northern Waterfront area as mixed -use.
The GPA and DEIR are scheduled to be presented to the Planning Board and
City Council for approval in February and March 2007, respectively.
C. Support for ongoing activities aimed at business retention) attraction, business
promotion, and enhancement of the economic mix in the BWIP area. Potential
projects include creating and implementing, or contracting with local and regional
business associations for design, promotional and business retention and attraction
activities to strengthen retail and commercial business districts in the City's
redevelopment areas.
STATUS:
♦ Regarding business retention/attraction, business promotion, and
enhancement of the economic mix, gap funding for business association
staffing was provided to two Main Street business associations, Park Street
and West Alameda Business Associations. Both Associations have
Economic Restructuring Committees, which conduct business attraction.
RESULTS: Professional staffing has been maintained for Park and West
Alameda Main Street Projects (Park Street Business Association and West
Alameda Business Association). (Note: Commercial Revitalization (CR)
funds were used to provide support for business promotion activities of
Greater Alameda Business Association, which assists the businesses within
neighborhood commercial districts.)
♦ Regarding ongoing marketing and outreach campaigns, staff continues with its
business retention and attraction programs.
6
RESULTS: During the past fiscal year, these included: 1) site visits to 13
companies, including those contemplating expansion, nearing the end of
their lease arrangements, or meriting special attention and appreciation from
the City; 2) advocacy and assistance with the permitting process, including
writing letters of support for Convergent Technologies and Ettore Products
as part of their applications for Industrial Development Bonds to help secure
their presence in Alameda; and 3) Quarterly Commercial Real Estate
Forums attended by a core group of local commercial property owners,
brokers, developers, financial lenders, and representatives from Alameda
Power & Telecom to discuss what the City can do to better position itself
and to discuss issues related to maintaining the vitality of the business parks.
♦ Regarding the Downtown Vision Goal of improving retail mix, staff retained
a "Main Street" retail recruitment consulting firm to help retain and attract
high quality retail tenants to the Park Street and Webster Street commercial
districts.
RESULTS: Recruitment efforts include development of a marketing
brochure, a marketing plan for attracting targeted retail tenants, and a
branding identity for each district; as well as property owner and business
owner workshops, representation at regional retail conferences, retail and
broker luncheons, and one -on -one property owner consultations, as
necessary.
D. Design and construction of streetscape improvements. Projects include, but are
not limited to, the Webster Renaissance Project and the Park Street Streetscape
Project.
STATUS:
Regarding streetscape improvements, MTC awarded the City a $921,000
grant to be matched with a $500,000 CIC tax increment contribution for
design and construction of Phase One of the Park Street Streetscape and
Town Center Project, consisting of curb extensions along Park from Central
to Lincoln and a transit hub on Santa Clara between Park and Oak. (See also
Webster Renaissance Project Streetscape below, under WECIP Projects.)
RESULTS: Phase I of the Streetscape Project has been completed with
federal funding secured ($1,000,000) to implement Phase II of the Project.
E. Improvements to public infrastructure and facilities that are of benefit to the
BWIP and allowed by Community Redevelopment Law. Possible improvement
projects include transportation, parking, storm drains, sidewalks, curbs, gutters,
sewer lines and laterals, and projects as may be described in the Economic
Development Strategic Plan and the Downtown Visioning Plan. Examples of
7
possible projects include: developing more public parking on Webster and Park
Streets.
STATUS:
• Regarding improvements to public infrastructure and facilities, an Owner
Participation Agreement with Mariner Square for the construction of a
100,000- square -foot dry boat storage facility was approved and land was
sold to Aegis Assisted Living for the construction of a 98 -room, 89,000 -
square -foot senior assisted living facility.
RESULTS: The Mariner Square Dry Stack opened in April 2005 with
storage space for up to 240 boats. The Aegis Assisted Living project was
completed in late spring 2006 under the name of Cardinal Point. The project
also included the installation of a new segment of public shoreline access
through the property.
• Regarding Park Street Business District Parking Structure Project - The
CIC selected a site for a downtown parking structure adjacent to Alameda
Theater project.
RESULTS: CIC conducted a parking garage feasibility study and selected
the site adjacent to the Alameda Theater project for a 340+ space downtown
parking structure. CIC staff obtained all entitlement and design review
approvals for the proposed parking structure and is responding to final plan
check comments. CIC executed a construction contract for the construction
of the new parking structure and has commenced grading and excavation.
Substantial completion is anticipated by the end of December 2007.
• See also "Park Street Streetscape and Town Center Project" under section D
above.
F. Development of design improvements and coordinated design standards for
Webster Street and Park Street. Possible projects include construction of
additional phases of streetscape improvements, financial assistance for facade
improvements of commercial buildings, seismic upgrading, the adaptive reuse of
key landmark buildings, and projects as may be described in the Economic
Development Strategic Plan and the Downtown Visioning Plan.
STATUS:
• Regarding design improvements and standards, the Park Street Business
District is working to develop design guidelines for its area. Design
guidelines for Webster Street were developed by West Alameda Business
Association and adopted by the Planning Board in 2001. The facade grant
8
program continues operation and annually provides design assistance and
partial funding to business owner /operators to upgrade their storefronts.
RESULTS: Facade grants have improved over 20 storefronts in both the
Park and Webster Street Business Districts.
G. Expenditures required under existing pass - through agreements with Alameda
Unified School District (AUSD), the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD),
the Peralta. Community College District, Alameda County and Alameda. County
Superintendent of Schools to alleviate burden and detriment associated with the
establishment of the BWIP as well as to address social blight issues within the
BWIP. Specific projects include: land acquisition and capital improvements to
AUSD facilities serving the BWIP; funds to the EBRPD for roadway access
improvements to recreational facilities at Ballena Bay Point/McKay Avenue;
funds to Peralta Community College District for transportation improvements at
West Campus Drive/Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway and related access
points to the College of Alameda; and other capital facility projects at the College
of Alameda of mutual interest to the District and the CIC.
STATUS:
• The CIC is required to share tax increment with various taxing entities,
pursuant to terms of existing Agreements.
RESULTS: Pass - through payments have been made according to terms of
Agreements.
H. Payments as may be required by State law in order to meet State- mandated
Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) requirements.
STATUS:
♦ The last ERAF payment required by the FY 05-06 was financed through the
California Statewide Community Development Authority.
RESULTS: The total ERAF payment of $670,341.65 will have a maximum
annual payment of $97,002 until FY 15 -16.
Administrative and personnel costs associated with carrying out all of the above
pro ams, projects and expenditures.
STATUS:
♦ Ongoing
9
III -2 WECIP
A. The "Owner Participation Agreement" between the CIC and the Alameda Marina
Village Associates and the "City Cooperation Agreement" between the City and
the Alameda Marina Village Associates /Alameda Marina Center Associates.
Prior to the 2003 Merged Bond Issue, this agreement required the non - housing
revenues be allocated to reimburse property owners for special (property tax)
assessments related to public improvements in the Marina Village development.
Currently, the total amount due to owners is 66.67% of non - housing revenues,
(See Table 7 A). The next change to the Marina Village reimbursement figure is
scheduled for 2008, and the amount due will be tied to the Assessment Bond
obligations, which expire in 2014. Instead of using Tax increment for repayment,
bond proceeds equal to the present value of the total remaining balance is set aside
in an interest - bearing account. Rebates are withdrawn from the bond fund
account twice a year.
STATUS:
♦ The principal activity for the WECIP during the evaluation period was
implementation of the Owner Participation Agreement associated with the
Marina Village mixed -use development. Under terms of the agreement,
property owners are reimbursed for a portion of the debt service cost of an
assessment district bond issue used to finance public improvements.
RESULTS: Property owners in Marina Village reimbursed at an average
level of 70 percent of special assessments paid by the owner.
♦ The City Council amended the Marina Village Master Plan and the City's
General Plan at the property owner's request to allow the development of a
143,000 - square -foot, four -story office building and public open space plaza
over the former Shipways dry docks known as the Head Houses.
RESULTS: Entitlements have been granted for the last phase of
development at Marina Village.
B. Other WECIP non - housing projects may include design and construction of traffic
and streetscape improvements, including environmental review as necessary.
Examples of non - housing projects include: the Atlantic Avenue Linear Greenway,
streetscape improvements along the Webster Street corridor, toxic remediation
within the public right -of -way, the abandoned rail line on Atlantic Avenue,
improvements to other public facilities directly serving the WECIP, and such
projects as may be further defined in the Northern Waterfront Plan.
STATUS:
• Regarding design and construction of streetscape improvements, Phase I of
the Webster Renaissance Project is now complete. Funding for Phase II was
10
sought through submission of a grant application to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, the partial funder of Phase I; however, the
application was denied. Funding will continue to be sought to enable the
implementation of Phase II.
RESULTS: Phase I of the Project, which spans five blocks down Webster
Street from Central to Pacific, features new sidewalks, streetlights, benches,
curb extensions and plantings. The completed Phase I presents a revitalized
and vibrant appearance, thereby setting the stage for more redevelopment.
C. Payments as required by State law in order to meet State- mandated Education
Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) requirements.
STATUS:
♦ The last ERAF payment required by the State FY 05-06 was financed
through the California Statewide Community Development Authority.
RESULTS: The total ERAF payment of $670,341.68 will have a maximum
annual payment of $97,002 until FY 15 -16.
D. Administrative and personnel costs associated with carrying out the above
rd ects and re • a ent of obli ations to the Ci . ursuant to the City1CIC
Cooperation Agreement.
STATUS:
♦ Ongoing
IV. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS — HOUSING
PROGRAMS
Iv -1 Introduction
The periodic review of the Community Improvement Plans and the Five -Year
Implementation Plans includes an assessment of how the CIC has been meeting its
obligations with respect to affordable housing. This section provides a report of deposits
to the Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds for each fiscal year that the
Implementation Plan has been in effect. It also provides an accounting of new or
substantially rehabilitated units produced, indicates how many of these units are
affordable to very low, low and moderate income households and projects how many
additional units will be produced during the remainder of the five year period for each
Project Area. Finally, it addresses how the CIC has targeted expenditures from housing
funds.
11
IV -2 BIM
Section 11I- -3 of the Five -Year Implementation Plan specifies how the CIC will meet its
requirements for affordable housing for the BWIP under Community Redevelopment law.
Specifically, it is stated that 1,060 new units would be developed in this area during the
five -year period of 2004 -2009. This information is reported in detail in the Five -Year
Implementation Plan, "Projected BWIP Housing Development ", and in Table 1 below.
During the period of 2004 -06, 1,050 new units were projected. Ten new units were
projected for FY 2006 -07, and none for the remainder of the five -year period 2007 -09. In
the period 2004 -06, 280 new units were completed, all part of the Bayport, Alameda
development along Appezzato Memorial Parkway between Main Street and the College
of Alameda. Although the rate of production has been slower than originally projected,
there are many units in the pipeline or under construction, and the total number of new
units projected in the five -year period 2004 -2009 remains virtually the same.
Table 1 Original Projections, Revised Projections and New Units Completed
in the BWIP, 2004 - 2009
FY
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Total
Original Projections
182
868
10
0
0
1060
Revised Projections
102
178
124
105
552
1 061
New units
com leted
p
102
178
18*. 8*
.
116
280
State law requires that at least 15 percent of all new or rehabilitated units developed by
public or private entities other than the CIC be available to persons of low or moderate
income, and at least 40 percent of this 15 percent be available to persons of very low
income. The Five -Year Implementation Plan projects the number of inclusionary units to
be developed during the five -year period of 2004 -2009. It was originally estimated that
235 inclusionary units would be built for very low, low and moderate - income families
within the time period 2004 -09 in the BWIP. In 2004, the CIC increased the inclusionary
requirement in redevelopment areas from 15 percent to 25 percent. Many of the
residential projects completed and projected for the BWIP are 100 percent affordable
developments. Applying the new 25 percent requirement to the market rate
developments, it is now estimated that 274 inclusionary units will be completed in the
BWIP within the 2004 -09 time period (see Table 2 below).
Table 2 Inclusionary Units Completed in the BWIP and New Projections,
2004 -2009
BWIP Inclusionary
Units
2004/05
2005/06
2006107
2007/08
2008/09
Total
Very low income units
0
32
0*
2*
67*
101
Low income units
0
20
0*
4*
33*
57
Moderate income units
12
20
18*. 8*
58*
116
Total Inclusionary
12
72
18* 14*
158*
274
12
*New Projections.
Of the 280 units completed in the first two years of the five -year period, 84 are
inclusionary, with 32 affordable to very low income households, 20 affordable to low
income households and 32 affordable to moderate income households. Units completed
include 52 rental units and 32 homeownership units, all within the Bayport Alameda
community. It is projected that 190 affordable units will be produced in the remaining
three years 2006 -2009. Of these 190 units, 69 will be affordable to very low income
households, 37 will be affordable to low income households, and the remaining 84 will
be affordable to moderate income households. Anticipated inclusionary units include 39
rental units and 16 homeownership units within the Bayport Alameda community, as well
as eight new homeownership units at Buena Vista Commons. The units at Buena Vista
Commons, which broke ground in 2006, are being constructed by Habitat for Humanity
East Bay using its self - help /community build model. It is anticipated that inclusionary
production in the BWIP within the implementation plan period will exceed the CRL 15%
inclusionary requirement.
Section III -3 of the Implementation Plan specifies the projected Housing Fund Set -Aside
for the BWIP. Estimated and actual revenues for the BWIP are shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3 Estimated and Actual Revenues and Unencumbered Fund Balance for
the BWIP, 2004 -2006 (in Thousands)
It was originally projected that $653,000 in 20% set -aside funds would be collected
during FY 2004 -05. The total amount collected was $675,400 for that period. During the
period of 2005 -06, $723,000 was projected in BWIP revenues. Revenues collected for
that period totaled $1,111,500. The additional tax increment collected was due in large
part to property taxes generated by development of the Bayport residential project. The
fund balance as of the end of FY 2005 -06 was $496,800, with $208,800 of this
encumbered for housing development projects. In addition to the tax increment funds
described above, as of the end of FY 2005 -06 there were $587,000 in unspent bond
proceeds, all encumbered for housing projects. Finally, 40% of the 20% set -aside funds
are segregated into a special fund called the District Housing Fund for use by Alameda
Unified School District (AUSD). AUSD proposes to develop affordable rental housing at
the site of Island High School. As of the end of FY 2005 -06, there was a fund balance of
$2,013,800 in the District Housing Fund.
IV-3 WECIP
Section III -6 of the Five-Year Implementation Plan specifies how the CIC will meet its
requirements for affordable housing for the WECIP under Community Redevelopment
13
Revenues 2004 -05
Revenues 2005 -06
Ending Balance 2005 -06
Estimated
$653.0
$723.0
$0.0
Actual
$675.4
S1,111.5
$496.8
It was originally projected that $653,000 in 20% set -aside funds would be collected
during FY 2004 -05. The total amount collected was $675,400 for that period. During the
period of 2005 -06, $723,000 was projected in BWIP revenues. Revenues collected for
that period totaled $1,111,500. The additional tax increment collected was due in large
part to property taxes generated by development of the Bayport residential project. The
fund balance as of the end of FY 2005 -06 was $496,800, with $208,800 of this
encumbered for housing development projects. In addition to the tax increment funds
described above, as of the end of FY 2005 -06 there were $587,000 in unspent bond
proceeds, all encumbered for housing projects. Finally, 40% of the 20% set -aside funds
are segregated into a special fund called the District Housing Fund for use by Alameda
Unified School District (AUSD). AUSD proposes to develop affordable rental housing at
the site of Island High School. As of the end of FY 2005 -06, there was a fund balance of
$2,013,800 in the District Housing Fund.
IV-3 WECIP
Section III -6 of the Five-Year Implementation Plan specifies how the CIC will meet its
requirements for affordable housing for the WECIP under Community Redevelopment
13
law. Specifically, it stated that 84 new low- income units would be produced in a
development located at the Alameda Beltline property, or at an alternative site within the
Northern Waterfront area, during the period 2004 -2009. This information is reported in
detail in the Five -Year Implementation Plan, "Projected WECIP Housing Development ",
and in Table 4 below. During the period of 2004 -06, 84 new units were projected. No
additional units were projected for the remainder of the five -year period 2006 -09. In the
period 2004 -06, no new units were completed. In addition to the 84 units originally
projected, it is now projected that an additional 112 units will be built as part of the
Shipways project in Marina Village.
Table 4 Original Projections, Revised Projections and New Units Completed
in the WECIP, 2004 - 2009
FY
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Total
Original Projections
0
84
0
0
0
84
Revised Projections
0
0
0
112
84
196
New units
com leted
p
0
0
0
0
0
0
State law requires that at least 15 percent of all new or rehabilitated units developed by
public or private entities other than the CIC be available to persons of low or moderate
income, and at least 40 percent of this 15 percent be available to persons of very low
income. The Five -Year Implementation Plan projects the number of inclusionary units to
be developed during the five -year period of 2004 -2009. It was originally estimated that 84
inclusionary units would be built for low- income families within the time period 2004 -09
in the WECIP. In 2004, the CIC increased the inclusionary requirement in redevelopment
areas from 15 percent to 25 percent. However, a prior agreement covering Marina
Village exempts the Shipways project from this requirement, and all 112 units are
expected to be market rate. Past inclusionary production in the WECIP has exceeded
CRL requirements by 79 units, and no new inclusionary units are required in the project
area (see Table 5 below).
Table 5 Inclusionary Units Completed in the WECIP and New Projections,
2004 -2009
WECIP Inclusionary
Units
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
Total
Very low income units
0
0
0
0
0
0
Low income units
0
0
0
0
84*
84
Moderate income units
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Inclusionary
0, 0
0
0
84*
84
*New Projections.
Section III -6 of the Implementation Plan specifies the projected Housing Fund Set -Aside
for the WECIP. Estimated and actual revenues for the WECIP are shown in Table 6
below.
14
Table 6 Estimated and Actual Revenues and Unencumbered Fund Balance for
the WECIP, 2004 -2006 in Thousands
It was originally projected that $898,000 in 20% set -aside funds would be collected
during FY 2004 -05. The total amount collected was $940,000 for that period. During the
period of 2005 -06, $912,000 was projected in WECIP revenues. Revenues collected for
that period totaled $1,046,300. The fund balance as of the end of FY 2005 -06 was
$823,500, with $245,700 of this restricted (deposited as a CD to replace a letter of credit
for the 1992 housing bond when the letter of credit was cancelled in FY 03-04). WECIP
20% set -aside funds are used to retire debt service, to cover rent and operating subsidy for
affordable units at the Independence Plaza senior housing project, for Down Payment
Assistance loans and for other affordable housing projects. It is anticipated that no excess
surplus will exist during the five -year Implementation Plan period.
IV -4 Expenditure Targeting Statutory Requirements for Housing
CRL requires Agencies to set aside in a separate low and moderate income housing fund
at least 20% of all tax increment revenue generated from their project areas for the
purpose of increasing, improving and preserving the community's supply of low and
moderate income housing. Revisions adopted under AB 637, effective January 1, 2002,
and SB 701, effective January 1, 2003, require Agencies to address how their Housing
Fund expenditures meet Housing Fund Targeting requirements. Section 33334.4 of the
Health and Safety Code includes the following:
A. Income Targeting: each agency shall expend over each 10 year period of the
implementation plan the monies in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund
to assist housing for persons of low income and housing for persons of very low
income in at least the same proportion as the total number of housing units needed
for each of those income groups bears to the total number of units needed for
persons of moderate, low, and very low income within the community, as those
needs have been determined for the community.
B. Targeting for Persons Regardless of Age: Each agency shall expend over the
duration of each redevelopment implementation plan, the moneys in the Low and
Moderate Income Housing Fund to assist housing that is available to all persons
regardless of age in at least the same proportion as the population under age 65
bears to the total population of the community as reported in the most recent
census of the United States Census Bureau.
15
Revenues 2004 -05
Revenues 2005 -06
Ending Balance 2005 -06
Estimated
$898.0
$912.0
$0.0
Actual
$940.0
$1,046.3
$823.5
It was originally projected that $898,000 in 20% set -aside funds would be collected
during FY 2004 -05. The total amount collected was $940,000 for that period. During the
period of 2005 -06, $912,000 was projected in WECIP revenues. Revenues collected for
that period totaled $1,046,300. The fund balance as of the end of FY 2005 -06 was
$823,500, with $245,700 of this restricted (deposited as a CD to replace a letter of credit
for the 1992 housing bond when the letter of credit was cancelled in FY 03-04). WECIP
20% set -aside funds are used to retire debt service, to cover rent and operating subsidy for
affordable units at the Independence Plaza senior housing project, for Down Payment
Assistance loans and for other affordable housing projects. It is anticipated that no excess
surplus will exist during the five -year Implementation Plan period.
IV -4 Expenditure Targeting Statutory Requirements for Housing
CRL requires Agencies to set aside in a separate low and moderate income housing fund
at least 20% of all tax increment revenue generated from their project areas for the
purpose of increasing, improving and preserving the community's supply of low and
moderate income housing. Revisions adopted under AB 637, effective January 1, 2002,
and SB 701, effective January 1, 2003, require Agencies to address how their Housing
Fund expenditures meet Housing Fund Targeting requirements. Section 33334.4 of the
Health and Safety Code includes the following:
A. Income Targeting: each agency shall expend over each 10 year period of the
implementation plan the monies in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund
to assist housing for persons of low income and housing for persons of very low
income in at least the same proportion as the total number of housing units needed
for each of those income groups bears to the total number of units needed for
persons of moderate, low, and very low income within the community, as those
needs have been determined for the community.
B. Targeting for Persons Regardless of Age: Each agency shall expend over the
duration of each redevelopment implementation plan, the moneys in the Low and
Moderate Income Housing Fund to assist housing that is available to all persons
regardless of age in at least the same proportion as the population under age 65
bears to the total population of the community as reported in the most recent
census of the United States Census Bureau.
15
Income Targeting
Housing Fund expenditures must be targeted to assist very low and low income
households in at least the same proportion as the total number of housing units needed to
serve these income groups, as identified by the Regional Housing Need Determination
(RHND) calculated by the Association of Bay Area Governments. Using the current
RHND calculation, also know as the "fair share" allocation, at least 34% of the CIC Low
and Moderate Income Housing Fund must be targeted to very low- income households and
20% to low- income households within each project area. In order to meet the RHND fair
share calculation, the City of Alameda will need to develop 443 units affordable to very
low- income households, 265 units affordable to low - income households, and 611 units
affordable to moderate- income households.
It was projected that seventy -five percent (75 %) of BWIP expenditures in the current
period would be used to produce very low - income units, with the remaining twenty -five
percent (25 %) producing low- income units. Expenditures for the current period reflect
tax increment funding for two developments and debt repayment for the 2003 Tax
Allocation Bond, which refunded the 2002 Revenue Bonds. Bond proceeds provided
funds for three developments (two of which were also funded with tax increment) and for
infrastructure to serve two of those developments. The first development is a 52 -unit
project, which includes 20 units affordable for low and 32 units affordable for very low -
income households. The second development consists of 39 units, all affordable to very
low- income households. Both projects will be part of the Bayport Alameda development
north of Appezatto Memorial Parkway (formerly Atlantic Avenue) and west of Webster
Street. Bond proceeds were used to provide infrastructure to these developments. The
third development consists of eight new ownership units in the Buena Vista Commons
project on Buena Vista Avenue, west of Webster Street. BWIP expenditures will
subsidize six of the eight units — four for low and two for very low- income households.
For fiscal years 2004/05 and 2005/06, seventy -two percent (72 %) of BWIP expenditures
were used to produce very low- income units, with the remaining twenty -eight percent
(28 %) producing low- income units. Fund expenditures have been used and are targeted
to produce very low and low- income units at a rate that exceeds regional targeting
requirement. Table 7 lists actual and projected expenditures for each income category for
all years in the current plan period covering 2004 -2009.
Table 7 Income Targeting Expenditures: BWIP Housing Fund (Values in
thousands of dollars)
FY
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07*
2007/08*
1 2008/09*
Total
ExpendituresVery
Low Income
146
102
147
180
181
756
ExpendituresLow
Income
59
38
50
62
62
271
*Projected
16
It was projected that sixty -three percent (63 %) of WECIP expenditures in the current period
would be used to produce very low - income units and twenty -five percent (25 %) would be
used to produce low - income units. Expenditures in the current period are primarily for debt
service repayment of the 1992 Housing Revenue Bond, which was issued to refund the
1985 Tax Allocation Bond, ongoing subsidies to Independence Plaza, a Housing Authority
senior housing project for which the City is contractually committed, and to fund the
development of the 52 -unit project in the BWIP described above. For fiscal years 2004/05
and 2005/06, fifty-nine percent (59 %) of WECIP expenditures were used to produce very
low- income units and twenty -seven percent (27 %) were used to produce low- income units.
Fund expenditures have been used and are targeted to produce very low and low- income
units at a rate that exceeds regional targeting requirement.
Table 8 lists actual and projected expenditures for each income category for all years in
the current plan period covering 2004 -2009.
Table 8 Income Targeting Expenditures: WECIP Housing Fund (Values in
thousands of dollars
FY
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07*
2007/08*
2008/09*
Total
Expenditures
Very Low Income
837
363
544
551
565
2860
Expenditures
Low Income
415
142
212
214
_
220
1203
*Projected
Targeting for Persons Regardless of Age
As of January 2002, the Agency is required to target unit production to persons regardless
of age in at least the proportion of the population under sixty-five to the total population,
as listed in the latest Census. According to the 2000 Census, the City of Alameda's
population of 72,259 persons consists of eighty -seven percent (87 %) persons under the
age of sixty -five, and thirteen percent (13%) over the age of sixty -five.
In the current period, the CIC projected that one hundred percent (100 %) of BWIP funds
would be targeted towards housing for persons regardless of age. In the WECIP, the
contractual obligations to the Independence Plaza senior project will continue for the life
of the WECIP. (In 1989, an all - senior 186 -unit development was constructed in the
WECIP, and the CIC entered into an agreement committing all 20 percent set -aside funds,
not needed for debt service, to this project in order to subsidize rent and operations for the
very low and low - income units.) The CIC projected that eighty -six percent (86 %) of
funds would be targeted to the senior housing project, and fourteen percent (14 %) to
housing for persons regardless of age; however, to the extent that there are any WECIP
funds available after meeting existing debt and contractual obligations, these funds will
be targeted solely to the development of housing available to persons regardless of age
including families with children.
17
In fiscal years 2004/05 and 2005/06, one hundred percent (100 %) of BWIP funds were
spent for housing available to persons regardless of age including families with children.
Fifty -six percent (56 %) of WECIP funds were spent on senior housing, and forty -four
percent (44 %) for housing available to persons regardless of age, including families with
children. For the remainder of the plan period, it is anticipated that one hundred percent
(100 %) of BWIP funds will be spent for housing available to persons regardless of age
including families with children, and that eighty -six percent (86 %) of funds will be spent
for the senior housing project, and fourteen percent (14 %) for housing for persons
regardless of age; however, to the extent that there are any WECIP funds available after
meeting existing debt and contractual obligations, these funds will be targeted solely to
the development of housing available to persons regardless of age including families with
children.
18
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND THE
CORRESPONDING IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR THE
BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT AND WEST END
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Community Improvement Commission of the City bf
Alameda (the "CIC ") will hold a public hearing on March 20, 2007, at 7:25 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers located at 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, California, for the purpose of
reviewing the Community Improvement Plans and the corresponding Implementation Plans for
the Business and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Projects and hearing
testimony of all interested parties. A map showing the general locations in the City of Alameda of
the Project Areas is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 33490(c) of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety
Code Section 33000 et seq.) requires that every redevelopment agency, at least once within the
five -year term of its implementation plan, shall conduct a public hearing and hear testimony of all
interested parties for the purpose of reviewing the redevelopment plan and the corresponding
implementation plan for each redevelopment project within its jurisdiction and evaluating the
progress of the redevelopment project.
At any time not later than the hour set forth above for the public hearing, any and all
persons wishing to give testimony regarding the Implementation Plans may appear before the
CIC for that purpose.
Interested persons may inspect and, upon payment of the costs of reproduction, obtain
copies of the Community Improvement Plans and/or the Implementation Plans for the Business
and Waterfront and West End Community Improvement Projects at the office of the Community
Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda, located at Alameda Point Main Office,
950 West Mall Square, Second Floor, Alameda, California.
For further information, please call Rachel Silver, Development Manager, Housing,
Development Services Department, (510) 749 -5800.
By order of the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda.
Dated: February 15, 2007
/s/ Debra Kurita
Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Community improvement Commission of the
City of Alameda
; ..
Legal AJ 4007
Publish February 23, March 2, 9, 2007
. r7
MllallaWAAg1gi rier aL.YwOK.+mwt fEMlalC Fl�e@r I!el7if !RWMH/VRI71r7.,
E:_-
0 .1111.1.111..... IM1 ..,.= _
: q� zoo:' i.F�rs, f:�.7a iAdAdeo - [1!,r...... . Y" .
�:A►iRa iTGrF/�' la fJP3f: k%L'K p,S.L. .2I,t,
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
LOCATION of POSTINGS
PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA'S BWIPIWECIPIAPIP
FIVE -YEAR IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
February 2007
PROJECT
AREA
LOCATION (All postings to be done in
appropriate locations within the vicinity of the
identified site.)
POSTED r
BWIP
]) SE corner of Park Street and Central Ave. (traffic
signal pole by Starbucks)
2) SW corner of Park Street and Central Ave.
(traffic signal pole by Peet's Coffee)
3) SE corner of Webster Street and Central Ave.
(traffic signal pole by Croll's Building)
4) NW corner of Webster Street and Lincoln Ave.
(traffic signal pole by Shell station)
WECIP
1) Marina Village Pkwy. and Challenger Dr. (west
side traffic signal pole)
2) Marina Village Pkwy. and Challenger Dr. (east
side traffic signal pole)
3) Atlantic Ave. side of Webster Square (light pole)
4) Atlantic Ave. and Constitution Way (traffic
signal pole near Housing Authority)
G:lecondev\CIC12004 --09 Implementation Plan\Review 20071Locationofpostings.DCC
F:CID/Implementation Plan 2004 - 2009 /Periodic Review 2007
Proclamation
w1-EEgEAs, the young people of Alameda, California are tomorrow's leaders; and .
wUEgt'74s, many such young people need professional youth services to help
them cope with a wide range of social and financial hardships; and
W1-(EgEAS, there is one Boys & Girls Club organization in Alameda, providing
services at this time to more than 200 young people annually; and
W1-OEIZEAS, the Boys & Girls Clubs are at the forefront of efforts in Character &
Leadership Development; Education & Career Development; Health
& Life Skills; the Arts; Sports, Fitness & Recreation; Substance Abuse
Prevention; Delinquency Prevention and Literacy Programs; and
WUEgEAS, the Boys & Girls Club organizations in our state help ensure that our
young people keep off the streets, offering them a safe and supportive
place to go and providing them with quality programs; and
WUEgEAS, the Boys & Girls Clubs of Alameda will celebrate National Boys &
Girls Club Week 2007 along with some 3,700 clubs, serving over 4.5
million kids nationwide.
NOW, ntEREFORE, 'BE IT RESOLVED, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the
City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim March 25 through March 31, 2007 as:
l3OykEr QCrlCUdYWeek'
in the City of Alameda and call on the citizens of Alameda to join me in recognizing and
commending the Boys & Girls Club organizations in our state for providing
comprehensive, effective service e young people in our communities.
alph.
e -ri
May
Agenda Item #3 -A
03 -20 -07 A=
W1EgEAS,
COMMENDA TIc9)
Ruth Blackwell Herch was a legal services pioneer whose accomplishments,
including her commitment and service to the tenants during a mass tenant
termination at the Harbor Island Apartments, deserve recognition and
commendation; and
wffEgE74s, Ruth Blackwell Herch was exemplary in her efforts to assist the Harbor
Island tenants, and was embraced by both tenant and landlord groups for
her fair and impartial conduct of the mediation process; and
wq-EgE74s, Ruth Blackwell Herch was a tireless advocate and liaison, and, in her
family's words, had a "lifelong commitment to championing the legal needs
of an often disenfranchised and underprivileged clientele'; and
W1-(E1EAS, Ruth Blackwell Herch was diligent in her service to minority communities
and in representing the rights of the poor by steadily providing quality legal
assistance and equal access to justice for the underrepresented and
W1-E1E74S, Ruth Blackwell Herch exhibited an extraordinarily high level of
professionalism and competence in her many positive acts as a pioneer black
female lawyer, and won the respect and confidence of those who worked
with her; and
WffEgEAS,
Ruth Blackwell Herch is being honored posthumously for her outstanding
contribution and service to the citizens and community of the City of
Alameda.
NOW, ThE1EFO1E, 13E IT RESOLVED that I, Beverly J. Jolmson, Mayor of the City of
Alameda, do hereby commend and honor Ruth Blackwell Herch for her distinguished leadership,
dedication, heroic effort, resourcefulness, and energy, and for the expertise she provided to the
Harbor Island tenants and the community -at- large; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Alameda, staff members, and the community
officially thank Ruth Blackwell Herch and extend our deepest gratitude to her family, friends, and
colleagues throughout the area for her significant contributionto the City of Alameda.
Agenda Item #3 -B
03 -20 -07
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 20, 2007- -7 :31 P.M.
Mayor /Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:46 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Board Members /Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and
Mayor/Chair Johnson -- 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA ITEM
(07- CC /07- CIC) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal Year 2007
Second Quarter Financial Report and budget adjustments.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether reserve money is funding the
Golf budget, to which the Finance Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is being drawn from the
reserves.
The Finance Director responded the Fiscal Year would end with a
$500,000 loss; stated depreciation is part of the loss; the net
cash loss is approximately $250,000 to $300,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the money used to supplement the Golf
budget was set aside for the Clubhouse; finding a way to stop
spending reserve money is important.
The City Manager stated several options are being considered; the
Golf Commission recommended a rate increase be presented to Council
at the March 20 City Council meeting.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she is interested in cost savings
rather than a rate increase; rounds are declining; budget controls
need to be put in place; alarms should have gone off when reserve
money was being spent; a separate, inaccessible account should be
set for a reasonable operating reserve; the money has not been used
for the intended purpose.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a resolution
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
1
could be adopted that states that the Golf Commission cannot spend
more than a certain amount without Council approval.
Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the
approved budget included reducing reserves, to which the Finance
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated Golf and
Alameda Power and Telecom funds were used to balance the budget in
2005; inquired whether the amount has been reduced.
The Finance Director responded the Return on Investment (ROI) has
been reduced from 1% to .3%.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated that she likes Councilmember/Board
Member/Commissioner Gilmore's suggestion; the budget should not use
the net asset balance as part of the regular operating budget; the
intended purpose is not to use the money for operations.
The City Manager stated the matter would be brought back to address
impacts and recommend budget adjustments.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a short-term
fix is needed; setting a benchmark would be a healthy start.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the budget would be set, not benchmarks.
Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
the [General Fund] reserve would be over 20% with the adjustment,
to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese's
inquiry about the amount, the Finance Director stated $415,645.
Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether
spending $400,000 on deferred maintenance would be better, to which
the Finance Director responded that she would not recommend using
the money for deferred maintenance; the matter could be considered
in the next budget.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the matter
should be included in the next budget.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated discussions
should address whether and when to build reserves back up to 25%.
Vice Mayor/Board Member /Commissioner Tam requested that the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
2
discussion include a review of the reserve threshold needed to
secure good bonding rates.
Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner deHaan inquired why the
reserve target is 25%.
The Finance Director responded 25% represents approximately two to
three months of payables; stated 25% has been memorialized as part
of the City's financial policies; the amount was temporarily
reduced in order to meet deferred maintenance goals.
Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the reserve
should get back to 25%; including a 1% to 2% increase in the next
budget cycle would be nice.
Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the issue should be discussed; the 25%
reserve was accumulated from deferring maintenance; the goal should
be 25% but not at the expense of accumulating deferred maintenance.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the deferred
maintenance backlog should be understood by the next budget.
The City Manager stated an infrastructure update would be
presented.
Councilmember /Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the
ten -year forecast would be pursued.
The Finance Director responded the mid -year items would be added to
the ten -year forecast; past performance is no predictor of the
future.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired whether the sewer fund is lower than
expected to which the Finance Director responded the sewer fund is
lower because only a partial payment has been received from the
County.
Mayor /Chair Johnson inquired when the proposed Golf resolution
could come back, to which the City Manager responded 30 days.
The Finance Director stated the resolution could be addressed at
the March 20 City Council meeting.
In response to Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner deHaan's
inquiry regarding Golf cost allocation charges, the Finance
Director stated Council could decide not to charge a particular
fund.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
3
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated cost allocations reflect the cost of
doing business; the General Fund or other departments would be
subsidizing Golf operations if cost allocations were eliminated.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated costs are
standard overhead costs that should be a burden against the
activity; the Golf Commission was under the interpretation that the
money was going to the General Fund and being used as discretionary
which is not the case; the Commission needs to understand that the
costs support operations.
The Finance Director stated the general administrative services are
a function found in any business; all operating departments need to
share in the costs.
Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner deHaan stated that he did
not want any confusion.
Councilmember/Board Member /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
the staff recommendation with direction to bring a resolution
forward to mandate a balanced budget in the Golf Fund and to have a
discussion on Reserve funds at the next budget cycle.
Vice Mayor/Board Member /Commissioner Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor /Chair Johnson stated the
Council/Board /Commission requested that the resolution come back
within 30 days; a balanced budget could be implemented sooner.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned
the Special Joint Meeting at 10:18 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,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
February 20, 2007
4
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 6, 2007- -5:45 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:55 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson --- 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07- ) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95); Claimant:
Jeremiah Harrison; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda.
(07- ) Conference with Legal Counsel -- Existing Litigation
(54953.9) ; Name of Case: Codino v. City of Alameda.
(07- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
All Bargaining Units.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Workers' Compensation
Claim, Council heard the presentation and recommendation of staff
and gave direction to staff; regarding Existing Litigation, Council
heard the presentation and recommendation of staff and gave
direction to staff; regarding Labor, Council heard the
presentations of staff and the Labor Negotiator and gave direction
to the Labor Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special. Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 6, 2007
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 6, 2007- -7 :30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council meeting at 7:38
p.m. Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07- ) Proclamation declaring the week of March 18-24, 2007 as
Friends of the Alameda Free Library Appreciation.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Molly Skeen,
Friends of the Alameda Free Library President and Karen Butter,
Library Board President.
(07- ) Mayor Johnson announced that a Joint City Council and
School Board Meeting would be held.on March 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
at Ruby Bridges Elementary School; stated the meeting will focus on
discussing cooperative programs and joint efforts.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *07- ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on February 20, 2007. Approved.
( *07- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,535,381.13.
(*07- ) Recommendation to accept the work of AJW Construction for
Installation of Rubberized Sidewalk, No. P.W. 02- 06 -05. Accepted.
( *07- ) Resolution No. 14074, "Ordering Vacation of a Portion of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
March 6, 2007
a Power and Public Utility Easement and a Power, Public Utility and
East Bay Municipal Utility District Easement within Parcels 5 and 6
of Parcel Map 4013, Filed Map Book 138, at Page 5 and 6, Alameda
County official Records." Adopted.
( *07- ) Resolution No. 14075, "Approving Final Map, Authorizing
Execution of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Accepting
Easements for Tract 7846 (626 Buena Vista Avenue)." Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07- ) Resolution No. 14076, "Appointing Bill R. Delaney as a
Member of the Golf Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of office and presented Mr.
Delaney with a certificate of appointment.
(07- ) Consideration of the Establishment of a Youth Advisory
Commission.
The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson thanked staff and the Youth Collaborative for working
on the matter.
Freshta Esmat, Home Project, encouraged formation of a Youth
Commission; suggested the Commission report to the City Council;
stated adequate resources are necessary; the Commission should meet
monthly.
Jane Sperling Wise, Home Project Director, encouraged formation of
a Youth Commission; stated the Commission needs to have a dedicated
staff member.
Cesar Pujolia Martinez, Home Project, encouraged formation of a
Youth Commission; stated that the Commission should meet at least
once a month.
Mayor Johnson stated the City has never established a formal way
for youth to have a voice in the community; the Council should
provide comments on the Commission structure; then, staff and the
Youth Collaborative can work on the issue and bring it back; seven
members might not be enough to get a good representation of youth,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 6, 2007
2
but the Commission should not be huge; the group should probably
meet once a month; the ordinance sets the minimum amount of
meetings and the Commission could decide to hold additional
meetings as needed; the focus should not appear to be just a youth
recreation commission; the Commission should address broader
issues; whether the Commission reports to the Recreation and Parks
Commission or City Council directly, there should not appear to be
a narrow focus of recreation and sports for youth in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Commission should report to the
City Council; transportation is an issue beyond recreation,
particularly with young drivers and bus riders; the Commission
should address congestion around schools; that he would like a
representative from each high school; the number of Commissioners
should be reasonable; the number of seats should be seven, nine or
eleven; a two -year term would help cycle people through; the seats
should be limited to high school age students.
Mayor Johnson stated that there should be eleven members; the
number of members could be changed if needed; concurred that there
should be one representative from each high school; members should
be selected from among the list of other groups represented, not
necessarily one representative from each group; having a Youth
Commission will be a benefit to the community; the youth in Alameda
are thoughtful and dedicated.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he concurs with the direction to
have two -year terms; the larger number sets up needed continuity;
representatives from the five high schools is all important;
inquired whether or not the Alameda Youth Committee was active.
The Recreation and Parks Director responded the Committee was
fairly active but was more of a program advisory group that held
events and did not address policy and Citywide issues.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City is stepping into a policy type
Commission; concurred with the idea of having the Commission report
to the Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like the Commission to address
jobs, especially summer jobs, for youth in Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan stated issues, such as recreation,
transportation and social, would provide the Youth Commission an
opportunity to interface with other boards and commissions.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is supportive of the formation of
the Commission; allowing the youth to participate more closely in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 6, 2007
3
government should be empowering; there should be an expansive range
to create synergies between high school and college students; in
addition to representatives from each high school, there should be
a good geographic representation throughout the City.
Mayor Johnson requested that the ordinance include the requirement
that the Commission members be Alameda residents.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the ordinance would return to
Council, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded
forty -five days.
(07- ) Consideration of an Appeal of the Transportation
Commission's decision to install new bus stops on Otis Drive at
Pond Isle, and approve staff's recommendation to install bus stops
at Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way, and Otis Drive and Willow Street.
The Program Specialist II gave a brief Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the 63 travels down
Whitehall Road and Willow Street to get to Otis Drive, to which the
Program Specialist II responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam stated many bus stops on Otis Drive do not have
painted crosswalks; requested an explanation of the requirement to
install crosswalks.
The Program Specialist II responded the crosswalk would be required
at Pond Isle as the result of litigation involving a transit
entity; new stops are required to have painted crosswalks; previous
stops were grandfathered and do not require crosswalks.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether buses stop if riders are not
waiting at stops, to which the Program Specialist II responded in
the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how often the bus actually needs to
stop west of Grand Street.
The Program Specialist II responded ridership data is available,
not the number of times buses stop; provided data.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether it is fair to say that the
buses do not stop 80% of the time, to which the Program Specialist
II responded that he could not provide the percentage, but
certainly the bus does not stop a significant number of times.
Councilmember deHaan stated the stop is not mandatory; the bus
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 6, 2007
4
moves through; inquired whether the location of the 50 -line bus
stop on Otis Drive is at the intersection of Willow Street.
The Program Specialist II responded the stop is east of Willow
Street.
Councilmember deHaan stated if the 63 -line stops at willow Street,
there would be two bus stops servicing different needs within a
close area; requested ridership data for the 50 -line at said stop.
The Program Specialist II responded that he did not have said
information.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the characteristics would be
similar since both are servicing the hospital and shopping area, to
which the Program Specialist II responded similar land uses are
served, however the destinations differ.
Mayor Johnson requested the Police Department to comment on current
safety issues.
Traffic Officer Rodrigue stated the safety concerns have been met
due to Public Works installing in- ground lights, bollards and new
signs and markings at the crosswalk; the crossing guards have been
instructed to keep children from crossing until after the bus stops
and passes.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired the distance between the bus stop
and crosswalk, to which Officer Rodrigue responded approximately
120 feet.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the cars would have to look
around the bus to see people at the crosswalk and whether the
crosswalk would be before the bus stop in the other direction.
Officer Rodrigue responded the bus stops would be before the
crosswalks in both directions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the issues that prompted the Police
Department to send a letter to AC Transit no longer exist and
whether the Police Department is satisfied with returning the bus
stop to the prior location.
Officer Rodrigue responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether there is a history of accidents
with children involved under the prior configuration.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 6, 2007
5
Officer Rodrigue responded only two accidents have occurred in the
corridor from January 2005 to present.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the accidents involved buses, to
which Officer Rodrigue responded in the negative.
Councilmember Gilmore requested Officer Rodrigue to detail the new
Crossing Guard training.
Officer Rodrigue responded the Crossing Guards have been instructed
to review bus status prior to stepping into the crosswalk.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Crossing Guards have
been instructed to hold the children back when they see the bus
coming, to which Officer Rodrigue responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Police Officers have
been monitoring the area since improvements have been made as part
of routine traffic patrol.
Officer Rodrigue responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Police Officers have
observed that the mitigations are effective, to which Officer
Rodrigue responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Police Officers have
observed the Crossing Guards stopping the bus at the crosswalk as
it travels past.
Officer Rodrigue responded that he has not observed buses stopping
for the crosswalk; however, the Crossing Guards stop the buses
passing through just like other vehicles.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Opponents (Opposed to bus stops) : Geoffrey Kline, Appellant; Mina
Katoozian, Alameda; Maggy Menendez, Alameda; Pat Owens, Alameda;
George S. Wales, Alameda; Patty Rose, Alameda; Peter Muzio,
Alameda; Liz Cleves (submitted photos and paperwork), Alameda;
Diane Voss, Alameda; Kevin Dong, Alameda; Barbara Nemer, Alameda;
Dan Pereira, Alameda; Jack Boeger, Alameda; Michael John Torrey,
Alameda; David Howard, Alameda; Bill Beltz, Alameda; Davina Vick,
Alameda; Cheri Galan, Alameda; and Claudia Davison, Alameda.
Proponents (In favor of bus stops): Laura Thomas, Alameda; Susan
Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates; and Jon Spangler, Alameda
Transit Advocates.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 6, 2007
6
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
In response to Mayor Johnson's request, Cesar Pujol, AC Traffic
Engineer, provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether willow Street is wide enough
for two buses to turn at the same time.
Mr. Pujol responded the bus stop would need to be on Otis Drive
because a left turn could not be made; stated it is always easier
for a bus to stop before making a right turn rather than turn and
stop afterwards.
Councilmember deHaan stated Shoreline Drive is used for the Express
w going to San Francisco; inquired whether Shoreline Drive ever had
other bus service and might have a higher ridership.
Sean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit Transportation Planner, responded
Shoreline Drive had bus service at one time; stated buses were
rerouted during the 2003 service cuts; the bus schedule has
approximately 50 minutes of running time; higher costs are incurred
with higher running time.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether ridership or running time is
more important; stated Shoreline Drive is adjacent to a higher
density area.
Mr. Lorgion' responded another bus would be needed if more time was
added to a route; stated a different part of the route could be
cut.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the bus would not stop after
the crosswalk on Sandcreek Way.
The Program Specialist II responded sufficient space is not
available in the westbound direction; stated the eastbound
direction has a loading zone.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the distance between
the crosswalk and bus stop on the opposite side of the street from
Lum School.
The Program Specialist II responded he did not have the
measurement; stated the distance would be less than the other side.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Lum School Principal
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
March 6, 2007
provided any input.
The Public Works Director responded the school did not want to
state a preference.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether crosswalk changes had been made when
the Transportation Commission addressed the matter.
The Public Works Director responded some improvement were made;
stated the triangular striping was not done; the Police Department
viewed the area differently because of the eastbound changes for
drop offs and pick ups at Lum School.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the drop off and pick up changes
were made after the matter was presented to the Transportation
Commission.
The Program Specialist II responded the changes were implemented in
August; stated the matter was brought to the Transportation
Commission in May and again in September or October; the Police
Department reassessed the matter and indicated that the changes
made a sufficient difference.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired how a bus driver would determine whether a
person was waiting for a bus rather than waiting to cross or pick
up a child.
Mr. Pujol responded there would be an off set between the bus stop
pole and the crosswalk.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether buses stopped frequently at
Sandcreek Way before, to which Mr. Pujol responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he walks in the area twice a week;
efforts have been made to improve safety; crossing the street is
still a chore; he prefers to cross at Grand Street or willow
Street; having a marked crosswalk at Pond Isle would provide a
false sense of security; ridership is encouraged; inquired why the
Express W goes down Shoreline Drive if Otis Drive has high
ridership; stated the 63 -line goes down Otis Drive because of run
time; something is missing in the equation; all options should be
reviewed; he cannot support adding additional stops.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot see placing the bus
stop at Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive; he is not worried about bus
drivers; car drivers have been the cause of accidents involving
children; he would be in favor of the Pond Isle bus stop except for
the question of whether Pond Isle is the right place for a bus
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
March 6, 2007
stop; he recommends that the matter go back to the Transportation
Commission to review Otis Drive alternatives other than Pond Isle
or Sandcreek Way and rerouting the 63-line back down" to Shoreline
Drive as the preferred alternative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is not in favor of putting a
bus stop at Pond Isle because it might not be the correct way to
route the bus; a major distraction would occur by putting a bus
stop with a crosswalk at Pond Isle because people look ahead to the
Lum School crosswalk; the City has a Transit Plan that encourages
ridership; the City demanded that a Transit Plan be in place for
the Alameda Point and Alameda Landing development on day one; the
number one complaint is traffic and congestion which can be reduced
by having more conveniently located public transit; the City has to
be proactive in working on the Transit Plan; she is not ready to
recommend putting bus stops on Otis Drive tonight; the City needs
to work with AC Transit; the process is not driven by citizen
requests.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore;
stated traffic congestion is the number one complaint; buses are
the best way to eliminate the continual use of single occupancy
vehicles; tonight is not the night to decide on bus stop locations;
too many questions are unanswered; he does not want a bus stop at
Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive; he recommends that the matter go back
to the Transportation Commission and staff work with AC Transit on
finding an alternative stop on Otis Drive or a reroute that would
help pick up ridership as well as mitigate the issue that has
occurred between Sandcreek Way and Willow Street and Whitehall
Place.
Mayor Johnson stated cars are a hazard around schools, not bus
drivers; traffic is a big concern; traffic problems are not solved
by taking out bus stops; concurred that options need to be
reviewed; people will complain regardless of where bus stops are
placed; the matter should go back to the Transportation Commission.
Vice Mayor Tam stated transit options will be necessary as the
Alameda Towne Centre is developed; she advocates having a bus stop
as close to Alameda Hospital as possible; sufficient information is
not available to distinguish whether the bus stop should be at
Sandcreek Way or Pond Isle; she leans toward having the bus stop at
Pond Isle because a safety buffer is needed between the pedestrian
crossing; she would like to receive more information regarding the
frequency of bus stops and the necessity of routes.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Whitehall Place walkway is no more
than three feet wide and is inadequate; pedestrians walk in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda -City Council
March 6, 2007
9
roadway to get to the Alameda Towne Centre; requested staff to work
on rectifying the Whitehall Place walkway with the Alameda Towne
Centre developer; concurred with Vice Mayor Tam regarding having a
bus stop close to Alameda Hospital.
Councilmember Matarrese moved that the matter be sent back to staff
with review by the Transportation Commission to look at
alternatives to the Sandcreek Way bus stop and possible rerouting
of the 63 -line to Shoreline Drive.
Mayor Johnson suggested including other alternatives developed by
staff.
Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to include other
alternatives that may be developed by staff in concert with AC
Transit.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated increased ridership
is important; people need to have the opportunity to use the bus
service to the utmost.
Councilmember Gilmore stated information has been requested on the
number of riders and how many times the bus stops.
Councilmember Matarrese stated said information would part of the
technical discussion.
Councilmember Gilmore stated direction should be given to complete
said technical discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote -- 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(07- ) Ed Gersich, Alameda, discussed the need for a bus stop at
the USS Hornet.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the closest stop to the USS Hornet,
to which Mr. Gersich responded the Ferry Terminal.
Mayor Johnson stated bus service was a lot closer before.
Mr. Gersich stated the USS Hornet had bus service before the [AC
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
March 6, 2007
Transit] 2003 budget cuts.
(07- ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed the environment.
(07- ) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated many people are unaware
that the Farmers' Market is open again.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07- ) Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether updates would be
provided on the Climate Protection Task Force; further inquired
whether the Committee would provide recommendations on control or
elimination of styrofoam containers in the City.
The City Manager responded staff would provide an update on the
work plan; styrofoam was to be added to the work plan.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that styrofoam containers be
addressed as a priority; stated other cities have ordinances.
(07- ) Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Arts
Commission would be involved in Cultural Art Center discussions.
The City Manager responded the matter would be addressed at the
next Arts Commission Meeting.
(07- ) Councilmember Matarrese stated communications were
received from Asuchio, El Salvador; a translated report will be
provided to the City Clerk for distribution to Council.
(07- ) Vice Mayor Tam thanked staff for the Off Agenda Report on
the library; stated the Library Construction and Renovation Bond,
SB 156, was introduced in the State Senate recently; the $4 billion
bond measure is expected to go on the primary ballot in 2008;
inquired whether Council could take a supportive position on the
bill.
The City Manager responded an update would be provided on where the
issue stands in the process.
Councilmember deHaan stated a joint committee was established eight
months ago between Councils of Alameda and Oakland to discuss build
out and how impacts on each other; major build out is occurring in
Oakland; inquired whether the committee has met.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the Planning Department provide
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 11
March 6, 2007
an update on Oakland's upcoming projects.
(07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated the City adopted a resolution
in 1996 stating that the City would prepare for an electric vehicle
model City program; a commitment was made and needs to be pursued
further.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 6, 2007
12
March 15, 2007
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register � ster 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 1
pective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers
157366 - 157842
1E16268 - E16395
EFT 326
EFT 327
EFT 328
EFT 329
EFT 330
EFT 331
Void Checks:
157193
156947
157382
157385
157388
156407
Amount
$1,826,495.97
$91,144.03
$71,653.27
$23,600.00
$28,011.36
$54,966.32
$391,844.65
$43,538.30
($250.00)
($8,307.00)
($9,283.18)
($18,410.61)
($2,166.66)
($6,214.40)
GRAND TOTAL
$2,486,622.05
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela J. Sibley
Council Warrants 03/20/07 BILLS #4 -B
3/20/2007
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: March 20, 2007
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $1 98,360 to Pacific States Environmental
Contractors Inc. for the Demolition of Boarded and Vacant Structures at 110
and 112 Norfolk Road Located on Orion Street and 100 and 104 Miramar
Road Located on Stardust Place
BACKGROUND
On April 20, 2004, the City Council authorized $201,160 in Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funding for the Blight Busters Program. In April 2005, April 2006, and
December 2006, the City Council added CDBG funds to the Program, for a total budget of
$395,172.
The Blight Busters Program is a revolving loan fund for the demolition of blighting
structures in redevelopment areas throughout Alameda. Four 4- and 6- piexes at Alameda
Point (AP), boarded and vacant for 10 years, have been prioritized for demolition by the
Development Services Department, the Alameda Police Department, and the Alameda
Point Collaborative. The demolition of 110 and 112 Norfolk Road, located on Orion Street,
and 100 and 104 Miramar Road on Stardust Place, removes visual blight, allows visual
access to the large open spaces beyond, and helps reduce petty crimes. In anticipation of
the demolition, extensive environmental testing was completed and abatement and
demolition specifications were prepared.
These 4- and 6- piexes, along with approximately 25 other similar buildings, are identified
for demolition in the Preliminary Development Concept for AP. It is anticipated that the AP
Master Developer will demolish all of the 4- and 6- piexes and structures and reimburse the
Blight Busters Program for tearing them down. The demolition of these four structures has
been prioritized because of the negative impact they have on the quality of life of residents
in housing managed as part of the 1994 Standards of Reasonableness for Homeless Uses
at Alameda Point. •
Agenda Item #4 -C CC
03 -20 -07
Honorable Mayor and March 20, 2007
Councilmembers Page 2
In February 2007, a CaII for Bids was issued and advertised according to the Federal
CDBG rules and regulations. To solicit the maximum number of bids, a notice of bid was
published in the Alameda Journal as well as posted on the City's website. The Call for
Bids was mailed directly to all Bay Area demolition and environmental abatement
companies registered on lists maintained by the City. Copies were also mailed to nine Bay
Area Building Exchanges.
DISCUSSION
A total of nine contractors attended the mandatory pre -bid meeting. Subsequent to the
pre -bid meeting, one addendum was issued to extend the bid due date in response to a
request from a bidder. Bids were opened on March 2nd. Six contractors submitted bids as
follows:
Bidder
Pacific States Environmental
Contractors Inc.
Bluewater Environmental Services Inc.
American Technologies Inc.
West Coast Environmental
Bayview Environmental Services Inc.
Zaccor Companies Inc.
Location Base Bid Utility Total Bid
Capping
Dublin $163,300 $2,000 $165,300
San Leandro
Hayward
Rancho Cordova
Oakland
Alameda
$173,982
$224,000
$349,000
$372,600
$572,000
$2,000 $175,982
$2,000 $226,000
$4,000 $351,000
$1,500 $374,100
$12,000 $584,000
The bids included the abatement and demolition of all four structures. Staff recommends
awarding the contract to Pacific States Environmental Contractors Inc., the apparent
lowest responsible bidder. The contract amount will be based on the Pacific States
Environmental Contractors Inc. bid, plus an additional 20% percent contingency.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City submitted a Request for Release of Funds and Certification to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on March 5th. Following the 15 -day comment
period, and assuming no objections are received, HUD will issue an authorization to
release funds on March 20th. Execution of the contract with Pacific States Environmental
Contractors Inc. is subject to this authorization.
The future AP Master Developer will be required to reimburse the Blight Busters Program
for the demolition of these four structures. This project does not impact the City's General
Fund.
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
March 20, 2007
Page 3
The project's specifications and the Call for Bids were prepared in accordance with Federal
CDBG rules and regulations. The Cali for Bids encouraged businesses owned by women
or minorities to bid and all contractors and other businesses providing services to the City
to hire Alameda residents, pursuant to City Resolution No. 12278.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is subject to compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act
(NEPA). The NEPA Environmental Assessment was published according to CDBG
regulations. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act.
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.11
and 36 CFR 801 et seq.), and with the approval of the Navy, the City of Alameda initiated
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office for the proposed demolition of the
four 1960's era multi - family buildings. The State Historic Preservation Office has
concurred with the City's finding that there will be no adverse effect on the Naval Air
Station Historic District.
RECOMMENDATION
Award the contract in the amount of $198,360, including 20% contingency to Pacific States
Environmental Contractors Inc. for the demolition of boarded and vacant structures at 110
and 112 Norfolk Road, located on Orion Street, and 100 and 104 Miramar Road, located
on Stardust Place, and authorize the City Manager to execute the contract and related
documents.
DK/LALIDP:mif
Respec ubmitted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
Debbie Potter
Base Reuse & Community Development
Manager
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
Date: March 20, 2007
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Re: Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Lease Agreement Dated January 31,
1991, Between the City of Alameda (Lessor) and the Alameda Food Bank
(Lessee) for Real Property Located at 1900 Thau Way (Requires 4 Affirmative
Votes)
BACKGROUND
On January 31, 1991, the City entered into a 25 -year lease with Alameda Emergency
Food, Inc. to operate a food distribution facility to low income residents on the City -
owned property located at 1900 Thau Way. The lease allowed the Alameda Food Bank
to move its operations from the temporary quarters at the Mastick Senior Center to the
Thau Way site. Under the existing lease, the City provided a fully functioning mobile
modular structure and was required to maintain the structure and the associated
landscaping. The lease also included a nine -month advance notification period for
either party to terminate the lease without cause, and an annual rent of $1.00.
DISCUSSION
The existing mobile modular structure housed on the Thau Way site does not meet the
needs of Alameda Food Bank operations. A Community Development Block Grant was
recently obtained to remove the existing structure and purchase and install a new
mobile modular unit. The new structure will be the property of the Alameda Food Bank;
once the trailer is installed, the City's maintenance and landscaping obligations will
cease. Although the lease is still in effect, an amendment to the Lease Agreement is
necessary due to this change in conditions. In addition, the lease amendment reduces
the notice of termination period to six months. These terms are acceptable to the
Alameda Food Bank. A copy of the Amendment to the Lease Agreement is attached.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to the City as a result of approving the Amendment to the
Lease Agreement. The proposed lease amendment retains the $1.00 annual rent.
Agenda Item #4 -D CC
03 -20 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Page 2
March 20, 2007
Introduce an Ordinance amending the Lease Agreement dated January 31, 1991,
between the City of Alameda (Lessor) and the Alameda Food Bank (Lessee) for real
property located at 1900 Thau Way (requires 4 affirmative votes).
Respectful)
Y
itted ,
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
repared by:
4k— &P-Ftvi-__
Marg: i clean
Public orks Coordinator
MTN:MM:gc
Attachment
cc: DSD
Amendment to Alameda Food Bank Lease
This is an Amendment to the Alameda Food Bank Lease entered into on January 31,
1991, by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City "),
and the ALAMEDA EMERGENCY FOOD, INC. (hereinafter "LESSEE ") who agree as
follows:
WHEREAS, on January 31, 1991, the CITY and LESSEE entered into a lease of property
located at 1900 Thau Way in Alameda, California whereby the CITY leased property to LESSEE
to operate a food bank (hereafter "LEASE "); and
WHEREAS, CITY and LESSEE wish to amend .the LEASE and have agreed to make
moot the provisions that pertain to the mobile modular trailer which is the subject of Exhibit "B"
because the trailer will be taken out of service. The terms and conditions governing the LEASE
from the time of execution of this Amendment to the end of the remaining period of the LEASE
are in effect; and
WHEREAS, the City has programmed Community Development Block Grant funds
(Grant funds) for the removal of the old modular trailer and an acquisition of a new mobile
modular trailer; and
WHEREAS, the LESSEE will be the owner with full responsibility of the new mobile
modular trailer that will be placed on the property located at 1900 Thau Way; and
WHEREAS, the LESEE will obtain the necessary approvals from the City to install the
new trailer in compliance with this agreement and the Amended LEASE; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the PARTIES agree as follows:
SECTION ONE. Paragraph 16 of the lease is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
16. CITY grants LESSEE the right to alter, adjust or modify the leased
premises, but only if given written approval by the City Manager or his/her designee prior to the
alteration, adjustment or modification. Any and all improvements which become permanent
fixtures to the premises shall be the property of CITY effective at termination of this lease, in
accordance with California property law. The CITY and LESSEE agree that the mobile modular
structure which is the subject matter of Exhibit `B" of the original LEASE shall be taken out of
service. LESSEE will be responsible for the removal of the mobile modular structure. Any funds
derived from the salvage of the mobile modular structure shall revert to the City. Any new
structure brought upon the premises, must receive prior approval of the City, and shall be the
property of LESSEE alone. With this understanding, at the time the original mobile modular
structure is removed from the leased premises, Exhibit "B" will be deemed moot.
SECTION TWO. Paragraph 22 of the lease is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
Attachment
Agenda Item #4 -D CC
03 -20 -07
22. This lease shall be terminated by LESSEE's failure to honor any of the
provisions set forth in this Agreement. Additionally, this lease is terminable at the end of each
five year period by either party provided that the party gives six (6) months notice of intent to
terminate to the other party and in the case of the CITY that CITY has an adopted plan for
Redevelopment. After February 1, 1996, the lease will automatically be renewed at the end of
each remaining five year period, unless the CITY has plans to use this property for another
specific use in connection with redevelopment and the CITY gives six (6) months notice as
provided in this paragraph.
SECTION THREE. At the time the original mobile modular structure is removed from
the leased premises, the following provisions will be deemed to have sunsetted and shall not be
applicable to the period of time remaining upon this amended lease. Those provisions are as
follows:
Paragraphs 13, 14, and 19.
Exhibits "B" and "C".
SECTION FOUR. Except as modified by Sections One, Two and Three of this
Amendment set forth above, each and every other provision of the LEASE shall remain in full
force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree to execute this document on the 20th day of
March 2007.
Recommended for Approval: CITY OF ALAMEDA
A Municipal Corporation
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Debra Kurita
City Manager
Approved as to Form: Attest:
Mohammed Hill
Assistant City Attorney
G:lpubworks\pwadmin\ COUNCIL 1200710320071Foodbankamend .doe
City Clerk
ALAMEDA EMERGENCY FOOD, INC.
Hugh Morgan
Chairperson
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY 31, 1991,
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ALAMEDA (LESSOR) AND THE ALAMEDA
.FOOD BANK (LESSEE) FOR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1900
THAU WAY (REQUIRES 4 AFFIRMATIVE VOTES)
WHEREAS, on January 31, 1991, the CITY OF ALAMEDA (CITY) and
ALAMEDA EMERGENCY FOOD, INC. (LESSEE) entered into a lease agreement of
property located at 1900 Thau Way in Alameda, California, whereby CITY leased
property to LESSEE to operate a food bank (LEASE); and
WHEREAS, LESSEE has recently received a Communit y Development ment Block
Grant for the removal and replacement of the existin g trailer; and
WHEREAS, once the new trailer is installed, CITY will no loner be the owner
of the trailer and will also no longer have maintenance same; obligations for and
g same;
WHEREAS, CITY and LESSEE wish to amend the LEASE as regards to
shorten the notice required for termination to six months.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves execution of the Lease
Amendment between the City of Alameda and Alameda y Emer enc Food, Inc.
Emergency as
Lessee.
Section 2. That the form of Lease Amendment referred to in the
above and attached hereto as Exhibit A, and its terms, conditions and covenants
contained therein are hereby approved.
Section 3. That the City Manager of the City of Alameda is hereby
authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Alameda, the attached Lease
Amendment.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and
after expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Attest: Presiding Officer of the Council
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Introduction of Ordinance #4 -D CC
03-20-07
EXHIBIT A
Amendment to Alameda Food Bank Lease
This is an Amendment to the Alameda Food Bank Lease entered into on January 31,
1991, by and between the CITY OF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation "City"),
(hereinafter y ),
and the ALAMEDA EMERGENCY FOOD, INC. (hereinafter "LESSEE") agree a ree as
follows:
WHEREAS, on January 31, 1991, the CITY and LESSEE entered into a lease of ro ert
p p Y
located at 1900 Thau Way in Alameda, California whereby the CITY leased ro ert to LESSEE
p p Y
to operate a food bank (hereafter "LEASE"); and
WHEREAS, CITY and LESSEE wish to amend the LEASE and have agreed to make
gr'
moot the provisions that pertain to the mobile modular trailer which is the subject of Exhibit "B"
subject
the trailer will be taken out of service. The terms and conditions overnin the LEASE
g g
from the time of execution of this Amendment to the end of the remaining p eriod of the LEASE
are in effect; and
WHEREAS, the City has programmed Community Development Block Grant funds
(Grant funds) for the removal of the old modular trailer and an acquisition of a new mobile
modular trailer; and
WHEREAS, the LESSEE will be the owner with full responsibility of the new mobile
modular trailer that will be placed on the property located at 1900 Thau Way; and
WHEREAS, the LESEE will obtain the necessary approvals from the City to install the
new trailer in compliance with this agreement and the Amended LEASE; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the PARTIES agree as follows:
SECTION ONE. Paragraph 16 of the lease is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
16. CITY grants LESSEE the right to alter, adjust or modify the leased
premises, but only if given written approval by the City Manager or his/her designee prior to the
alteration, adjustment or modification. Any and all improvements which become p ermanent
fixtures to the premises shall be the property of CITY effective at termination of this lease, in
accordance with California property law. The CITY and LESSEE agree that the mobile modular
structure which is the subject matter of Exhibit "B" of the original LEASE shall be taken out of
service. LESSEE will be responsible for the removal of the mobile modular structure. An y funds
derived from the salvage of the mobile modular structure shall revert to . the City. Any new
� y
structure brought upon the premises, must receive prior approval of the City, and shall be the
property of LESSEE alone. With this understanding, at the time the original mobile modular
structure is removed from the leased premises, Exhibit "B" will be deemed moot.
SECTION TWO. Paragraph 22 of the lease is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
22. This lease shall be terminated by LESSEE's failure to honor an y of the
provisions set forth in this Agreement. Additionally, this lease is terminable at the end of each
five year period by either party provided that the party gives six (6) months notice of intent to
terminate to the other party and in the case of the CITY that CITY has an plan adopted lan for
p
Redevelopment. After February 1, 1996, the lease will automatically be renewed at the end of
each remaining five year period, unless the CITY has plans to use this property for another
P y
specific use in connection with redevelopment and the CITY gives six (6) months notice as
provided in this paragraph.
SECTION THREE. At the time the original mobile modular structure is removed from
the leased premises, the following provisions will be deemed to have sunsetted and shall not be
applicable to the period of time remaining upon this amended lease. Those p rovisions are as
follows:
Paragraphs 13, 14, and 19.
Exhibits "B" and "C ".
SECTION FOUR. Except as modified by Sections One, Two and Three of this
Amendment set forth above, each and every other provision of the LEASE shall remain in full
force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree to execute this document on the 20th da y of
March 2007.
Recommended for Approval: CITY OF ALAMEDA
A Municipal Corporation
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
Debra Kurita
City Manager
Approved as to Form: Attest:
Mohammed Hill
Assistant City Attorney
G:l pubworks\ pwadmin\ CGUNCIL124O7 1032OO7Woodbankamend.doc
City Clerk
ALAMEDA EMERGENCY FOOD, INC.
Hugh Morgan
Chairperson
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was dul y and
�
regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting
assembled on the 20th day of March, 2007, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seal of said City this 20th day of March, 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
March 20, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and
Cou ncil mem hers
FROM: Debra Kurita
City Manager
RE: Review Existing Policies on Naming City Streets and Facilities and
Adopt a Resolution Adopting a Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and
Streets
BACKGROUND
In early 2006, Council requested that staff agendize a review of current policies regarding
the naming of City streets and facilities. Staff conducted a survey of neighboring
municipalities and public agencies and presented the data to Council during their meeting
of June 6, 2006. The Council reviewed the report, provided direction, and requested that
the item be brought back with the noted modifications as well as a recommendation.
DISCUSSION
The current Policy for Naming City Property and the existing Street Naming Policy have
been combined and amended in the proposed Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities
and Streets (see Exhibit A). The proposed policy continues to place the responsibility for
recommending potential names for facilities with the appropriate commission or board.
The criteria for selection for both facilities and streets will continue to emphasize names
that represent geographic areas, prominent members of the community, and individuals
who have made significant contributions to the City, including elected and appointed
officials. With the exception of street names, which are approved by the Planning Board,
all recommendations will be forwarded to Council for final approval. Amendments to the
combined policy include the following additions:
• A provision establishing an annual review of potential names by the appropriate board
or commission.
• A limit of 20 characters in a street name in accordance with the 911 Emergency
Communication Center system.
• Inclusion of restrictions regarding the period of time an individual would need to be
deceased prior to having his or her name considered.
Agenda Item #5 -A
03 -20 -07
Honorable Mayor and Page -2-
Councilmembers
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The administration of a naming policy would have no impact on the General Fund. The
implementation of such a policy would be absorbed in the operating budgets of the
appropriate departments.
p g g
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This policy complements the Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -84.5, governing the
City g g
naming of City streets and the existing policy for naming other City facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the existing policies regarding the naming of City streets and facilities and adopt
p
the resolution adopting the Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets.
Respectfully submitted,
. if
Dale LiIlard Director
Alameda Recreation & Parks
DK:DL:CW:bf
Exhibit
24,4,r/ Zu
Cathy w.••bury, Directo
Plannin & Building Department
City of Alameda
California
March 20, 2007
EXHIBIT A
POLICY FOR NAMING CITY PROPERTY, FACILITIES AND
STREETS
INTRODUCTION:
It is the City of Alameda's goal to establish a uniform policy to name City
facilities and portions thereof, including but not limited to: Parks and Park
facilities, Golf Complex, Alameda Power & Telecom facilities, Libraries,
Housing Authority facilities, fire stations, City Hall, Police Department facilities,
parking lots, ferry terminals, City streets and entryways to the City.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this policy is to honor persons, places and/or events in the history
of the City by naming City facilities after them. This process acknowledges and
memorializes a specific person or event and enhances the value and heritage of
the City.
PROCEDURES:
Boards and Commissions represent the community, and have direct responsibility
for various City facilities as prescribed in the City Charter and Alameda
Municipal Code. It shall be the responsibility of the following Boards and
Commissions to review the List of Street and Facility Names annually and
provide additions or deletions to the Historical Advisory Board. The Boards and
Commissions most closely related to these facilities will make the name
recommendation to the City Council:
Recreation Commission — City Parks, Swim Centers, Boat Ramps, and Associated
Facilities
Golf Commission — Golf Complex and Associated Facilities
Public Utilities Board — Alameda Power & Telecom Facilities
Library Board — Libraries
1
Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets - March 20, 2007
Housing Commission --- Housing Authority Facilities
Planning Board — Streets and all other City facilities
Groups from within the community and individuals may make a recommendation
to the Board or Commission at the time consideration is given to naming a facility
and may initiate such action. The Board or Commission will then forward their
recommendation to the City Council. If a facility does not have a connection to a
Board or Commission, the Planning Board will be the body that recommends a
name to the City Council.
The City Council will consider a recommendation from a Board or Commission
and make the final decision to name a City property or facility at a public meeting
in order to receive comments in an open forum.
The Historical Advisory Board will continue to maintain the List of Street and
Facility Names, including available names and those that have been used.
Additions or deletions to the List shall be approved by the appropriate Board
or Commission, based on written documentation of the historic importance of
the name in Alameda history and as outlined in this policy. Only names that
appear on the List of Street and Facility Names shall be utilized for the
naming of new streets or renaming of existing streets. The Planning Board
shall approve names for new streets.
CRITERIA:
In selecting the name for a City property, facility or street, the following criteria
shall be used:
1. A name that reflects the location of the facility by geographic area;
2. A name that reflects the history of a facility such as the family name of the
builder, developer or person who may have donated the land when the
individual has been deceased a minimum of three years;
3. A name that recognizes a significant contributor to the advancement of the
City, such as a former Mayor, Councilmember, Board or Commission
Member, officers or employees of the City, or member of the community
when the individual has been deceased a minimum of three years;
4. A name that recognizes the donor of a significant gift of land or funds for a
City facility.
5. A name that is listed on the List of Street and Facility Names of the City of
Alameda.
6. Only one name shall be used for each property or facility and all its various
components.
2
Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets - March 20, 2007
NAMING STREETS:
General Considerations for Naming Streets:
1. Priority shall be given to utilizing street names that represent persons, places
or events associated with the historical development of the City of Alameda.
2. Where feasible and appropriate, historic street names shall be chosen which
directly relate to that portion of the City in which the street to be named is
located.
3. Consistency in naming shall be maintained within a Subdivision Tract,
Planned Development, or other development or geographic area where street
names themes currently exist, are planned or are discernible.
4. Street names shall remain the same across intersecting streets and throughout
the length of the street.
5. The use of the same name but different suffices for adjacent streets shall be
avoided, with the exception of a small court or cul -de -sac adjacent to a main
road. For example, Brighton Court off Brighton Road.
6. A street name shall not intersect another street name at more than one location.
The use of circle or loop as a suffix is not encouraged except under limited,
specific design situations.
7. Similarly spelled or pronounced street names shall be avoided within the City.
8. The number of letters in the street name, including suffix, shall not exceed
twenty characters and spaces in conformance with the 911 Emergency
Communication Center system.
Designation:
1. In general, street names should include a suffix, such as those following, to
clearly indicate that it is part of the vehicular circulation system and to
minimize the possibility of confusion with development or project place
names. Names lacking such suffice or ending in such words as Harbor, Isle,
or Point are not encouraged, except to retain the continuity of established
naming schemes. Names utilizing terms from other languages such as
Embarcadero, Camino, Via and other non - typical names shall be considered
individually for appropriateness, merit, and general conformance to this
policy.
2. Cul -de -sac or short dead -end streets
a. Court
b. Place
3
Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets - March 20, 2007
c. Terrace
d. Square
3. Short connecting streets generally less than 1,000 feet in length.
a. Lane
4. Curvilinear streets, generally through or connecting and of higher capacity.
a. Drive
b. Way
c. Parkway
d. Boulevard
5. Street running diagonally to an established grid system
a. Road
b. Way
6. Generally north -south grid streets.
a. Street
7. Generally east -west streets.
a. Avenue
RENAMING CITY PROPERTY FACILITIES AND STREETS:
Should the City contemplate renaming a City property or facility, a comprehensive
study shall be conducted to determine how the existing name was conceived, including
an assessment of the impacts to the original honoree on renaming the facility, and the
impact on the adjacent neighborhoods should the property be renamed. The appropriate
Board or Commission shall review the study prior to making a recommendation to the
City Council. At that time, it will be at the discretion of the City Council whether or not
to rename a City property or facility.
Any change to an existing street name, which would affect the addressing of any
existing business or residence, shall require City Council in addition to Planning Board
approval.
4
Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets - March 20, 2007
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
ADOPTING A POLICY FOR NAMING CITY PROPERTY, FACILITIES
AND STREETS
WHEREAS, it is the City of Alameda's goal to establish a uniform policy City p Y
name City facilities and portions thereof; and
Y public
the City of Alameda is responsible for a variety of ublic
facilities, including parks and park facilities, a golf complex, Alameda Power &
Telecom facilities, libraries, Housing Authority facilities, fire stations, civic
buildings, Police Department facilities, parking Tots, ferry � terminals City streets
and entryways to the City; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the policy is to honor persons, places, and/or
events in the history of the City by naming City facilities after them; and
WHEREAS, the process established by this policy acknowledges and
memorializes a specific person or event and enhances the value and heritage
of the City.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
Y
of adopts the Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Ala y
Alameda rescinds the previous Street Naming Policy and the Policy for Naming
Y 9
City Property, adopted October 1, 1991.
Resolution #5 -A
03 -20 -07
City of Alameda
California
March 20, 2007
EXHIBIT A
POLICY FOR NAMING CITY PROPERTY, FACILITIES AND
STREETS
INTRODUCTION:
It is the City of Alameda's goal to establish a uniform policy to name City
p y y
facilities and portions thereof, including but not limited to: Parks and Park
facilities, Golf Complex, Alameda Power & Telecom facilities, Libraries,
Housing Authority facilities, p fire stations, City Hall, Police Department facilities,
parking lots, ferry terminals, City streets and entryways to the City.
y
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this policy is to honor persons, places and/or events in the history
of the City by naming City facilities after them. This process acknowledges and
memorializes a specific person or event and enhances the value and heritage of
the City.
PROCEDURES:
Boards and Commissions represent the community, and have direct responsibility
for various City facilities as prescribed in the City Charter and Alameda
Municipal Code. It shall be the responsibility of the following oards and
g
Commissions to review the List of Street and Facility Names annuall y and
provide additions or deletions to the Historical Advisory Board. The Boards and
Commissions most closely related to these facilities will make the name
recommendation to the City Council:
Recreation Commission — City Parks, Swim Centers, Boat Ramps, and Associated
Facilities
Golf Commission — Golf Complex and Associated Facilities
Public Utilities Board -- Alameda Power & Telecom Facilities
Library Board — Libraries
1
Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets - March 20, 2007
Housing Commission -- Housing Authority Facilities
Planning Board --- Streets and all other City facilities
Groups from within the community and individuals may make a recommendation
to the Board or Commission at the time consideration is given to naming a facility
and may initiate such action. The Board or Commission will then forward their
recommendation to the City Council. If a facility does not have a connection - Y to a
Board or Commission, the Planning Board will be the body that recommends a
name to the City Council.
The City Council will consider a recommendation from a Board or Commission
and make the final decision to name a City property or facility at a public meeting
in order to receive comments in an open forum.
The Historical Advisory Board will continue to maintain the List of Street and
Facility Names, including available names and those that have been used.
Additions or deletions to the List shall be approved by the appropriate ro riate Board
or Commission, based on written documentation of the historic importance of
the name in Alameda history and as outlined in this policy. Only names that
appear on the List of Street and Facility Names shall be utilized for the
naming of new streets or renaming of existing streets. The Planning Board
shall approve names for new streets.
CRITERIA:
In selecting the name for a City property, facility or street, the following criteria
shall be used:
1. A name that reflects the location of the facility by geographic area;
2. A name that reflects the history of a facility such as the family name of the
builder, developer or person who may have donated the land when the
individual has been deceased a minimum of three Y ears ;
3. A name that recognizes a significant contributor to the advancement of the
City, such as a former Mayor, Councilmember, Board or Commission
Member, officers or employees of the City, or member of the community
when the individual has been deceased a minimum of three years;
4. A name that recognizes the donor of a significant gift of land or funds for a
City facility.
5. A name that is listed on the List of Street and Facility Names of the City of
Alameda.
6. Only one name shall be used for each property or facility and all its various
components.
2
Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets - March 20, 2007
NAMING STREETS:
General Considerations for Naming Streets:
1. Priority shall be given to utilizing street names that represent persons, p laces
or events associated with the historical development of the City of Alameda.
2. Where feasible and appropriate, historic street names shall be chosen which
directly relate to that portion of the City in which the street to be named is
located.
3. Consistency in naming shall be maintained within a Subdivision Tract,
Planned Development, or other development or geographic area where street
names themes currently exist, are planned or are discernible.
4. Street names shall remain the same across intersecting streets and throughout
the length of the street.
5. The use of the same name but different suffices for adjacent streets shall be
avoided, with the exception of a small court or cul -de -sac adjacent to a main
road. For example, Brighton Court off Brighton Road.
6. A street name shall not intersect another street name at more than one location.
The use of circle or loop as a suffix is not encouraged except under limited,
specific design situations.
7. Similarly spelled or pronounced street names shall be avoided within the City.
8. The number of letters in the street name, including suffix, shall not exceed
twenty characters and spaces in conformance with the 911 Emergency
Communication Center system.
Designation:
1. In general, street names should include a suffix, such as those following, to
clearly indicate that it is part of the vehicular circulation system and to
minimize the possibility of confusion with development or project place
names. Names lacking such suffice or ending in such words as Harbor, Isle,
or Point are not encouraged, except to retain the continuity of established
naming schemes. Names utilizing terms from other languages such as
�
Embarcadero, Camino, Via and other non - typical names shall be considered
individually for appropriateness, merit, and general conformance to this
policy.
2. Cul -de -sac or short dead -end streets
a. Court
b. Place
3
Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets - March 20, 2007
c. Terrace
d. Square
3. Short connecting streets generally less than 1,000 feet in length.
a. Lane
4. Curvilinear streets, generally through or connecting and of higher capacity.
a. Drive
b. Way
c. Parkway
d. Boulevard
5. Street running diagonally to an established grid system
a. Road
b. Way
6. Generally north-south grid streets.
a. Street
7. Generally east -west streets.
a. Avenue
RENAMING CITY PROPERTY FACILITIES AND STREETS:
Should the City contemplate renaming a City property or facility, a comprehensive
study shall be conducted to determine how the existing name was conceived, including
an assessment of the impacts to the original honoree on renaming the facility, and the
impact on the adjacent neighborhoods should the property be renamed. The appropriate
Board or Commission shall review the study prior to making a recommendation to the
City Council. At that time, it will be at the discretion of the City Council whether or not
to rename a City property or facility.
Any change to an existing street name, which would affect the addressing of any
existing business or residence, shall require City Council in addition to Planning Board
approval.
4
Policy for Naming City Property, Facilities and Streets - March 20, 2007
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2007, by
the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this _day of , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Cou ncil members
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: March 20, 2007
Re: Adoption of a Resolution Directing Staff to Monitor Chuck Corica Golf
Complex Budget, Consider Results of Operational Review, and Implement
Operational Changes to Ensure a Balanced Budget
BACKGROUND
The Chuck Corica Golf Complex is a City -owned facility that consists of two 18 -hole
courses and one nine -hole executive course. The Complex employs 24 full -time and
approximately 25 part -time employees. Based on projected revenues and expenditures for
the remainder of Fiscal Year 2008 -2007, the Golf Complex is facing an estimated operating
deficit of $79,157 this year.
DISCUSSION
With competition from new nearby golf courses and the long -term decline in olf play
� y
nationwide, the Golf Complex's revenues have not kept pace with its expenditures. As a
result, the Golf Complex is facing an estimated operating deficit this year of $79,157. The
amended Golf Complex operations budget, which includes actual revenues and
expenditures through the end of February, and projected revenues and expenditures for
March through the end of the fiscal year, can be seen in Attachment A. The Golf Complex
also has an estimated unreserved fund balance for the current fiscal year of about $2.2
million.
In early March, the City issued a Request for Proposals for an operational review of the
Golf Complex, with a deadline of March 23 for the return of proposals. The Golf Complex
review is intended to determine operating efficiencies and opportunities that can be
executed to increase the overall economic performance of the Golf Complex. The review
will include an evaluation of the current organizational structure and staffing as well as a
. g
set of recommendations for the future operation, marketing, and management of the Golf
Complex. Staff estimates that a consultant will be retained by mid - April, and the work will
be completed by the end of June.
Until the comprehensive organizational review is completed and the recommendations
implemented, there are two general mechanisms the Golf Complex can use to balance its
budget: increase revenues or decrease expenditures. In order to raise revenues, the Golf
Commission has recommended increasing several Golf Complex fees. Those fee
Agenda Item #5 -8
03-20-07
Honorable Mayor and March 20, 2007
Councilmembers Page 2 of 3
increases are being considered by the City Council at the March 20 meeting. If the
proposed fee increases are approved and implemented by April 1, an estimated $50,000
will be generated this fiscal year and approximately $329,000 next fiscal year. The
implementation v
implementation of the proposed fee structure this year will result in reducing the estimated
g
operating deficit to $19,157.
On -the expenditure side, the Golf Complex budget is comprised primarily of personnel
costs, utility and other variable costs, and fixed costs. Approximately 50% of total Golf
Complex expenditures are for salaries and benefits for the g employees providing services at
the Golf Complex. There are currently two full -time vacant positions that are not being
filled in order to reduce expenditures. Any reductions in personnel beyond those related to
vacancies may impact operational effectiveness and would require the City to meet and
confer with the employee bargaining units representing Golf Complex employees. Further,
one of the objectives of the operational review is to analyze current staffing levels and
develop recommendations about appropriate staffing.
The Golf Complex budget also includes a variety of operating costs, such as charges for
water, electricity, and other utilities, and those for equipment. The staff has implemented a
conservation program in order to reduce water expenditures, and they are proceedin g with
a plan to reduce the number of electric golf carts they lease from 150 to 120. The current
golf cart lease contract expires in mid -June, so any savings will not be realized until early
next fiscal year.
The Golf Complex surcharge is both a revenue and an expenditure. The Golf Complex
charges a surcharge on designated greens fees, and that surcharge is transmitted from the
Golf Complex to the City's General Fund on a monthly basis. The surcharge is based on
actual greens fees, so the amount transmitted each month varies. Reducing the transfer of
the surcharge would help balance the Golf Complex budget, but it would negatively affect
g Y a
the City's General Fund budget.
Finally, the Golf Complex budget includes fixed costs for the cost allocation plan (C.A.P.),
the return on investment (ROl), and the payment in -lieu of taxes (PILOT). The C.A.P.
allocates the administrative costs of General Fund services to the benefiting p ro rams and
g
departments, thereby ensuring that those programs and departments pay for their use of
such services. The City charges the ROI to both Alameda Power & Telecom and the Golf
Complex to recoup its investment in these enterprises, while it charges the PILOT to AP&T,
,
the Golf Complex, and the sewer fund to replace the property taxes that would otherwise
be provided if their properties were privately owned. Relieving the Golf Complex of the
obligation to pay any of these fixed costs would help balance the Golf Complex budget.
p g
However, this action is not recommended because it would necessitate immediate
reductions in the City's General Fund expenditures to ensure a balanced General Fund
budget and maintain the City's fund balance.
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
March 20, 2007
Page 3 of 3
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The estimate of the Golf Complex operating deficit for the current fiscal year is $79,157.
This amount is based on eight months of actual revenues and expenditures and four
months of estimated revenues and expenditures. Those estimates could change if the
9
rounds of golf played in the remaining months of the year increase or decrease. In order to
assure that the City Council and the Golf Commission receive timely updates about the
Y p
Golf Complex budget, the Finance Department will provide monthly reports and will include
the status of the Golf Complex budget in the quarterly financial provides reports it rovides to the
City Council.
p
Addressing the deficit this fiscal year may be accomplished through cost reductions, fee
increases, g ,
ncreases, or consumption of Golf Complex fund balance. Cost reductions could cost the
General Fund as much as $79,157, while fee increases could reduce the deficit to
approximately $20,000, with no impact on the General Fund. Using he Golf Complex fund
� p
balance to reduce the deficit would have no impact on the City's General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
There is no impact on the Alameda Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution directing staff to monitor the Chuck Corica Golf Complex budget,
p g ,
consider the results of the operational review, and implement operational changes to
ensure a balanced budget.
p g
Respectfully submitted,
I eA n n :■ ye r
Chief Financial Officer
Attachment
cc: Golf Commission
Attachment A
W
CI .J
a J
2 v
0 0
w
-
a o'-
LL P
0 C g
�< <
1- 0 0.
bx °
C 0
-
LU
0 m G?
v w m 4:0 icir
>- > C
Et
— M
N ty
J O
z c C.)
0 69. 69. se 69. fa Ea
Profit! {Loss}
•
c
�-- M Q tt r 0) C0
M ? N r M L N.
r r r
c CO CO 00 CO co CO CO 00
0 I` I` f- f` N ti ti
C37 0) Cn c C77
�] N N N N N N N N
LIf
^Q
(1)
ea 69
d
0
a)
EXPENDITURES **
REVENUE
1t) I,- r CO N_ 0) I` N#'
Cr 1!) N- N CO 0) 0) N
I` �f' CA t- r co I`
d' N Cfl CD CO 0
....
t
69
CO r- Q u7 (0 Q r`
CO (0 CD r r N 00 d'
CC7 N C0 L{7 10 CO LC) CO
in d- d= ov co o r
037 Cr) ti d- 0) CO CO
N d' LO C') CO CO (()
ta
t-- Q 0) N- �r 1n Cvl cn
CO 0) u7 C0 Q r- 0) N
I- CO 07 N N CO LC) r
N Cl7 N �f7 I` Cr7 CO
CO d~' 0) C 00 CO N CV
Q Q C, Q CO I` N Cr]
t� Lt) CO N CO CO d•
'� N r N M
C,O CO CY7 N r‹
0
1.f
CO
0)
N
d•
Ci
Ctrl
ti
10
M
CO CO o0 CO
C` l` I`
r r r r
C37 0) 0 CA
N N N N
o (-73` (0
CO N CV 0)
tri N L0 r-
69 GS
00
C,
rn
d~
00
Cti
N
Q
0)
0) (0 co rn
(N C'I
CO CO �-
N 10 N
CO C\ I�w
CZ) CO N
CN C'7 t}- ‘,:t.
C� C0
Ca CD
0)0)0)(0
M] c1'
c Cr} 14 1
�� -.
Ct
W re W >-
H2WCnCOreQ ,�,,
1-- !1OWCO22aM roZ
LL J a ; Z m W 2 ›' z
>> W U O W W 6-.40. a
❑ -)ac, Oz❑ -)w L 2 < 2 n
N CO
N CO
co CS
10
N-- 0,
DN]
CO
69
0,
00
CC\J
69
64 64
TOTALS Actual + Forecast
0
0
cts
0
0
0
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
DIRECTING STAFF TO MONITOR CHUCK CORICA GOLF COMPLEX
BUDGET, CONSIDER RESULTS OF OPERATIONAL REVIEW, AND
IMPLEMENT OPERATIONAL CHANGES TO ENSURE A BALANCED
BUDGET
WHEREAS, the Chuck Corica Golf Complex is a City -owned facility that
consists of two 18 -hole courses, one nine -hole executive course, a driving
range, a practice area, and a restaurant facility; and
WHEREAS, the Chuck Corica Golf Complex is a valuable asset to the
community, providing recreational opportunities for Alameda residents; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda recently issued a Request for Proposals
for an independent consulting firm to review the City's municipal golf operation
. g p
and make recommendations for its future operations, including p otential cost
containments; and
WHEREAS, the operational review of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex
will be completed by late June 2007; and
WHEREAS, the goal of both the City Council and City staff is to ensure
that Chuck Corica Golf Complex operational revenues and expenditures are in
balance each fiscal year.
NOW, iTHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
y
Alameda that staff is directed to monitor the Chuck Corica Golf Complex
budget, consider the results of the operational review, and es implement changes
g
at the Golf Complex that will reach the goal of having operational revenues and
expenditures in balance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Department will provide
the City Council and the Golf Commission with monthly reports on the Golf
Complex budget, and it will highlight the status of the Golf Complex budget in
the quarterly financial reports it provides to the City Council.
Resolution #5 -B
03 -20 -07
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2007, by
the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this day of , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: March 20, 2007
RE: Adopt a Resolution Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 by
Changing Various Chuck Corica Golf Complex Rates
BACKGROUND
Each year, the Golf Commission discusses and reviews possible fee changes for the
Chuck Corica Golf Complex. Revisions are made and approved by the Golf Commission
before being presented to the City Council for final approval. Golf Complex staff held four
public meetings to discuss the various fee change proposals with the Golf Commission and
the Golf Complex users who will be affected by the proposed increases. The first meeting
was a Golf Commission Work Session on February 8, 2006. That meeting was followed by
the regular Golf Commission meetings on March 16, 2006, and April 19, 2006. The fee
changes were approved at a Special Meeting of the Golf Commission on February 11,
2007. The fee changes discussed and approved by the Golf Commission are included as
Attachment A to this report.
DISCUSSION
At its February 11, 2007, special meeting, the Golf Commission voted to change various
daily green fees on the Jack Clark, Earl Fry, and Mif Albright Golf Courses. In addition, the
Golf Commission voted to increase the Golf Tournament rates and monthly tickets. The
proposed fee changes, if approved by the City Council, would go into effect April 1, 2007.
Since June 1, 2004, the Golf Commission has refrained from voting to change any Golf
Complex fees in order to stay competitive in the over - saturated San Francisco Bay Area
golf market. It has, however, become necessary to increase revenue to meet the
increasing expense of operating the Golf Complex. In addition, the Consumer Price Index
for the Bay Area has increased since 2004; therefore, the Golf Complex is paying more for
services from vendors, but not charging more for its services. Attachment B is a Fee
Comparison Survey showing that the fees at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex continue to
Agenda Item #5 -C
03- 20-07
Honorable Mayor and
Councilmembers
March 20, 2007
Page 2 oft
be, on the average, the most reasonable in the area. It should also be noted that the
Resident Rates continue to be provided at a significant discount, while the Junior Resident
rate of $1.00 is the lowest in the area. Due to the lack of increases for the past three years
and to the continued escalating cost of operating the Golf Complex, the Golf Commission
voted to adjust the fees this fiscal year. Attachment A shows the proposed Golf Complex
fee schedule representing the changes in various fees. The fee increases will enable the
Chuck Corica Golf Complex to continue its current service levels.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The increased fees should result in approximately $329,000.00 in additional Golf Complex
revenue for FY 2007/08. This revenue estimate was derived by applying the new rates to
the actual attendance in FY 2005/06. The total amount was then reduced by 15% as an
allowance for any reduction in revenues as a result of the fee increases. It should be noted
that FY 2005/06 was a low revenue year because of heavy rains, so the actual amount of
revenue received from the fee changes could increase. Applying the same formula above
to the attendance figures for the last three months of FY 2005/06 (April, May, and June)
yields an additional $50,000 in revenue for the remainder of the current fiscal year.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 by changing various Chuck
Corica Golf Complex rates.
DB: nem
Attachments
xc: Golf Commission
Respectfully sub fitted,
Dale Lillard
Alameda Recreation and Park Director
Acting Golf General Manager
RECOMMENDED FEE CHANGES, CHUCK CORICA GOLF COMPLEX
FEBRUARY 11, 2007 ATTACHMENT A
18 -HOLE COURSES:
Monday Through Thursday:
Regular Resident
Regular Non - Resident
Senior Resident
Senior Non- Resident
Junior Resident*
Junior Non - Resident*
Twilight Resident
Twilight Non - Resident
Late Twilight Resident
Late Twilight Non- Resident
9 -Hole Resident
9 -Hole Non - Resident
Current
$23
$30
$18
$23
$1
$8
$18
$23
$13
$16
$16
$20
Recommended
Earl Fry
$25
$30
520
525
51
510
520
525
515
518
$16
520
Recommended
Jack Clark
$23
528
$18
523
$1
58
$18
523
$13
$16
$16
520
Change
Earl Fry
52
50
52
52
50
$2
52
$2
$2
52
so
50
Change
Jack Clark
$o
(52)
50
$0
$o
50
50
$0
$0
50
50
50
Friday:
Resident Friday
Non- Resident Friday
Saturday, Sunday, Holidays:
Resident Weekend
Non - Resident Weekend
Twilight Resident, WE
Twilight, Non - Resident, WE
Late Twilight Resident, WE
Late Twilight Non - Resident, WE
9 -Hole Resident (1st 2 hrs of the day)
9 -Hole Non - Resident (1st 2 hrs of the day)
Juniors*
Juniors Non - Resident*
$27
535
$27
$32
525
530
$27
$35
$19
$25
514
518
518
523
51
58
$32
540
$25
527
516
$18
$18
523
$1
510
$28
536
521
$25
$14
516
516
$21
51
58
50
($3)
(52)
(55)
$5
$5
56
$2
$2
50
50
50
50
52
51
51
52
50
50
($2)
(52)
($2)
50
50
CART FEES:
Single Rider (Non- Shared Cart)
Senior M -F per player
Late Twilight
Mif
Current
514
511
59
Recommended
$15
513
$10
$8
Change
$1
52
51
MONTHLY PASSES:
Res. Sr. (M -Th + Fri (JC Only)
Resident (M -Th + Fri (JC only)
Non -Res. (M -Th + Fri (JC only)
TOURNAMENTS:
Mon - Thurs
Mon - Thurs (Senior)
Friday
Weekends and Holidays
Mif 9 -HOLE COURSE RATES:
Regular Weekday
Regular Weekend
Senior Weekday
Replay Rate
Junior Resident
Junior Non - Resident
*EF Mon -Fri after 12:00: Weekends &
Holidays after twilight only
* *Can be waived
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
Current
585
5100
5130
Surcharge
50
50
53
Recommended
5100
5115
5195
Surcharge
50
50
50
Change
515
$15
565
Green Fees
530
$30
$35
$35
Current
Cart Req
no
no
yes
yes
Merch
56
56
56
56
. Rec
EF /JC
$50/$48
$38/$36
$52/$50
560/556
Current
$9
$11
$7
57
$1
$4
Recommended
510
$12
$8
$7
.$1
$5
Change
51
51
$1
50
$0
$1
ommended
Cart Req
yes
yes
yes
yes
Merch**
$5
50
$5
$5
D rivi n Current
Range
Small I $0
Medium 54
Large I $6
X -Large 58
Recommended Change
$3
$5
$7
$9
$3
$1
$1
51
Practice Area: 55 w/ small bucket
Page 3 March 20, 2007
ATTACHEMENT B
W
?le
0
z
0
2
a
110
0)_
W M
co U.
Z W
W LL
W
0
W
X
w
8
a z t z z z z
•
N
r z r
pp Q
* 2
A 11.. A
mix Izzgzzzzz
P
o Q Q r
;zz1
85-.7.7 8 Q o
EB Z 1 2 a
2 2
113 1r3 A R Z 2 Z
Ar
3 69, bl 69.
A i r
H LC3 u7 - LG s
N N N Q
t[?
1s 10.ef,zI,40
d
H ce
2
2 z
CO N
4* 4* 40 yg
-
nNN
(G Q
z
O
022
409.2240222
c t
am
2
c7 Q ¢
c4 2 2
2 Z
to 2 Z
Q N N N Q Q Q
s z b, d4 a e; z z z
2
a
2
r� Q cr7
e z . a
2 2
j ..0 z 5' � (0.0
40 Q Q Q
Z Z Z
r` o Q
e z ao
2 2
R 2 z
VI 0 VI 03 N N N r N p
W (� 11 40 i4 N r n 1A
2 2 o in v 0! 1 ' '
E W vaaatotot+�
io . 1'ri N N N r r p] r
�r 11F 40 NW 111} 111' 1. i11} a
CO
44. 40 40 w
4. w 4*
o �
4*
�r7 N N N
4* 4* 40 14
40 40 10
T • -
CO r
40 4*
4* 40 40
40 40 40 40 40
a
0
03 CO Q m ti r• co Q Q Q
69 2 10 69 40(0 2 222
2
Q
4* Z io to
1
03
4* Z Z 69. 69
a)
0
k) a z 2 Q Q 4 2 Z Q z
a.4p,
0 Q
� z
to z z
A
0 CD
40
7 A. MIL
If" 2
Q Q
2 Z
z L Z Z - to
a
3
R o Q
aN
64 64
0
I
2 0 ,n Q Q
1 z z
ii
ERF,
0
2
aaRR
c
0
oa
3
A
N
A
Z E
y 0
5
402 69 2 10 I g .�e
.
u
.. ed
A A A
Q Q O N
2 2 I S E
A
0
Q Q Q Q Q
a 2 11� Z a 2 2 2 C W
N Q Q Q Q
2 2 2 z Z 2
2
x z z a
r
1 �
N N a Q
IA 10 14 2 2 2
2
(43 A
m,
EF =Earl Fry Course
I
~ C 0 a) C
H iol
u. Fieful —w!arevot .0 ...,
.
L = i C y
0 :comm 30
2 2 2
IE
m H
4'
0
8
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
AMENDING MASTER FEE RESOLUTION NO. 12191
BY CHANGING VARIOUS
CHUCK CORICA GOLF COMPLEX RATES
WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code and the California Government
code provide that the City Council shall set fees reasonable to recover the cost
of providing various services by resolution: and
WHEREAS, the City Council, at the August 27, 1991 Special City
Y
Council meeting directed staff to amend the Alameda Municipal code to reflect
ect
that city fees shall be set by City Council resolution; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 12191 (Master Fee Resolution), as
amended, codifies existing fees for various City Services and p ermits; and
WHEREAS, at the February 11, 2007 meeting of the Golf Commission,
fee increases were reviewed and recommended fora approval by the City
Y Y
Council; and
WHEREAS, the fee increases will enable the Chuck Corica Golf complex
to continue the current service level.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Alameda that Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 be amended by increasing
g
various Chuck Corica Golf complex Rates, attached hereto as Attachment A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the increases shall become effective
April 1, 2007.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees established by Master Fee
Resolution No. 12191 which are inconsistent with fees established by this
Y
Resolution are hereby repealed.
Resolution #5 -C
03 -20 -07
RECOMMENDED FEE CHANGES, CHUCK CORICA GOLF COMPLEX
FEBRUARY 11, 2007 ATTACHMENT A
Current
18 -HOLE COURSES:
Monda Throu h Thursda :
fitOgitt.t,
cez-.
Recommended
Earl Fry
Recommended
Jack Clark
Change
Earl Fry
?;:tg
c
Regular Non - Resident
Vt-K1
Senior Non- Resident
JO:44ft
Junior Non - Resident
2+4..1"ettp,
Change
Jack Clark
4\1
Valk
Twilight Non - Resident
v„, t4.
Late Twilight Non - Resident
-Or
12:0#, A .7,, \
9 -Hole Non - Resident
Frida
. Non - Resident Friday
}
E4P-
Non - Resident Weekend
eg-
erg..
'14(7' 4.;9 .411NA:
IgiARVa's:
Twilight, Non - Residen
Late Twilight Non - Resident, WE
9 -Hole Non - Resident (1st 2 hrs of the day
,Jfkt
iditibalostioalor
CART FEES:
Juniors Non - Resident
Senior M -F per player
MONTHLY PASSES:
Mif
Resident (M -Th + Fri (JC only)
Fr?", ev
TOURNAMENTS:
Mon - Thurs (Senior
iSCIEP
i2:7;410A
. Recommended .
EF /JC Cart Re I Merch * *
,a14:1
.Y;.a. 1010010011,-
- ,x .; . .ya
Weekends and Holidays
Mif 9 -HOLE COURSE RATES:
$o
-1-qk 0,
�.i
Regular Weekend
sue, •- • .r s.
�.s. 14;.4V,
Replay Rate
;
Junior Non - Resident
*EF Mon -Fri after 12:00: Weekends &
Holidays after twilight only
* *Can be waived
Chuck Corica Golf Complex
yes
$5
Drivin! Current Recommended Change
Ran e
Medium
$4
v ,
" i
•�ca:yf
X -Large $ 8
$5
IF �sA
$9
r��
.z:
$1
$1
Practice Area: $5 wl small bucket
March 20, 2007
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2007, by
the following vote to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this day of , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda