2007-08-07 PacketAGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 391
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1. ROLL CALL
2. Public Comment on Non - Agenda Items Only.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Meeting will begin at 7:10 p.m.
Anyone wishing to address the Board on non- agenda items only, may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per item.
3. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Negotiating parties:
Under negotiation:
Alameda Naval Air Station (former North Housing site, north of
Singleton Ave. and bordered by Mosley Ave.)
ARRA and US Navy
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Notes:
■ Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749-5800 at
least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
■ Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available. Minutes of
the meeting are available in enlarged print.
▪ Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the
podium and state your name; speakers are limited to
three (3) minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY
AUGUST 7, 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 ALAMEDA REUSE AND 7:10 P.M.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda (Closed Session)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA REUSE AND 7:31 P.M.
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7:32 P.M.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3 -A. Presentation by East Bay Municipal Utility District on water
conservation.
3 -B. Presentation of the Horace Carpentier Long Wharf Award for the
Bridgeside Center.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public
4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meeting held
on July 17, 2007. (City Clerk)
4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance)
4-C. Recommendation to accept the work of Regency Centers for the
repair to public drainage facilities in coordination with
construction of the Bridgeside Shopping Center improvements.
(Public works)
4 -D. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize
Call for Bids for Grand Street Bridge and Ballena Boulevard
bridge repair and resurfacing, No. P.W. 11- 06 -24. (Public
Works)
4 -E. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City's Participation in
the 211 Program and Appropriating $25,000 for Fiscal Year
2007 -2008. (City Manager)
4 -F. Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute a Lease of Vacant Properties at 2300 Alameda Avenue,
2304 Alameda Avenue, and 1224 Oak Street with Thompson
Properties (Lessor) for a City Parking Lot. (Public Works)
4 -G. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Community Improvement
Plan for the West End Community Improvement Project to Extend
Certain Plan Time Limitations by Two Years Pursuant to Senate
Bill 1096. (Development Services)
4 -H. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Subsection 13-2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments
and Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13-2
(Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing)
to Incorporate Specific Requirements for the Installation of
Fire Extinguishing Systems. (Fire)
5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5 -A. Public Hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Board
approval of Planned Development Amendment PDA0 5 - 0 0 01, Major
Design Review DR05 -0010, and Use Permits UP06 -0003 and UP06 --
0013 allowing the demolition of an existing bank building and
redevelopment of the property with a twenty -four hour gas
station located at 2234 Otis Drive; and adoption of related
resolution. The property is located within a Central Business
and Planned Development overlay zoning district (C- 2 -PD).
(Planning and Building)
5 -B. Recommendation to approve the second amendment to the Contract
for the use of HOME Funds between Alameda Development
Corporation and the City of Alameda for Buena Vista Commons.
(Development Services)
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment)
Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter
over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may
take cognizance, that is not on the agenda
7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended
7 -A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the
Public Art Commission and Transportation Commission.
8. ADJOURNMENT - City Council
* **
• For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a
written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk
at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please
contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522-7538 at
least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter.
• Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use.
For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD
number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including
those using wheelchairs, is available.
• Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print.
• Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request.
• Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538
at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda
materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable
accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy
the benefits of the meeting.
AGENDA
Special Meeting of the Governing Body of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
* * * * * * **
Alameda City Hall
Council Chamber, Room 390
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
1. ROLL CALL
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Meeting will begin at 7 :31 p.m.
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 Board or a member of the public.
2 -A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 18, 2007.
2 -B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council /Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority /Community Improvement Commission of July 18, 2007.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Approve a 12 -Month Contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in the Amount of
$185,000 to Provide Negotiation Support and to Conduct a Fiscal Impact Analysis for the
Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
5. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
6. ADJOURNMENT
This meeting will be cablecast live on channel 15.
Notes:
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the ARRA Secretary at 749 -5800 at
least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter.
• Accessible seating for persons with disabilities (including those using wheelchairs) is available.
• Minutes of the meeting are available in enlarged print.
• Audio tapes of the meeting are available for review at the ARRA offices upon request.
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
TUESDAY -- - - AUGUST 7, 2007 - - - 7:32 P.M.
Location: Ci t Council Chambers. City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council /Commission on agenda items or
business introduced by the Council/Commission may speak for a
maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the
Council/Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy
City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item.
1. ROLL CALL - City Council, CIC
2. MINUTES
2 -A. Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
Meeting held on July 17, 2007 and the Special Joint City
Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and CIC
Meeting held on July 18, 2007. (City Clerk)
3. AGENDA ITEM
3 -A. Recommendation to review and approve the Civic Center Parking
Garage Management and Operations Plan and Operating Budget.
(Development Services)
4. ADJOURNMENT - City Council, CIC
Beverly . nson,
Chair, Commun t
Commission
y
pr r1
ovement
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - JULY 17, 2007 - - - 6:30 p.m.
Vice Mayor Tam convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam - 4.
Absent: Mayor Johnson -1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(07- ) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95); Claimant: Jerry
Manis; Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda.
(07- ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
All City Bargaining Units.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Vice Mayor Tam announced that regarding Workers' Compensation,
Council received a briefing regarding the status of a Workers'
Compensation claim and provided direction regarding settlement;
regarding Labor, Council received a briefing on the status of labor
negotiations with various City bargaining units.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Vice Mayor Tam 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
July 17, 2007
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 17, 2007- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:23
p.m.
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- ) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association
on the 23rd Annual Art and Wine Faire.
Rob and Tracy McKean presented wine glasses to the Council and
encouraged everyone to attend the Faire.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(07- ) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to
award Contract [paragraph no. 07- ] was removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder 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 Joint City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement
Commission Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on
July 3, 2007. Approved.
( *07- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $956,649.00.
(07- ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$79,955 to Muller & Caulfield Architects for Architectural and
Engineering Services to evaluate alternatives and develop costs
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
1
for the Carnegie Restoration and Preservation Project.
The Building official gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated line item SD19 shows a workshop
fee for the design of a permit center; the fee is the same for a
workshop to review design of alternative uses; $6,000 is
allocated for revised plans and 3D visual materials for a permit
center; $1,360 is allocated for alternative uses; that he wants
to ensure that the building's use is not predisposed;
alternative uses should get an equal, if not larger, percentage
of study time; a policy decision has not been made for the
building's use.
The Building Official stated a meeting is scheduled tomorrow
with Muller & Caulfield to discuss the issue if the Contract is
awarded; the intent is to have two workshops equally divided
between all options.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether five workshops would be
conducted.
The Building official responded two public workshops would be
conducted; the Contractor used the word "workshop" when
addressing meetings with the Council, Historic Advisory Board,
and Planning Board.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff
recommendation with the understanding that there is no
predisposed use for the Carnegie Building.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( *07_ ) ordinance No. 2967, "Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute All Necessary Agreements and Documents for Termination
of the Ground Lease and Execution of a Master Lease that Divides
the Leasehold Estate that is the Subject of the Lease into Three
Separate Leasehold Estates to Ballena Isle Marina, LP, a
California Limited Partnership, of Real Property Held Under
Lease By and Between the City of Alameda and Ballena Isle
Marina, a Limited Partnership." Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07- ) Resolution No. 14133, "Appointing Gregory L. Hamm as a
Member of the Public Utilities Board." Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
2
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -- 5.
(07- ) Public Hearing to consider Certification of a Final
Environmental Impact Report and approval of Northern Waterfront
General Plan Amendment (GPA 07 -0002) and Citywide Childcare
Policies: General Plan amendment to designate approximately 110
acres of northern waterfront industrially designated properties
to a specified mixed -use designation and adopt certain general
plan policies to guide the future development of the area, guide
future development citywide, and guide decisions regarding
childcare citywide. The Northern Waterfront project area is
generally bounded by Sherman Street on the west, Buena Vista
Avenue on the south, Grand Street on the east, and the
Oakland /Alameda Estuary on the north; and
(07- A) Resolution No. 14134, "Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Northern Waterfront General
Plan Amendment (State Clearinghouse #2002102118)." Adopted;
(07- B) Resolution No. 14135, "Making Findings Regarding
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Making Findings
Concerning Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Adopting a Statement of overriding
Considerations in Accordance With the California Environmental
Quality Act for the Northern Waterfront and Child Care Policy
General Plan Amendment (State Clearinghouse #2002102 118)."
Adopted; and
(07- C) Resolution No. 14136, "Approving General Plan
Amendment, GPA07 -0002: General Plan Amendments to: (A) Amend the
General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change the Designation of
Approximately 110 Acres Within the Northern Waterfront to
Specified Mixed Use and Medium Density Residential, and (B)
Amend Sections and Associated Tables of the General Plan."
Adopted.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation;
addressed comments submitted by Councilmember Barbara Kerr and
Chris Buckley.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she read former Councilmember
Kerr's letter differently [than the Planning Services Manager];
she did not get the impression that former Councilmember Kerr is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
3
saying that Work/Live should be prohibited; the concern is that
there would be no way to go back and require more parking if an
applicant received a Use Permit for Work/Live and decided to
change the use to one that needed more parking.
The Planning Services Manager stated former Councilmember Kerr
is referring to the former Clamp Swing building; the Use Permit
originally came to the Planning Board for seven Work/Live units
in the entire building; the Use Permit was approved; one of the
Work/Live units was removed and used for a permitted use; the
Zoning Ordinance has a Rolling Ten rule regarding parking;
parking requirements do not have to be met for a permitted use
in a building over ten years old; the Conditional Use Permit
process is used to override the Rolling Ten rule.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that part of the Work/Live
rationale was to make it easier for property owners to
rehabilitate historical buildings rather than tear down the
buildings.
The Planning Services Manager stated parking issues can be
addressed with the work /Live Use Permit; Council could consider
reserving the right to re -open a Use Permit to address parking
if the permitted use changes.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she likes the idea [of re-
opening a Use Permit]; the issue should be brought back for
Council discussion.
Mayor Johnson questioned whether the ordinance establising the
Rolling Ten rule should be reviewed; stated parking for
permitted uses is not addressed.
The Planning Services Manager responded both ordinances could be
reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Planning Board had
reservations about the four -story height limit; inquired how the
height limit is represented in the General Plan.
The Planning Services Manager responded the General Plan
Amendment addresses the policy in E -T 5; stated the policy
requires that building heights be maintained between one and
four stories; the Planning Board added the language: "consider
taller buildings if at least 30% of the Encinal Terminals site
is maintained for publicly accessible open space and/or on -site
water features."
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
4
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any buildings [in Alameda]
are taller than four stories.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Marina Village
Apartments.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Northern Waterfront Committee
was against having one large structure on the site; 30% or more
might be open space because of the site's configuration and
setbacks.
The Planning Services Manager stated the current policy pushes
the plan in the direction of having open space and consolidating
the building program into a few buildings or one building with a
single footprint; the question is whether the community is
interested in more open space or having lower heights, which
would result in a site plan with development spread over the
site.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of the staff recommendations) : Former
Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Northside Association [submitted
amendmentj; Christopher Buckley, Alameda; Michael Krueger,
Alameda; Don Peterson, Alameda; Nick Cabral, Alameda.
Neutral: Eric Scheuermann, Alameda; Richard W. Rutter, Alameda;
Stuart Rickard, Northern Waterfront Action Committee.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Board's additional language is
more specific than needed in a General Plan; suggested removing
the Planning Board language; stated the Encinal Terminals site
reference has very specific language for a General Plan;
language could be changed to require maintaining building
heights between one and four stories unless allowed by the
zoning.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many feet is four stories, to
which the Planning Services Manager responded forty to fifty
feet.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Del Monte building is the
defining feature of the Northern Waterfront; the Encinal
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
5
Terminals area would have substantial open space; a trade -off is
not needed because of the Tidelands Trust and Bay Conservation
and Development Commission (BCDC) requirements.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was going up and down the Estuary
on the Coast Guard Cutter tonight; people are unaware of the
inaccessibility of the area; she cannot wait until the
waterfront is opened to the public; the General Plan should move
forward; adjustments can be made later.
Councilmember Gilmore stated developers need to be put on notice
as to what the community considers to be a general height limit.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would be addressed in
the zoning ordinance.
The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative;
stated the policy could be amended to remove the added Planning
Board language; the policy should be moved to be placed at the
beginning of the policies relating to the entire area, rather
than under Encinal Terminals.
Mayor Johnson inquired how high are the Wind River buildings, to
which the Planning Services Manager responded four stories.
Mayor Johnson stated the amendment should address height in
feet, not stories; four stories is ambiguous.
The Planning Services Manager stated the idea would be to move
the policy to the general policy section and to state that
heights would be limited to the specific height in feet
comparable to the Wind River buildings.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson regarding
the need for the amendment to move forward; stated parking and
truck route uses could be addressed in the guiding policy under
Land Use; the guiding policy would state that residential
development along the truck route is subject to the General Plan
Amendment requirement unless the development is a mixed use; the
document addresses parking adequacy; the Encinal Terminals and
Del Monte sites have parking and landscaping references which
should be strengthened; parking should be reviewed for all uses.
The Planning Services Manager stated the Marina Cove Phase 2
project is already zoned for residential; the Tentative Map has
expired; the Chipman Warehouse site is the biggest piece of
residential land along the truck route.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
6
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the length of the truck
route.
The Planning Services Manager responded the length is almost the
entire length of Marina Cove Phase 1; suggested that language be
added to ensure that premiums be placed on buffers for sites
along the truck route, such as setbacks and landscaping.
Mayor Johnson stated developers need to be prepared to mitigate
to the fullest extent possible when building units on a truck
route.
The Planning Services Manager stated mitigation would not be a
sound wall.
Mayor Johnson stated that setbacks and buffers might not allow
as much development.
Councilmember deHaan stated a park is hidden along the
shoreline; the park would be opened up; the handling of the
truck route is a concern; parking would become extremely
important; positive steps have been taken with Littlejohn Park;
the truck route would dissipate if the project moves forward;
inquired whether the Planning Services Manager had any comments
on information submitted by former Councilmember Kerr.
The Planning Services Manager responded that an additional
policy could be added to the beginning of the document that
would provide direction for the consideration of zoning
amendments to address the parking question; the General Plan
should not state one thing and the Zoning ordinance state
something else; the General Plan should make it a high priority
to rethink the parking requirement for both conditional
permitted uses and permitted uses so that the rezoning must be
accompanied by the valuation.
Mayor Johnson stated that having the policy direction is a good
suggestion.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Services
Manager had recommended verbiage.
The Planning Services Manager stated language could be added to
include that non - residential uses are preferred along the truck
route; however, if residential uses are proposed along the truck
route, design must minimize impacts with truck routes; a parking
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
7
policy would be inserted in the guiding section regarding re-
examining the parking requirements to ensure there is adequate
parking for all sites, both permitted and conditionally
permitted uses; the Encinal Terminals height policy would be
moved to the guiding policy; the Planning Board's additional
language would be removed; the height would be described as a
number of feet [not stories] and would be comparable to the Wind
River buildings.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she wants to ensure that there is
consistency in the great strides to reduce the number of
vehicles through joint or shared parking programs in order to
avoid displacing waterfront property and maximizing public
access; she hopes that the issue is clear pervasively, not just
at the Del Monte site.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are any proposals
for industrial use.
The Planning Services Manager responded industrial use proposals
are not coming in because of the loss of rail and shipping uses.
Mayor Johnson stated Harbor Bay Business Park has a better
opportunity for industrial because the Business Park provides
easy access off of Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan stated noticing was a concern for Alameda
Landing; staff should be vigilant to ensure that notification is
not limited to 300 feet of the existing neighborhoods.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions with
three amendments outlined by the Planning Services Manager
regarding parking, height limits, and uses along the truck
routes, which would be placed in the guiding policy or
appropriate sections that apply to the entire Northern
Waterfront, not specific projects.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Gilmore requested that Work/Live parking
regulations and general parking regulations be brought back to
Council for discussion.
The Planning Service Manager stated staff is working on
commercial parking requirements with the Development Services
Department; the matter is scheduled to come to the Planning
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
8
Board the first meeting of September and would then come to
Council.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Rolling Ten rule
would be addressed.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Rolling Ten analysis
would be addressed when the commercial parking recommendations
are presented to the Planning Board.
Mayor Johnson stated caution needs to be taken when addressing
policy for the downtown areas; changes do not have to be made
everywhere; downtown and other appropriate areas could be
excluded.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes that opportunities
would be available to discuss shuttle services as larger
developments come forward; hopefully, the Transportation
Commission would start working on the issue.
(07- ) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14137,
"Authorizing the Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste
Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills."
Adopted.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a letter was received from a lady
who could not attend the Council meeting due to medical reasons;
inquired whether the lady would be exempt.
The Public Works Director responded the City received three
letters; stated staff recommends that Council authorize the City
Manager to work with the three property owners to reach a
compromise.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the list [of property
liens] changed.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
the original list had 65 property owners; the revised list has
32 property owners.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the total amount of
delinquent charges, to which the Public Works Director responded
$16,849.
Councilmember deHaan stated the list has decreased.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
9
The Public Works Director stated the list has decreased because
of the threat of placing a lien on the property.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the list includes
repeaters, to which the Public Works Director responded the list
includes one repeater.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she received letters and emails
regarding the issue; inquired whether staff has a sense of
whether Alameda County Industries (ACI) made efforts to resolve
payment and service issues prior to the point of placing a tax
lien on the property.
The Public Works Director responded staff worked with ACI on
said concerns in the past; stated three letters are sent to
property owners advising that the City has the option of
collecting delinquent bills via property taxes if the bill is
not paid.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether ACI helps resolve some of the •
issues before bringing the matter to the City.
The Public Works Director responded that he thinks ACI does a
very good job with customer service; stated the customer service
logs are very explicit; ACI makes the public aware that the City
has a vacancy exemption.
Mayor Johnson stated the numbers [delinquent charges] are
declining from four to five years ago.
The Public Works Director stated there were 73 delinquent
accounts in 2006 and 52 delinquent accounts in 2006.
Mayor Johnson stated everyone needs to pay their garbage bills;
ACI and City staff work to resolve legitimate disputes; the City
has to be very careful not to send the message that property
owners can complain to ACI and bills will be cut in half.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the $2,275 administrative
fee goes to the City.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
the fee is meant to cover staff costs.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the fee is adequate, to
which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
10
Mayor Johnson inquired what is Craig Anderson's main issue.
The Public Works Director responded Mr. Anderson states that he
was receiving service and then ACI stopped collecting garbage.
Mayor Johnson stated sometimes her garbage is not collected; ACI
collects the garbage when she calls.
The Public Works Director stated the franchise agreement
requires that garbage be collected within twenty -four hours of
receiving a call.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether staff would be responding to the
three letters received.
The Public Works Director responded staff would work with Mr.
and Mrs. Otto, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, and Mr. Baird.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired about Jeffrey Allen.
The Public Works Director responded Mr. Allen is not on the
list; stated Mr. Allen requested to be advised of any
delinquency ahead of time; the property owner and tenant are
notified when a bill is sixty days late.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he does not want the City to get
into the landlord business.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated the
issue needs to be resolved between the property owner and
tenant.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether staff responded to Mr. Allen, to
which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with
the proviso that staff work with the three property owners who
submitted letters.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -5.
(O7- ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 13-2.2(e) (Modifications,
Amendments and Deletions to the California Building Code) of
Section 13 -2 (Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building
and Housing) to Incorporate Specific Requirements for the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
11
Installation of Fire Extinguishing Systems. Introduced.
The Fire Marshall gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what was the feedback from the
community.
The Fire Marshall responded commercial property owners did not
attend the community forum meetings; stated attendees included
people interested in residential properties, particularly
buildings that are three units and larger; feedback was
positive.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether business associations were
notified.
The Fire Marshall responded that he met with all business
associations; stated information was taken back to respective
Boards; articles were published in each business association
newsletter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether 25% is a typical threshold.
The Fire Marshall responded that he and the Building official
felt that 25% is a reasonable trigger.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the threshold for other cities.
The Fire Marshall responded the threshold varies; stated some
cities use the assessed value of the property; assessed value is
not a consistent way of evaluating a trigger point for
retrofitting; the City would be using the International Code
Council Building Valuation Data chart which is based on
occupancy type, building and construction type, and square
footage.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a property owner could get an
appraisal if they disagree with the assessed value.
The Fire Marshall responded the property owner could go through
the appeal process and present an appraisal.
Mayor Johnson stated that she likes the idea of using the
current value rather than the assessed value.
Councilmember Gilmore requested an explanation on how valuation
is based on occupancy.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
12
The Building official stated the evaluation method is used for
permits to determine the value of a project; the International
Code Council has a chart that looks at the cost of doing
different types of construction nationwide; numbers are
realistic.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether restaurants are compared
to restaurants and plain retail space with plain retail space,
to which the Building official responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether 25% is a typical threshold based
on current value.
The Fire Marshall responded the threshold varies.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether other cities have a similar
ordinance, to which the Fire Marshall responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson requested examples of the thresholds.
The Fire Marshall stated that he did not have said information.
Mayor Johnson stated she wants to know whether Alameda would be
significantly different from other cities.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the permit activity in
the past year where the 25% threshold was reached and sprinklers
were not required.
The Building officials responded that he did not know; stated
25% of the current value is pretty high.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what percentage of commercial
buildings have sprinklers.
The Fire Marshall responded since 1983 every commercial building
larger than 5,000 square feet has a fire sprinkler.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 50% of commercial stock
does not have sprinklers, to which the Fire Marshall responded
50% is a good estimate.
Mayor Johnson stated sprinklers are important; damage was
minimized at one of the fires over the weekend [Fleet Industrial
Supply Center (FISC)] because of the sprinkler system.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
13
The Fire Marshall stated the FISC property would have been
completely lost if not for the sprinkler system.
Mayor Johnson stated people should not be discouraged to make
minor improvements because of a large sprinkler system expense;
25% of the current value avoids the problem; the changes are
good; the ordinance should move forward.
Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, urged introduction
of the ordinance.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated he supports the ordinance with the
exception of Group U buildings.
Mayor Johnson inquired how detached buildings on residential
lots would be handled.
The Fire Marshall responded Group U Occupancy types typically
have a lot of equipment and storage inside; adjacent buildings
could be affected by a fire if the building is larger than 300
square feet; an appeal process is available to property owners
to request the requirement be waived.
Mayor Johnson stated it would not be expensive to install a
sprinkler system in a garage.
Councilmember deHaan stated sprinkler systems need a bigger
water head.
The Fire Marshall stated a 3/" service would serve a Group U
Occupancy; Bayport homes are 3,500 to 4,000 square feet; a one -
inch service is sufficient.
Vice Mayor Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote --- 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(07- ) David Kirwin, Alameda, stated that he is disappointed
that trees have been cut at Godfrey Park; the vast, open field
offers no shade or wind protection; staff was unable to furnish
him with Park plans; he does not understand why dirt is being
brought in if plans are to re -grade and re-sod.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
14
Mayor Johnson requested that staff provide Mr. Kirwin with a
copy of the plans.
(07- ) Pat Bail, Alameda, stated that the Estuary Park grass
is dying; the Coast Guard gave the Park back to the Navy; the
Navy told the Coast Guard to turn the water off; the Recreation
and Park Director wrote a letter to the liaison between the Navy
and the City; suggested that the Fire Department hook up to one
of the fire hydrants and water the grass; stated more park space
is needed; urged Council to address the issue; further stated
the Measure A Ad Hoc Committee was unable to reach a consensus
on the forum; Council direction was clear; Woody Miner was to
provide a history of Measure A; educational speakers were to
address how Measure A affects housing and transportation in
Alameda; the forum would provide an opportunity for public
input; negotiations broke down on July 13; Appellants requested
to select speakers and follow the format that was agreed to on
June 7; the Planning Board members indicated the agreement could
not be honored; the Planning Board members tried to take away
the powers of the Council to set policy; the Planning Board's
job is to apply policy, not make policy; the Appellants seek
guidance from Council on how to proceed to create a forum that
is educational and meaningful to all of Alameda.
Mayor Johnson requested that Council be provided an update on
the matter.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that staff should review the
motion passed by Council; the motion was to uphold the Planning
Board decision to have an ad hoc committee provide the Planning
Board with a meeting format with conditions that included the
Housing Element and transportation; he does not recall a
limitation to one forum; he recalls a consensus that Woody Miner
would be an appropriate person to give a history of Measure A;
requested verification of Council direction.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Appellants felt different points
of view would not be represented; a meaningful forum cannot
exclude viewpoints.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Housing Element is an important
segment; subsequently, transportation issues were discussed;
Council needs to understand what direction was given.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmemer Matarrese
regarding verifying Council direction.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
15
Councilmember deHaan stated Council wanted to have a well -
balanced meeting with more history and background; hopefully,
the issue is not a stalemate at this time.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is looking forward to the reports
from the facilitator and the Planning and Building Director; she
reviewed the video tapes of the Ad Hoc Committee meetings; she
is optimistic that there is more common ground than differences.
(07- ) Robert Todd, Alameda, stated that he attended the Ad
Hoc Committee meetings and discussed his opinion of said
meetings.
(07- ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed property and transit.
(07- ) Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, submitted
handout; discussed the Ad Hoc forum.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07- ) Written communication from the League of California
Cities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the
League's 2007 Annual Conference.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of Councilmember Tam
being the City's delegate and Councilmember deHaan being the
alternate.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -- 5.
(07- ) Mayor Johnson stated that everyone is concerned with
the Estuary Park issue; different visions have been discussed
for the property; discussion needs to be elevated; the turf
should be kept alive while the issue is being resolved with the
Navy; the City's goal is to have the property conveyed to the
City and retained as a park; the Navy wants to sell the
property; circumstances are different than two years ago.
Councilmember deHaan requested that staff assess the field.
Mayor Johnson stated that watering solutions need to be
considered.
(07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated there has been discussion
about the moth ball fleet; Alameda is not the place to scrape
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
16
off barnacles and lead contaminated paint; no one thought that
dismantling Navy ships was a good idea for generating jobs in
1995; one carrier was brought to Mare Island and became an
environmental nightmare; barnacle scraping is not apropos [in
Alameda].
The City Manager stated the Development Services Director sent a
letter to the Maritime Administration (MARAD); she will forward
said letter to Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is an active dry dock on Mare
Island; Bay Ship and Yacht has a complete, controlled
environment for said activity.
Mayor Johnson stated Hunter's Point must have an active
shipyard.
(07- ) Vice Mayor Tam requested that the Council meeting be
adjourned in a moment of silence in memory of Archie Waterbury
and Tom Matthews.
(07- ) Councilmember Matarrese requested reviewing the
potential for a big box ordinance; stated other communities have
ordinances which govern square footage and the amount of non-
taxable items that can be sold in the super stores; the term
"big box" is used, but not defined, in the Northern Waterfront
General Plan Amendment and Economic Development Strategic Plan;
the term should be defined before project proposals are
discussed; the City of Livermore and other cities are reviewing
the issue.
(07- ) Councilmember Matarrese requested development of a
written policy that would make closed session material available
after a discussed items are resolved or moot.
(07- ) Councilmember deHaan stated that Council voted to
review the impact that big boxes would have on existing retail;
funding has not been available [for the study] ; companies should
be respective of wages and health benefits when a threshold of
100 employees is hit; he would like to have said matter wind
into big box discussions.
Mayor Johnson stated that several cities are going through the
process of adopting a big box ordinance; the City has never
defined big box; a study of impacts does not need to be
completed first; the ordinance should be brought forward soon;
suggested moving forward in reviewing ordinances in other
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
17
communities.
Councilmember deHaan stated many cities have already defined big
box; the threshold is approximately 50,000 square feet; Truckee
has defined big box accordingly [50,000 square feet].
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City of Livermore defines big
box as 90,000 square feet.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter would be brought back to Council
for discussion.
ADJOURNMENT
(07- ) There being no further business, Mayor Johnson
adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:59 p.m. in a moment of
silence in honor of Archie Waterbury and Tom Matthews.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007
18
August 2, 2007
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just g
charges against the
9
City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon.
Check Numbers
161185 - 161448
161449 - 161461
20000 1 - 200418
EFT 376
EFT 377
EFT 378
EFT 379
EFT 380
EFT 381
EFT 382
EFT 383
EFT 384
EFT 385
EFT 386
EFT 387
EFT 388
EFT 389
EFT 391
EFT 392
EFT 393
EFT 394
Void Checks:
160697
200023
GRAND TOTAL
Respectfully submitted,
jcAv&tik:L
9;Iyce4,,
amela J. Sibley
Council Warrants 08/07/07
Amount
$1,490,813.20
$37,774.93
$3,569,199.25
$5,775.67
$12,943.50
$1,000,000.00
$87,323.50
$785,911.49
$40,000.00
$11 ,245.50
$39,190.00
$87,924.38
$193,241.01
$420,800.00
$1,074,514.60
$120,151.92
$382,389.91
$22,743.46
$26,907.83
$41,793.69
$150,000.00
($978,254.16)
($409.45)
$8,621,980.23
BILLS #4 -B
8/7/2007
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Accept the Work of Regency Centers for the Repair to Public Drainage
Facilities in Coordination with Construction of the Bridgeside Shopping
Center Improvements
BACKGROUND
on March 3, 2006, the City Council appropriated $170,000 in Urban Runoff funds, and
authorized the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract with Regency Centers for
repairs of public drainage facilities in coordination with construction of the Bridgeside
Shopping Center improvements. On March 8, 2006, the City Manager entered into a
contract in the amount not to exceed of $100,000, including contingencies, with Regency
Centers.
DISCUSSION
The project has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications and is
acceptable to the Public Works Department. The contractor sliplined the existing 18"
Broadway storm drain line through the Bridgeside Shopping Center and strengthened
portions of the 15" Pearl Street storm drain lines. The final project cost was $94,237.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funding for the project is budgeted under Cl P# 05-70, using Urban Runoff funds.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -C
08 -07 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
RECOMMENDATION
August 7, 2007
Page 2 of 2
Accept the work of Regency Centers for the repair to public drainage facilities in
coordination with construction of the Bridgeside Shopping Center improvements.
Res pectfu fitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
---b-eA} Nato-
By: Robert Claire yc—
Associate Civil Engineer
MTN:RC:gc
CITY O F ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for Bids for Grand
Street Bridge and Ballena Boulevard Bridge Repair and Resurfacing, No.
P.W. 11-06-24
BACKGROUND
The maintenance and inspection of the Grand Street and Ballena Boulevard bridges
are a local responsibility. Every two years, through a state -local assistance program,
Caltrans completes routine inspections of these bridges, rating their structural adequacy
(non- seismic related) and overall general condition. Though the bridges have been
found to be structurally adequate, Caltrans recommends several on -going maintenance
improvements for each bridge. Completion of this work will increase the total service
life of the bridges.
Caltrans also conducts a separate seismic inspection for the two bridges. Based on
these inspections, Council recently awarded a construction contract for the seismic
retrofit of the Ballena Boulevard Bridge. No seismic work is required of the Grand
Street Bridge at this time.
DISCUSSION
on February 20, 2007, the City Council awarded a contract for design and construction
administration services in the amount of $1 02,095 to Baseline Engineering for the
Grand Street Bridge and Ballena Boulevard Bridge repair and resurfacing. Baseline
Engineering has examined and tested both bridges and developed the necessary plans
and specifications. The proposed work on the Grand Street Bridge includes replacing
the entire bridge railings on both sides, repairing the edge beams under the rails, and
resurfacing the bridge deck with an epoxy sealant. The work on the Ballena Boulevard
Bridge will include injecting epoxy into cracks in the structure under the bridge and
coating the bridge deck with an epoxy sealant. Optional work, which may be added
based on available funding, consists of repairing small damaged areas on Ballena
Boulevard Bridge's traffic barrier and railing, and adding passive cathodic protection to
retard rusting of the rebar in the concrete on both bridges. A copy of the plans and
specifications are on file in the City Clerk's Office.
City Council
Agenda Item #4 -D
08 -07 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
August 7, 2007
Page 2 of 2
The project is budgeted under CI P# 06 -74, with funds available from Measure B
monies.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is
Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Existing Streets and
Section 15301(d), Restoration of Deteriorated or Damaged Structures.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt plans and specifications and authorize call for bids for Grand Street Bridge and
Ballena Boulevard Bridge Repair and Resurfacing, No. P.W. 11-06-24.
Respectfy bmitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Dir- ctor
By: Laurie Kozisek
Associate Civil Engineer
MTN:LK:gc
cc: Watchdog Committee
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City's Participation in the 211 Program
and Appropriating $25,000 for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008
BACKGROUND
The State Public Utilities Commission has designated the non- profit agency Eden l &R
(Information and Referral) as the provider of a community services hotline for Alameda
County that can be reached by dialing 211. The new 211 telephone number is intended
to provide phone access to social service information, assisting people in finding a
variety of resources such as emergency housing, food, financial aid, healthcare, mental
health services, and other information.
DISCUSSION
Under this new program, a resident of Alameda County who needed help finding an
after - school program, securing adequate care for a child or aging parent, or obtaining
emergency shelter, could call one easy -to- remember number, 211, for assistance. The
Eden I &R specialist who answers the call would assess the resident's needs and
determine the service provider best equipped to help solve the problem.
In 2005, the City's Social Service Human Relations Board ( SSHRB) received a
presentation from Eden I &R's Executive Director on the proposed system and its
funding needs. The following year, the SSHRB provided a report to the City Council
discussing the system and the qualifications of Eden I &R to operate the hotline. That
report is included as an attachment. The SSHRB identified the following benefits of a
211 system: it has broad community application and value; it meets a variety of
community needs, including public safety and emergency response; and it provides
residents with information and referrals as appropriate. In addition, a 211 system meets
the need for social service information and referrals that was disclosed in the SSHRB's
Community Needs Assessment.
Eden I &R has determined that it will take approximately $1.3 million per year to
implement and maintain the 211 service. The proposed funding structure for the first
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -E
08 -07 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
August 7, 2007
Page 2 of 2
three years includes a number of grants that Eden I &R has secured, together with a
$500,000 contribution from the County and $500,000 from the cities in Alameda County,
Y
allocated on a per capita basis. The County's contribution includes $300,000 in new
funds and the $200,000 it currently spends on the Community Housing and Information
Network (CHAIN) Phone Line, which provides a service similar to 211. Once the 211
system is operational, CHAIN calls will be handled by the 211 staff. After the first three
years of the program, Eden I &R anticipates that the State or federal government will
approve a permanent funding source.
The proposed funding formula results in an annual contribution of $25,000 for the City of
Alameda for three years. Under this formula, the City of Oakland and Alameda County
are the two largest contributors, with shares of $140,000 and $500,000, respectively.
Both agencies have approved this funding for FY 2007 -2008 and FY 2008 -2009.
Consistent with many cities in Alameda County that are in the second year of two -year
budgets, the subject resolution authorizes participation in the first year of the program
only. Funding for subsequent years will be considered during the next two -year budget
cycle.
As part of the process for obtaining full funding from the County and the cities during the
first three years, Eden I &R must develop performance measurements and analyze its
service delivery to establish the effectiveness of the system. Those performance
measures will be helpful in determining how useful the system is for Alameda residents.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City of Alameda's FY 2007 -2008 contribution for the 211 system is $25,000 from
the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City of Alameda's participation in the 211 program
and appropriating $25,000 for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008.
Respecffull submitted,
Lisa Goldman
Deputy City Manager
Attachment: Report on 211 from Social Service Human Relations Board
CITY OF ALAMEDA
MEMORANDUM
To: The Honorable Mayor
and Members of the City Council
From: Cyndy Wasko, Vice President
Social Service Human Relations Board
Date: October 26, 2006
Re: Review of the Alameda County 211 Information and Referral System
Background
In early 2005, the Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) received information
from Eden 1 & R (Information and Referral), a non - profit agency, re regarding a proposal
. 0 0 to
provide community hotline services throughout Alameda County. At that time Eden 1 &R
. Y
had filed to obtain permission from the state Public Utilities Commission PUC
t ) to become
the approved operator of a 211 community services hotline for Alameda County. y The
Board deferred review of the system pending the PUC approval and subsequent
quest
presentations about the proposed system to the Alameda County Mayors' Conference and
the Alameda County City Managers' Association. At the September SSHRB meeting,
ing,
Barbara Bernstein, Executive Director of Eden 1 & R, madea resentation regarding p g g the
proposed system and its funding needs. This report transmits the Board's thoughts and
suggestions regarding the proposed funding for and implementation of the system.
Discussion /Analysis
In brief, the proposed 211 system provides a central oint of contact in Alameda County ntyfor
callers needing information about a range of community services, including public non-
profit no 0p n
profit resources for housing and homeless services, health, mental health, child care, food,
transportation, disaster response and other similar services. Instead of dialin g an "800"
"8
number or searching for specific agency contact information, consumers would dial "211"
1
and be connected directly to a special operator who would access a database ofAlameda
i
County resources in one call. A copy of Ms. Bernstein's resentation is Attachment meat A to
this report.
Ms. Bernstein explained that Eden 1 & R has extensive experience providing! R
services
in Alameda County for more than 30 years. The agency is the publisher of the Big 9 Y p ig Blue
Book, which provides hard copy and on -line descriptions of thousands of social vial service
resources for use by practitioners throughout the County, and has successfully o
Y v p era
ted
City Council
Attachment to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -E
08 -07 -07
The Honorable Mayor October 31, 2006
and Members of the City Council Page 2
Alameda County's Community Housing Assistance and Information Network (CHAIN) for a
number of years.
Following her presentation, the Board questioned Ms. Bernstein extensively regarding
Y g 9
current funding commitments for the system, the urgency of approval at this time, the
sustainability of the system, the track record of 211 in other locales, and various particulars
. p
about the actual services to be provided. Under discussion, Board members reflected on
findings from its Community Needs Assessment, which suggested that social service
information and referrals continue to be a strong need that could be met in artb Y a single,
p
simple number to call, such as 211. A single, continuously updated database could help
p
consumers' access services across local boundaries, and could help conserve p rovider
resources for more substantial case management services. Ms. Bernstein explained how
211 systems have been used elsewhere to respond to regional disasters, including
hurricane response in Florida and parts of Louisiana, and in Connecticut after September
p
11. The Board recognizes that this public safety feature increases the value of 211 beyond
just routine, day -to -day uses.
Fiscal Impact
The annual cost of funding the Alameda County 211 system is $1 million. Eden 1 & R
hopes to obtain funding commitments for a 3 -year start -up budget ($3 million) to
anticipated federal funding becoming available to sustain the system in future years. Ms.
. Y
Bernstein stated that Eden 1 & R hopes to raise funds from various municipalities,
• p ,
businesses and charitable foundations to make the system operational by the PUC
� Y
deadline of December 2006.
Alameda County municipalities have discussed partial funding, contingent upon every city
paying its "fair share"
based on a per capita formula. Based on the formula, the City of
Alameda's share would be $25,000 per year for 3 years, for a total of $75,000 for FYs
2006-07 through 2008-09. Ms. Bernstein indicated that some cities have already approved
allocations and stated that most are committing General Fund monies to the program. The
Board recognizes that negotiations with several cities regarding funding levels and timing
are ongoing, and trusts that Eden 1 & R will pursue full funding from those jurisdictions. We
hope that Alameda will not be the "deal breaker" for this program.
important p p g
In response to our questions, City staff advised the Board that, if available, it might be
possible to use CDBG Public Service funds for a portion of the City's commitment, but that
further analysis of the eligibility and benefit to low - income clientele would be necessary to
make such a determination. Currently CDBG Public Service funds have been committed
through FY 2008 -09 and the use of CDBG funds would further tighten the competition g p for
public service funding, which is limited to 15% of the annual income.
rant plus g p program
The Honorable Mayor October 31, 2006
and Members of the City Council . Page 3
While the SSHRB recognizes that the 2006 -2008 General Fund (GF) and CDBG budgets
have already been adopted, we would support a special "211" allocation from the GF of
$25,000 annually for the next 3 years, if such resources are available. To the extent that
CDBG funding proves eligible, and insofar as it would not seriously undermine existing
0
funding to providers for direct public and safety net services, we would support CDBG
• pp
funding to replace a portion of the GF monies in future years.
Recommendation
The Board believes that the 211 system has broad community application and value, would
meet a number of community needs, including public safety and emergency response,
citizen information and referral, and provider efficiency. it is suggested that the City Council
receive this report and consider whether a special allocation of General Fund monies to the
Alameda County 211 hotline is appropriate to meet the social service and public safety
needs of the community. lt. is further suggested that City staff be directed to analyze the
.. Y
eligible use of CDBG funds for a portion of the City's share and that, if eligibility s
g Y
determined, a proposal from Eden 1 & R be reviewed for future CDBG funding.
g
Respectfully submitted,
Cy hia Wasko, Vice President
So - ial Service Human Relations Board
CW /CB:sb
Attachment
Cc: Social Service Human Relations Board
Barbara Bernstein
GSSHRB /Council /Recommend1211 review
F: SSHRB /Council Relations 2006
Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
SUPPORTING EDEN INFORMATION AND REFERRAL AS THE 211
PROVIDER IN ALAMEDA COUNTY AND APPROVING A ONE-YEAR
FUNDING COMMITMENT OF $25,000
WHEREAS, 211 is an easy to remember telephone number that
connects people with high - quality information and referral for health and human
services; and
WHEREAS, 211 systems provide clients with information about food
banks, emergency shelter, physical and mental health, and job opportunities;
and
WHEREAS, Eden Information and Referral (Eden I &R) has been
designated as the 211 provider for Alameda County by the California Public
Utilities Commission; and
WHEREAS, Eden l &R has developed a countywide funding plan that
requires all cities in Alameda County and the County to participate; and
WHEREAS, proposed pro -rata contribution from City of Alameda to the
211 program is $25,000 for Fiscal Year 2007 -2008.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Alameda supports Eden I &R as the 211 provider for Alameda County and
approves a one -year funding commitment in the amount of $25,000 as long as
the County and the other cities in Alameda County contribute to the funding
plan.
Resolution #4 -E CC
08 -07 -07
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regular meeting assembled on the 7th day of August, 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 ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debbie Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Introduce an Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease of
Vacant Properties at 2300 Alameda Avenue, 2304 Alameda Avenue, and
1224 Oak Street with Thomson Properties (Lessor) for a City Parking Lot
BACKGROUND
The Park Street Business Association (PSBA) has asked the City to consider leasing the
unpaved parking lot located at the southeast corner of Oak Street and Alameda Avenue.
PSBA intends to use the lot to accommodate increasing requests for monthly permit
parking spaces.
DISCUSSION
The parking lot, which can accommodate parking for 12 vehicles, is approximately 4,700
square feet in area, and was first leased by the City in 1996 as parking for the City's car
pool program. The property was most recently leased on a month -to -month basis for the
Recreation and Parks and Library Departments' use. When these departments moved
from the Alameda Historic High School, the lease was terminated.
PSBA has requested that the City partner with them to lease this facility. The City will be
responsible for paying $1.00 per year for rent and providing the necessary insurance
coverage. PSBA will pay the remaining rent, be responsible for full management of the
parking lot, including maintenance, and will enter into a separate management agreement
with the City for the first year. PSBA's and the City's participation in subsequent years will
be based on the success of the program and parking needs for the district. Should PSBA
determine that renewal of the lease for additional year(s) is not needed, the City has the
ability to terminate the lease. A one -year lease with up to four additional one -year
extensions and a 00 -day termination clause has been negotiated. A copy of the proposed
lease is attached.
The terms and conditions of the proposed lease are:
TERM: The proposed term is from August 15, 2007, through August 15,
2008, with four additional one -year extensions at the City's option.
RENT:
The monthly rent is $1,000 payable monthly, no annual escalation.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -F
08 -07 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
August 7, 2007
Page 2 of 2
USE: The facility can be used as permitted by the Alameda Municipal Code.
The primary use as a permit -only parking lot is allowed.
MAINTENANCE: The Lessor maintains the landscape and the Lessee (City) maintains
the parking lot. PSBA will be taking on this responsibility through a
management agreement.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost of the monthly rent will be reimbursed by PSBA. Staff time to develop the lease is
contained in the current budget for the Public Works Department. The City's rent
obligation for the first year will be $'1. There is potential in subsequent years, depending on
the parking needs study, for the City to manage the program in full. Should the City
assume the full management of the lot, costs for the lease payments and maintenance
would be funded through the Parking Meter Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this proposed lease is
categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c), Existing Facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a lease of vacant
properties at 2300 Alameda Avenue, 2304 Alameda Avenue and 1224 Oak Street with
Thomson Properties (Lessor) for a City parking lot.
Respectfu bm ted
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
e„,
By: Marg ean
Publi orks Coordinator
MTN:MM:gc
Attachment: Lease Agreement
LEASE AGREEMENT
CITY PARKING LOT AT
2300 ALAMEDA AVENUE, 2304 ALAMEDA AVENUE
AND 1224 OAK STREET, ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA
THIS LEASE, entered into this day of , 2007, by and between CITY OF
ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation ( "City" or "Lessee "), and Rachel C. Thomson (Thomson
Properties) ( "Lessor "), is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. Lessor is the Agent for a portion of certain property located at 2300 Alameda Avenue,
2304 Alameda Avenue, and 1224 Oak Street (Alameda County Parcel No. 071 - 0205 - 001 -00),
Alameda, California and known as a vacant but semi - improved parking lot (the "Premises"); and
B. The Park Street Business Association has requested that the City participate in leasing
a lot for use as a permit only parking lot, and
C. Lessor wishes to lease the Premises to the City as a parking lot, and City wishes to
lease the Premises from Lessor pursuant to the following terms and conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. LEASE:
In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the Lessor does
hereby lease to the City and the City does hereby lease from the Lessor, that portion of land located
at 2300 Alameda Avenue, 2304 Alameda Avenue and 1224 Oak Street, Alameda, as Assessor's
Parcel Number 071 - 0205 - 001 -00 ( "the Premises ").
2. TERM AND TERMINATION:
The term of this Agreement shall be for one year, with up to four one -year extensions and
shall commence on the day and date first set forth above ( "Commencement Date"). The first year of
the Lease will terminate on the August 15, 2008, unless terminated earlier. Annually, prior to the
lease termination date, Lessee will perform a review of the parking needs for the area and determine
if a need exists to renew the Lease Agreement. Lessee will provide notice to Lessor sixty (60) days
before the termination of the initial lease period of Lessee's intent to extend the Lease. Lessee may
terminate this Lease Agreement for any cause upon ninety (90) days written notice.
3. RENTAL
As full and complete compensation for the use of the premises for the term of this agreement
or any extension thereof, Lessee shall pay to Lessor a monthly rental of $1,000.00.
Thomson Properties
Parking Lot Lease
Page 1
City Council
Attachment to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -F
08 -07 -07
4. USAGE:
The Premises shall be used and occupied only for the uses which are permitted by the
Alameda Municipal Code. If a Use Permit is required for a particular use, a Use Permit will be
obtained by the City prior to undertaking that use of the Premises. The anticipated primary use is a
parking lot for monthly permit parking by Park Street merchants.
5. ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS:
City or PSBA shall not make alterations, additions, or improvements on the Premises,
without first obtaining the written permission of the Lessor, which shall not be unreasonably
withheld or conditioned. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall have the right to install
informational and directional signs as needed.
All alterations, additions and improvements not specified in this Lease Agreement shall be
made at City's sole expense, shall become Lessor's property, and shall remain with the premises as
part thereof at the termination of this lease without disturbance, molestation, or injury thereto.
Nothing contained in this paragraph shall prevent City from removing equipment, non-fixed
partitions and fixtures installed in the Premises.
6. NUISANCE:
City shall not commit waste on the Premises, nor maintain, commit, or permit the
maintenance or commission of a nuisance thereon or use such premises for an unlawful purpose.
7. CEQA:
This Lease Agreement shall not go into effect until the Lessee certifies that the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met.
8. LESSOR'S MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES:
Lessor shall have no maintenance responsibilities during the term of this agreement. Lessor
shall provide landscape maintenance in the same capacity as provided prior to commencement of
lease.
9. CONDITION OF PREMISES:
Lessee hereby agrees to accept the Premises in the condition existing on the Commencement
Date, and shall return the Premises to Lessor at the termination or expiration of this Lease
Agreement in substantially the same condition, normal wear and tear excepted.
10. LESSEE'S OBLIGATIONS:
Lessee hereby agrees to maintain the Premises in good order, including the removal of debris
from the Premises. All maintenance of the Premises shall be the sole obligation of Lessor, and shall
be undertaken at Lessor's sole expense.
Thomson Properties
Parking Lot Lease
G:l pubworks\ pwadmin \COUNCIL\200710807071Alameda Ave Lease.doc
Page 2
11. TAXES:
Lessee shall be responsible for all taxes and fees assessed against the property during the term
of this Lease Agreement.
12. UTILITIES:
If separately metered, City shall pay for irrigation and lighting services for the Premises.
13. HOLD HARMLESS:
The provisions of this paragraph shall survive the termination or expiration of this Lease
Agreement.
a. Except for loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, caused by the negligence of Lessor, City shall indemnify, defend
and hold harmless Lessor from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs
and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or in any manner
connected to the use of the Premises by Lessee.
b. Lessor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, boards and
commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims,
suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising from or in any
manner connected to any property or possessory interest in the premises or any portion thereof and/or
any negligent or intentional act or omission of Lessor.
14. SUBROGATION:
City and Lessor each hereby waive any and all rights of recovery each may have against the
other, or against the officers, employees, agents, or representatives of the other, for loss of or
damages to such waiving party of its property or the property of others under its control, where such
loss or damage is insured against under any insurance policy in force at the time of such loss or
damage. Lessee and Lessor shall, upon obtaining the policies of insurance required hereunder, give
notice to the insurance carrier or carriers that the foregoing mutual waiver of subrogation is
contained in this Lease Agreement.
15. INSURANCE:
For the entire duration of the Lease Agreement and any and all extensions thereto, City shall
maintain all general liability insurance on the Premises.
A. COVERAGE:
Lessee shall maintain the following insurance coverage:
(1) Workers' Compensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California.
Thomson Properties G:l pubworks\ pwadmin \COUNCIL1200710807071Alameda Ave Lease.doc
Parking Lot Lease Page 3
(2) Liability:
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits:
Bodily Injury: $1,000,000 each occurrence
$1,000,000 aggregate - all other
Property Damage: $1,000,000 each occurrence
$2,000,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the amounts of
$2,000,000 will be considered equivalent to the required minimum limits shown above.
City shall have the option of self-insuring for these purposes, upon the provision of
appropriate documentation to the Lessor.
B. FAILURE TO SECURE:
If Lessee at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the foregoing
insurance, Lessor shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Lessee's name or as an agent of
the Lessee and shall be compensated by the Lessee for the costs of the insurance premiums at the
maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written notice is received that the
premiums have not been paid.
16. ASSIGNMENT:
City shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any interest therein, directly
or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written consent of Lessor, which shall
not be unreasonably withheld or conditioned. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be
deemed a default by Lessee, entitling the Lessor to reenter the Premises as herein provided. Lessee
may sublease any portion of the Premises provided that the use is consistent with paragraph 4 of this
Lease Agreement.
17. SECURITY:
Lessee is responsible for the security of the Premises and the contents thereof.
18. COMPATIBLE USES:
Lessor recognizes and agrees that its use of the remainder of the property will be compatible
with other uses to which the Lessee may put the Premises.
19. NOTICES:
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to be given under this Lease Agreement shall be
given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the second
business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or
certified, addressed as hereinafter provided.
Thomson Properties
Parking Lot Lease
G: 1pubworksl pwadmin \COUNCIL1200710807071Alameda Ave Lease.doc
Page 4
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from City or Lessee to Lessor shall be addressed
to Lessor at:
Rachel C. Thomson
2310-1/2 Alameda Avenue
Alameda CA 94501
Attention: Thomson Properties
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Lessor to City or Lessee shall be addressed
to Lessee at:
City of Alameda
950 West Mall Square, Room 110
Alameda, CA 94501
Attn: Public Works Coordinator
20. COST OF LITIGATION:
If any legal action is necessary to enforce any provision hereof or for damages b reason of an
yp g y
alleged breach of any provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to receive
from the losing party all costs and expenses in such amount as the Court may adjudge to be
reasonable, including attorneys' fees.
21. COMPLIANCES:
Each party hereby agrees to comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and
regulations enacted or issued by City. Lessor hereby warrants that the Premises in the condition
existing on the Commencement Date are not in violation of any such laws, ordinances, rules or
regulations.
22. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of California
excepting any choice of law rules, which may direct the application of laws of another jurisdiction.
The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders, rules, and
regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the successors of those
authorities.)
Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County of
Alameda, State of California.
23. SUCCESSORS:
This Lease Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties.
24. WAIVER:
A waiver of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein shall not be
deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or
condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
Thomson Properties C:l pubworks\ pwadmin \COUNCIL\2007\O807O71Alameda Ave Lease.dac
Parking Lot Lease Page 5
25. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature
whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of
whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be held
to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by written
execution signed by both parties.
26. INSERTED PROVISIONS:
Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be deemed
to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were included
herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not correctly
inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by either party.
27. CAPTIONS:
The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement and
in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the day and
year first above written.
Thomson Properties CITY OF ALAMEDA
Lessor A Municipal Corporation
Rachael C. Thomson
Thomson Properties
Parking Lot Lease
Debra Kurita
City Manager
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mohammad Hill
Assistant City Attorney
G:l pubworks\ pwadmin \COUNCIL1200710807071Alameda Ave Lease.doc
Page 6
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE OF
VACANT PROPERTIES AT 2300 ALAMEDA AVENUE, 2304 ALAMEDA
AVENUE, AND 1224 OAK STREET WITH THOMSON PROPERTIES
(LESSOR) FOR A CITY PARKING LOT
WHEREAS, Thomson Properties (herein called "Lessor ") owns that certain
real property located at 2300 Alameda Avenue, 2304 Alameda Avenue, and 1224
Oak Street in Alameda, California (herein "real property "); and
WHEREAS, Lessor desires to lease the real property to the City of Alameda
on the terms and conditions substantially similar to those set forth in the Lease
attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on August 7, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Park Street Business Association has asked the City to
assist them in providing permit-only parking spaces, and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Alameda to enter into the
Lease for the primary use as a parking lot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Alameda that:
Section 1. That the form of Lease referred to in the above, and the
terms and conditions and covenants contained therein are hereby approved.
Section 2. The City Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to
execute, for and on behalf of said City of Alameda, the Lease of vacant property at
2300 Alameda Avenue, 2304 Alameda Avenue, and 1224 Oak Street,
substantially in the form and containing the terms and conditions and covenants as
set out in the Lease, attached to the staff report presented to the City Council on
August 7, 2007, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to attest to
the same.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Presiding Officer of the City Council
Introduction of Ordinance #4 -F CC
08 -07 -07
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular
meeting assembled on the 7th day of August, 2007, by the following vote to wit:
y �
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this day of August, 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Introduce an Ordinance Amending the Community Improvement Plan for
the West End Community Improvement Project to Extend Certain Plan
Time Limitations by Two Years Pursuant to SB 1 096
BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 1096 (SB 1096), which became effective August 5, 2004, required the
redevelopment agencies to make payments to the State during fiscal years 2004 -05 and
2005 -06 for deposit in county Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF
payments). To compensate for the required ERAF payments, provisions were included
in the bill to allow the redevelopment agencies to extend certain time limitations of their
redevelopment plans by two years. In Alameda, the City Council may, following a public
hearing, adopt an ordinance to amend the Community Improvement Plan for the West
End Community Improvement Project ( WECIP) to extend the time limit on the
effectiveness of the plan and the time limit to receive property taxes and repay
indebtedness by one year for each year in which an ERAF payment was made.
DISCUSSION
The City Council originally approved and adopted the Community Improvement Plan for
the WECIP on July 5, 1 983, with a duration of 40 years from the date of adoption. After
that time, redevelopment activity ceases, but the Community Improvement Commission
could continue to receive property taxes and repay previously incurred indebtedness for
ten additional years. In 2003, legislation was passed (SB 1 045) requiring redevelopment
agencies to make an ERAF payment for fiscal year 2003 -04. To compensate, the
legislation included provisions allowing agencies to extend by one year the time limit of
the effectiveness of redevelopment plans and the time limit to repay indebtedness. On
November 5, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2910 amending the Community
Improvement Plans for the WECIP, Business and Waterfront Improvement Project
(BWIP) and Alameda Point Improvement Project (APIP) to extend the time limitations by
one year pursuant to SB 1045.
In 2004, the Legislature passed a similar bill, SB 1096, which required agencies to
make ERAF payments to the State and allowed for the extension of certain plan time
limitations in compensation. However, while SB 1045 allowed for the extension of plan
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -G
08 -07 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
August 7, 2007
Page2of3
time limitations for all project areas, SB 1096 only allows for the extension of plan time
limitations for project areas in which the existing time limit for the redevelopment plan
expires less than 20 years from the last day of the fiscal year in which an ERAF
payment was made. Both the BW1 P and the APIP have more than 20 years remaining,
so neither are eligible for the extension of plan time limitations. Therefore, this statute is
only applicable to Alameda's WECIP project area.
The redevelopment plan for the WECIP, as amended, expires in 2024, making it eligible
for the extension of plan time limitations. The proposed amendment would extend the
WECIP plan to 2026 and the time limit on use of tax increment to repay indebtedness to
2036. The proposed amendment can be adopted utilizing an abbreviated
redevelopment plan amendment process. The City Council need only adopt an
ordinance making certain applicable findings, including a finding that the funds required
to make the ERAF payments would otherwise have been used to pay the costs of
projects and activities necessary to carry out the goals and objectives of the WECIP
plan. As required, a public hearing notice was mailed to each affected taxing entity on
July 5, 2007, and published in the Alameda Journal on July 27, 2007.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The extension is intended as indirect compensation to the CIC to help offset the
adverse fiscal impact of having to make ERAF payments. The extension will enable the
cIc to capture two additional years of tax revenues in the WECIP which otherwise
would go to other taxing agencies and jurisdictions (Attachment 1, affected taxing
entities).
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
The proposed amendment will change only the duration of the WECIP Community
Improvement Plan; the remainder of the plan remains unchanged.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed amendment is not considered a project pursuant to CEQA Section
15378.b.4, which states that the definition of "project" does not include the creation of
government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities which do not
involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially
significant physical impact on the environment.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
RECOMMENDATION
August 7, 2007
Page 3 of 3
Introduce the ordinance amending the Community Improvement Plan for the West End
Community Improvement Project to extend certain Plan time limitations by two years
pursuant to SB 1096.
Res ■ eci IIy submitted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
r
By: Dorone E. Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
By: Rachel Silver
Development Manager, Housing
LAUDES /RS:
Attachment:
1. Affected Taxing Entities
Richard C. Fernandez
General Manager
AC Transit Board of Directors
1600 Franklin St.
Oakland, CA 94612 -2800
Elihu Harris, Chancellor
Peralta Community College District Board
of Trustees
333 E. 8th St.
Oakland, CA 94606
Dennis Diemer, General Manager
East Bay Municipal Utilities District Board
of Directors
375 11th St.
Oakland, CA 94607
John R. Rusmisel, District Manager
Alameda County Mosquito Abatement
District Board of Directors
23187 Connecticut St.
Hayward, CA 94545
Crystal Hishida
Clerk of the Board
Alameda County Board of Supervisors
1221 Oak St., Room 536
Oakland, CA 94612
Hank Ackerman
Program Manager
Alameda County Flood Control
399 Elmhurst St.
Hayward, CA 94544
Pat O'Brien, General Manager
East Bay Regional Parks District Board of
Directors
P.Q. Box 5381
Oakland, CA 94605 -0381
Daniel Woldesenbet, Public Works Director
County Service Area B1988 -1 Board of
Directors
399 Elmhurst St., Rm. 141
Hayward, CA 94544
Ardella Dailey, Superintendent
Alameda Unified School District Board of
Trustees
2200 Central Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
James Sorensen, Director
County Service Area LA 91-1/Lead
Abatement Board of Directors
2000 Embarcadero, Ste. 300
Oakland, CA 94606
Susan Muranishi
Alameda County Administrator
1221 Oak St., Ste. 555
Oakland, CA 94612
Debra Kurita
City Manager
City of Alameda City Council
2263 Santa Clara Ave., Rm. 320
Alameda, CA 94501
Bill Pitcher, Vector Control Manager
County Service Area VC 1984- 11Vector
Control Board of Directors
1131 Harbor Bay Pkwy., Ste. 166
Alameda, CA 94502
General Manager
Bay Area Rapid Transit Board of Directors
P.O. Box 12688
Oakland, CA 94606 -2688
Jack Broadbent, Executive Officer /APCO
Bay Area Air Quality Management Board
of Directors
939 Ellis St.
San Francisco, CA 94109
Sheila Jordan, Superintendent of Schools
Alameda County Board of Education
313 W. Winton Ave., Rm. 150
Hayward, CA 94544 -1136
Dave Williams, Manager
EBMUD Special District #1
P.O. Box 24055 Mail Slot #59
375 11th St.
Oakland, CA 94623
Stuart Jed, CEO
City of Alameda Health Care District Board
of Directors c/o Alameda Hospital
2070 Clinton Ave.
Alameda, CA 94501
City Council
Attachment to
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4 -G
08 -07 -07
CITY OF ALAMEA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE WEST
END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO EXTEND CERTAIN
PLAN TIME LIMITATIONS BY TWO YEARS PURSUANT TO SB 1096
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda (the "City Council")
originally approved and adopted the Community Improvement Plan for the West
End Community Improvement Project (the "WECIP Plan ") on July 5, 1983, by
Ordinance No. 2141, as subsequently amended on January 2, 1985, by
Ordinance No. 2222, on December 5, 1994, by Ordinance No. 2582, on
November 19, 2002, by Ordinance No. 2889, on April 1, 2003, by Ordinance
No. 2897, and on November 4, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2910; and
WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda (the "Commission") has been designated as the official redevelopment
agency to carry out in the City of Alameda the functions and requirements of the
Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety
Code Section 33000 et seg.) and to implement the WECIP Plan; and
WHEREAS, Section 33081.12 of the Health and Safety Code was added
by Senate Bill 1 096 effective August 5, 2004 ( "SB 1 090 " ), which section
required the Commission to make payments during the 2004 -05 and 2005-06
fiscal years for deposit in Alameda County's Educational Revenue
Augmentation Fund ( "ERAF Payments"); and
WHEREAS, Sections 33333.2 and 33333.6 of the Health and Safety
Code were amended by SB 1095 to provide that when a redevelopment agency
is required to make a payment pursuant to Section 33681.12, the legislative
body may amend the redevelopment plan to extend by one (1} year the time
. y
limit on the effectiveness of the plan and the time limit to receive property taxes
and repay indebtedness for each year a payment is made; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with SB 1096, the Commission made the
2004 -05 and 2005-06 ERAF Payments and the City Council desires to amend
the WECIP Plan to extend by two (2) years the time limit on the effectiveness of
and the time limit to receive property taxes and repay indebtedness for the
WECIP Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda that:
Section 1. The WECIP Plan, as adopted on July 5, 1983, by
Ordinance No. 2141, as amended to date, is hereby further amended as set
Introduction of Ordinance #4 -G CC
08 -07 -07
forth in the proposed "Sixth Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan
for the West End Community Improvement Project," attached hereto as
Exhibit A and incorporated herein and made a part hereof by reference. As so
amended, the WECIP Plan is hereby incorporated by reference herein and
designated as the official Community Improvement Plan for the West End
Community Improvement Project.
Section 2. In extending the time limits as set forth in this Ordinance,
the City Council makes the following findings:
a. The Commission is in compliance with all provisions of Health
and Safety Code sections 33334.2 or 33334.6, as applicable;
b. The Commission has adopted an implementation plan in
accordance with the requirements of Health and Safety Code
section 33490;
c. The Commission is in compliance with all applicable provisions
of Health and Safety Code section 33413;
d. The Commission is not subject to sanctions pursuant to Health
and Safety Code section 33334.12(e) for failure to expend,
encumber, or disburse an excess surplus; and
e. Funds which the Commission is required, pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 33681.12, to pay to the Alameda County
Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund for fiscal years
2004 -2005 and 2005 -2006 would otherwise have been used to
pay the costs of projects and activities necessary to carry out the
goals and objectives of the WECIP Plan.
Section 3. Ordinance Nos. 2141, 2222, 2682, 2889, 2897 and 2910
are continued in full force and effect except as amended by this Ordinance.
Section 4. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of
this Ordinance to the Commission.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final
passage.
Section 6. Publication. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and directed
to certify to the passage of this Ordinance and to cause the same to be
published once in the Alameda Journal, a newspaper of general circulation,
published and circulated in the City of Alameda, California.
Section 7. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance, or the Sixth
Amendment to the WECIP Plan which it approves, is held to be invalid for any
y
reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
Ordinance or of the Sixth Amendment to the WECIP Plan, and this City Council
hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance, or
approved the remainder of the Sixth Amendment to the WECIP Plan, if such
invalid portion thereof had been deleted.
Presiding Officer of the Council
ATTEST:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
EXHIBITA
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN
FOR THE WEST END COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The Community Improvement Plan for the West End Community
Improvement Project ( "WECIP Plan "), as adopted by the City Council of the City
of Alameda on July 5, 1 983, by Ordinance No. 2141, as subsequently amended
on January 2, 1985, by Ordinance No. 2222, on December 6, 1994, by
Ordinance No. 2582, on November 19, 2002, by Ordinance No. 2889, on
April 1, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2897, and on November 4, 2003, by Ordinance
No. 2910, is hereby further amended as follows:
1. Section XI of the WECIP Plan, Duration of This Plan, is hereby
deleted in its entirety and restated as follows:
"Except for the nondiscrimination and
nonsegregation provisions which shall run in
perpetuity, the provisions of this Plan shall be
effective, and the provisions of other documents
formulated pursuant to this Plan may be made
effective, for forty -three (43) years from the date of
adoption of this Plan by the City Council. After the
time limit on the effectiveness of the Plan, the
Commission shall have no authority to act pursuant
to the Plan except to pay previously incurred
indebtedness and to enforce existing covenants,
contracts or other obligations."
Exhibit A
1
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was
duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of
Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of
, 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 day of , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Approved as to Form
CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO.
New Series
AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING
SUBSECTION 13- 2.2(e) (MODIFICATIONS, AMENDMENTS AND
DELETIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE) OF
SECTION 13 -2 (ALAMEDA BUILDING CODE) OF CHAPTER XIII
(BUILDING AND HOUSING), TO INCORPORATE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF FIRE
EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS
WHEREAS, given that Alameda is an island that could render it isolated in the
event of a disaster, the installation of fire sprinklers in buildings is one of the City's
long term fire protection strategies to reduce the loss of life and property due to
unwanted fires; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing several scientific studies, the City has determined
that the installation of fire sprinklers in buildings often reduces the loss of life and
property when fires do occur.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of
Alameda that:
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by amending
Subsection 13- 2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California
Building Code):
13- 2.2(e). Section 904.1.1 of the California Building Code, 2001 Edition,
is amended to read as follows:
Section 904.1.1 General. Fire extinguishing systems required in this Code
shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. Fire
hose threads used in connection with fire - extinguishing systems shall be
National Standard hose threads or as approved by the Fire Department. In
buildings used for high -pile combustible storage, fire protection shall be in
accordance with Fire Department findings. The location of all Fire
Department hose connections and the main control valve (i.e. Post
Indicator Valve) shall be approved by the Fire Chief.
All automatic sprinkler systems, other than those installed in detached
single and two - family dwellings defined as Group R Division 3 occupancies
and Group U occupancies in this Code, shall be provided with supervision
of all control valves and flow alarm signal devices. Valve supervision and
flow alarm signals shall be transmitted to an approved Underwriters
Laboratory listed Central Station.
Final Passage of Ordinance #4 -H CC
08 -07 -07
Installation, inspection, and maintenance of the fire alarm system required
by this Section shall be in conformance with Underwriters Laboratory and
the National Fire Protection Association Standards established in the
National Fire Alarm Code, NFPA -72, 1996 Edition, including amendments
thereto, as may be made from time to time
Section 904.1.2. Standards. Fire- extinguishing systems shall comply with
California Building Code Standards Number 901, 902 and applicable
National Fire Code Standards for type of system being installed. The
minimum hazard classification shall be designed to meet "Ordinary Hazard,
Group 2."
EXCEPTIONS:
(1) Automatic sprinkler systems may be connected to the domestic
water supply main when approved by the Fire Chief, provided the domestic
water supply is of adequate pressure, capacity, and sizing for the combined
domestic and sprinkler requirements. In such cases, the sprinkler system
connection shall be made between the public water main or meter and the
building shutoff valve. There shall not be any intervening valves or
connections. The Fire Department connection may be omitted when
approved by the Fire Chief.
Section 904.2 Automatic Fire - extinguishing Systems.
Section 904.2.1 Where required. An automatic fire - extinguishing
system shall be installed in the occupancies and locations as set forth in
this section.
Section 904.2.2 Occupancies requiring automatic sprinkler
systems; exceptions. An approved automatic sprinkler system shall be
installed in all newly constructed occupancies regardless of occupancy
group type or buildings moved into or relocated within the City and shall
comply with NFPA Standard 13 and 13 -R, and the following:
Bathrooms, regardless of size, and spaces under stairs used for the
storage of combustible materials.(2) When an existing building is added to,
repaired or remodeled, if the cost of addition, repair or remodeling, is over
25% of the current value of the building. The value shall be based on the
International Code Council Building Valuation Data. Area separation walls
do not exempt this requirement for an automatic sprinkler system.
EXCEPTIONS:
Detached Group U Occupancies (utility) less than 300 square feet.
An automatic sprinkler system need not be provided when the floor area of
a temporary building as defined in the California Building Code is less than
1,000 square feet and the exit travel distance from any point is less than 50
feet.
An automatic sprinkler system need not be provided when the floor area of
a Group B (Business), Group F (Factory), and Group S (Storage)
Occupancy is less than 300 square feet, as determined by the Fire Chief.
Existing Group R, Division 3 and Group R, Division 1 occupancies are
excluded from the automatic sprinkler requirements of section 904.2.2 (2).
For newly constructed Group R, Division 3 occupancies, including but not
limited to one and two- family dwellings and mobile homes, an automatic
fire - extinguishing system shall be installed that complies with NFPA
Standard 13-D and the following:
All fire extinguishing systems installed in accordance with NFPA Standard
13 -D shall be tested for leakage by undergoing a hydrostatic test made at
200 psi for a two -hour duration or at 50 psi above static pressure in access
of 150 psi for two -hour duration.
(2) Each water system supplying both domestic and fire protection
systems shall have a single indication -type control valve, arranged to
shut -off both the domestic and sprinkler systems and a separate
shut -off valve for the domestic system only. The location of the
control valve shall be approved by the Fire Chief. A separate shut-
off valve is not required for the domestic water supply in multi-
purpose piping systems.
(3)
Local water flow alarms on residential type sprinkler systems
(Standard 13-D) shall be powered from the kitchen refrigerator
circuit.
Attached garages, bathrooms, attic spaces regardless of size, and
spaces under stairs used for the storage of combustible materials.
In the event that another section of the Alameda Building Code is more restrictive,
then that section will apply.
Section 2. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council
of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision
of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to
render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this ordinance.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty (30) days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding Officer of the Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting
assembled on the 17th day of July, 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 day of , 2007.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's
Approval of Planned Development Amendment PDAO5 -0001, Major
Design Review DRO5 -0010, and Use Permits UPO6 -0003 and
UP060013 Allowing the Demolition of an Existing Bank Building and
Redevelopment of the Property with a Twenty -four Hour Gas Station,
Located at 2234 Otis Drive.
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2005, March 3, 2006, and August 16, 2006, Safeway Inc. submitted
applications to construct and operate a new gas station at 2234 Otis Drive adjacent to
the Alameda Towne Centre shopping center.
on April 23, 2007, the Planning Board reviewed and adopted the draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) for the project. After approving the environmental
document, the Planning Board voted to continue the review of the development plan
and use permits to a future date to allow time for the applicant to make specific
revisions to the plan, including reducing the number of pumps from 16 to 12, reducing
the width of the southern driveway, and providing additional on -site pedestrian access
improvements. The April 23rd Planning Board Staff Report is included as Attachment 2
to this report.
On May 1, 2007, a member of the City g Council called for review of the Planning Board's
decision on the environmental determination, and on June 5, 2007, the Cit y Council
held a public hearing and voted to uphold the Planning Board's April 23 rd decision to
adopt the MND. The initial study /mitigated negative declaration is on file in the City
Y
Clerk's office.
on July 9, 2007, the Planning Board reopened the public hearing on the ect J
ro'
p
development plan and use permits. After reviewing the revised plans, the Planning
Board made the necessary findings and approved the development plans, design
n
g
review, and use permits. The July 9th Planning Board Staff Report is included as
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #5 -A
08.07 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
August 7, 2007
Page 2 of 5
Attachment 3. The revised plans approved by the Planning Board are on file in the City
Clerk's Office. On July 19, 2007, Ms. Anne Marie Walsh filed a petition for appeal of the
July 9, 2007 Planning Board decision to approve the project. The appellant's letter is
included as Attachment 1 to this report.
DISCUSSION
Ms. Walsh's appeal of the Planning Board's approval is based on the following six
concerns:
Concern No. 1
The construction and daily operation of this large gas station will cause pollution to be
blown into the atmosphere in such a manner as to be a detriment to the public health
and safety of local residents.
Response
The potential to cause significant air quality impacts was evaluated in the MND and
determined to be Tess than significant with the implementation of specific mitigation
measures. The potential air quality impacts and mitigation measures were fully
considered by the Planning Board prior to approving the project. The draft document
was circulated to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD) durin g the
30 -day public comment period, and no comments were received from the BAAQMD.
Furthermore, the approved project is smaller than the original proposal that was
evaluated in the MND. Therefore, the potential project air quality impacts may be
expected to be even Tess than those disclosed in the environmental document.
Concern No. 2
The proposed gas station and hours of operation will not meet the intent of the City � �
■ to promote and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the city. Otis
Drive is primarily a residential neighborhood and the safety of pedestrians and drivers
would be adversely impacted by the location of this gas station.
Response
The effect of the project on the health, safety, and general welfare of the community
was fully considered by the Planning Board on July 9 . The Planning Board resolution
includes g
ncludes the findings that the proposed project would:
• Comply with applicable health and safety standards,
• Be compatible with other land uses in the area,
• Be served by adequate transportation and service facilities,
• Not adversely affect other property in the vicinity,
• Be compatible with the site, neighboring buildings, and surroundings, and
• Promote harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated
land uses.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
August 7, 2007
Page 3 of 5
The Planning Board also recognized in its review of the project that the property is
commercially zoned, that gas stations have historically been located adjacent to the
Alameda Towne Centre shopping center, and that the project includes construction of a
new east -west sidewalk along the southerly property boundary, intersection
improvements, and future driveway modifications to ensure pedestrian and vehicle
safety.
Concern No. 3
The construction will not be compatible and harmonious with the surrounding properties
and will have a detrimental effect upon the occupancy and value of surrounding
residential properties.
Response
The proposed construction and operation of this project was fully evaluated for
compatibility with neighboring properties. The MND evaluated potential environmental
impacts that could be caused by construction activities and the operation of the project.
The MND identified feasible mitigation measures that would reduce potentially
significant impacts to a less- than - significant level. In addition, the Planning Board found
that the project would be compatible and harmonious with surrounding properties in
both adjacent commercial and residential areas.
Concern No. 4
The approval of this large gas station with 24 -hour service will create instability of
property values in the general area, and the benefits of occupancy of homes and
apartments within the vicinity will be threatened.
Response
No substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion that this project will create
instability of property values in the area. The project is immediately adjacent and
connected to a major shopping center that has been in continuous use since the
1950's. Previously, there were two other gas stations located in close proximity to the
y
proposed project site: one at the current OfficeMax site and one at the current
Walgreen's site. City records do not demonstrate evidence of incompatibility between
those two gas stations and residential properties in the area. In fact, when the last of
the two gas stations announced its closing in 2002, the City received petitions signed by
over 3,000 nearby residents requesting that the City preserve the existin g gas station.
On July 9th, the Planning Board found that the proposed location, size, and design of
the proposed gas station would be compatible with neighboring properties.
Concern No. 5
There has been no independent study of the noise which will be created by a 24 -hour
operation of a large gas station within the vicinity of homes and apartments.
Construction should not begin until it is certain the noise levels will comply to the
standards outlined in Chapter IV, Table 11 of the City Charter.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Response
August 7, 2007
Page 4 of 5
Potential adverse effects due to project - related noise were fully evaluated in the M N D
and determined to be Tess than significant. The proposed gas station does not include
repair facilities. The subject property fronts onto Otis Drive and is surrounded by other
commercial properties on the three other sides, including a major shopping center.
Previously, there were two gas stations located nearby on Otis Drive that included
repair facilities. The City has an adopted Noise Ordinance, Chapter Four of the
Alameda Municipal Code; the City Charter does not address noise standards. The
Noise Ordinance includes enforceable noise standards that apply to all commercial
projects in the city. The gas station operation is required by law to comply with the City
Noise Ordinance requirements.
Concern No. 6
The planned 24 -hour, 12 -pump gas station will not meet the needs of the general
population of Alameda. There are an adequate number of gas stations close by on Park
Street. If additional pumps or 24 -hour service were needed 1 believe the location should
not be near apartments and homes. The needs of the people of Alameda would be met
by extending service hours of existing gas stations within the business area of Park
Street.
Response
The subject property is located within the C -2 Zoning District in which gas stations are
conditionally permitted. The proposed property is located in an existing shopping center
that has been in continuous use since the late 1950's, and the project site is surrounded
on three sides by commercial uses. The shopping center includes other 24 -hour
businesses in close proximity to the project site. Gas stations previously existed on both
sides of the project site, across from the residential uses on Otis Street. In 2002 -2003,
an expansion of the shopping center was proposed that included the removal of an
existing gas station located on the corner of Park Street and Otis Drive. The City
received a petition with over 3,000 signatures from the public requesting that this gas
station not be removed.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no impact on the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Gas stations are conditionally permitted in the C -2 Zoning District.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
August 7, 2007
Page 5 of 5
Potential environmental impacts that may result from the project have been evaluated
as required under the California Environmental Quality Act. The City of Alameda, acting
as Lead Agency, prepared an Initial Study 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration. On April
23, 2007, after considering all pertinent information and reports, the Planning Board
adopted a resolution to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 1S05-0001. On
June 5, 2007, the City Council voted to uphold the decision of the Planning Board. On
July 9, 2007, the Planning Board found that no substantial changes have occurred with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken that would
require revisions of the MND due to new or substantially more severe significant
environmental impacts that were not evaluated in the MND.
RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Board's approval of Planned Development
Amendment PDA05 -0001, Major Design Review DR05 -0O1 O, and Use Permits UPO6-
0003 and UP06 -0013 allowing the demolition of an existing bank building and
redevelopment of the property with a twenty -four hour gas station, located at 2234 Otis
Drive.
Respectfully submitted,
lCathy Woodbury 0-4""7)
Planning and Building Director
By:
Douglas Garrison
Supervising Planner
)ii
ATTACHMENTS:
1. July 19, 2007 Appeal
2. April 23, 2007 Planning Board Report (without attachments)
3. July 9, 2007 Planning Board Report (without attachments)
cc: Todd Pa rad is, Safeway, Inc.
Anne Marie Walsh
G:1 PLANNING \CC\REP0RTSl20O7\O8- 07- O71Otis Drive_2234_PDAO5- 0001_DRO5 -OO1 O_UPO6-
0013__U PO6- 0003_appeal rpt vi
•
L
r•
4.
.r. t
JUL 19 2007
PETITION FOR APPEAL OR CALL FOR - EVIW
PERMIT CCNTER
This petition is hereby filed as an appeal or call for review of the
P ct t
(Planning Director/Zoning Admini
PC?�
(Denied/Granted/Established. Conditions)
G S Sta +Go v\ at
ratorlPlanning BoardilHistorical Advisory Board)
fora application
on
(Application type)
5
1
which
(Application Number) (Street Address)
� on (SpDL4) (c)C) 1-" .
The basis of the appeal or call for review is:
( -A. \\10 e--\-- (-)d-o ckoot )
(If more space is needed, continue on the reverse side or att ach additional sheets.)
Appelland:
(Appellant Name(s), Planning Board Member or Council M ber)
tAitiJ (Odd e4
Address:
(Appella t Address)
LI501
AMC Section 30-25, Appeals and Calls for Review, provides that within ten (10) days a decision
of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Board, and
decisions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board may be appealed to the City
Council. In addition to the appeal process, decisions of the Planning Director or Zoning
Administrator may be called for review within ten (10) days to the Planning Board by the
Planning Board or by the City Council and decisions of the Planning Board or the Historical
Advisory Board may be called for review by the City Council or a member the City Council.
A processing fee of $100.00 must accompany the Petition for Appeal. No fee is required for a
Cali for Review.
*,infrilnid lridefricikkkirkininhinirk, **lririrerinfrig*****irkfrkic
(For Office Use Only) Date Received Stamp
Received By:
Receipt No.:
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 1 to
Agenda Item #5-A
08 -07 -07
To:
From:
Date:
Ref:
Alameda Planning Board
AM Walsh
911 Chestnut Street
Alameda, CA 94501
July 19, 2007
Town Center Gas Station on Otis Drive
I would like to appeal the decision of the Planning Board to approve the construction of a
12 pump, 24 hour gas station on Otis Drive.
The reasons for my appeal are,
• The construction and daily operation of this large gas station will cause pollution
to be blown into the atmosphere in such a manner as to be a detriment to the
public health and safety of local residents,
• The proposed gas station and hours of operation will not meet the intent of the
City Council to promote and protect the health, safety and general welfare of the
city. Otis Drive is primarily a residential neighborhood and the safety of
pedestrians and drivers would be adversely impacted by the location of this gas
station.
• The construction will not be compatible and harmonious with the surrounding
properties and will have a detrimental effect upon the occupancy and value of
surrounding residential properties.
• The approval of this large gas station with 24 hour service will create instability
of property values in the general area and the benefits of occupancy of homes and
apartments within the vicinity will be threatened.
• There has been no independent study of the noise which will be created by a 24
hour operation of a large gas station within the vicinity of homes and apartments.
I do not believe construction should begin until it is certain the noise levels will
comply to the standards outlined in Chapter IV, Table II of the City Charter.
• Lastly I do not believe the planned 24 hour, 12 pump gas station will meet the
needs of the general population of Alameda. There are an adequate number of gas
stations close by on Park Street. After living in Alameda for four years I have
never experienced a wait or a shortage of gas pumps in the Otis Drive area. If
additional pumps were needed or 24 hour service I believe the location should not
be near apartments and homes. The needs of the people of Alameda would be met
by extending service hours of existing gas stations within the business area of
Park Street.
Thank you for considering my appeal.
a rn UL)
Anne Marie Walsh
ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
ITEM NO.:
APPLICATION:
GENERAL PLAN:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
STAFF PLANNER:
RECOMMENDATION:
ACRONYMS:
Planning Bo
Staff Re
Mee ' g of April 23, 2007
STAFF REPORT
9 -B
Initial Study IS05- 0001; Planned Development Amendment
PDA05 -0001 ; Major Design Review DR05 -001 O; Use Permits
UP06 -0003, and UP06- 0013; – Applicant: Safeway, Inc. 2234
Otis Drive. The applicant requests approval of a Planned
Development Amendment, a Major Design Review and two Use
Permits allowing the demolition of an existing bank building and
redevelopment of the property with a twenty -four hour gas station.
The site is located within a, Central Business District with
Planned Development overlay Zoning District (C- 2 -PD).
Community Commercial
An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared for this project. Mitigation measures have been
identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less
than significant level.
Douglas Garrison, Supervising Planner
747.6875
Adopt Initial Study 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1S05-0001
and approve Planned Development Amendment PDA-05-0001,
Use Permit UPO6 -0003 (gas station), Use Permit UPO6 -0013
(24 hour operation) and Major Design Review DRO5 -0010, as
modified on plans submitted to the City on April 13, 2007. The
applicant has withdrawn UPO6 -0012 for alcohol sales. No
action is required on that application.
AMC — Alameda Municipal Code
PDA — Planned Development Amendment
CEQA— California Environmental Quality Act
CIP— Capital Improvements Program
COPPS— Community Oriented Policing and Preventive
Services
DRM— Design Review Manual
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 2 to
Agenda Item #5 -A
08 -07 -07
MND—Mitigated Negative Declaration
PDA —Planned Development Amendment
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolutions with Mitigation Monitoring Plan
2. Vicinity Map
a Site Plan and Building Elevations
4. Comments
5. April 10, 2007 Omni Means Response to Comments
6. February, 2006 and March 13, 2007 Alameda Police Dept.
Comments
7. Mitigated Negative Declaration
I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The original proposal included the demolition of an existing bank building and construction
of a twenty -four hour gas station, with eighteen covered fueling stations (3 islands,
containing 3 double sided pumps each), under a 7,500 square feet canopy with a 625
square feet building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience
items including beer and wine.
In response to recent comments, the project has been reduced in size and Use Permit
U P06 -012 for alcohol sales has been withdrawn. The current proposal includes demolition of
the existing bank and construction of a smaller cashier's kiosk (500 square feet) that has been
relocated to the center of the site, eliminating one multi– dispenser pump (two fueling stations)
in the center island and a smaller canopy (6,790 square feet). Additional landscaping,
decorative architectural details and an east -west sidewalk along the rear of the property have
been added to the project. The proposed monument sign has been moved further back from
the street, reduced from 56 square feet per face to 34 square feet per face and redesigned to
incorporate architectural elements consistent with existing and proposed shopping center
signage. Vehicle access and egress remains unchanged and would be provided from a
driveway on Otis Drive and from the shopping center internal roadway running parallel to the
rear property boundary.
The project incorporates landscaping around the perimeter, planters at the ends of the
fueling islands and a vine covered trellis along the south side of the cashier's kiosk. This
feature is integrated into the proposed pedestrian walkway and serves as a refuge to break
up the otherwise wide expanse of project driveways. The proposed walkway will connect to
existing and proposed sidewalks, providing enhanced access to the shopping center.
Along the southern boundary of the project, the sidewalk will consist of a combination of
traditional concrete sidewalk, where feasible, and a raised patterned walkway bisected by
the vehicle entrances to the site. The walkway will be raised one to two inches above the
adjacent asphalt and will be constructed of a patterned material of a different color than
surrounding vehicle lanes, providing a clear demarcation between the different
transportation modes.
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 2
II. BACKGROUND
A. Existing Site Conditions and Vicinity
A vacant bank occupies the site. Other nearby businesses along Otis Drive in this area
include banks, a fast food restaurant, an office supply store and a twenty-four hour
pharmacy. Parking lots for the Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Center)
separate these businesses from the main core of retailers in the shopping center. The
Alameda Towne Centre is an existing shopping center established in the late 1950's. The
shopping center includes a broad range of retail stores, restaurants and other commercial
businesses. Previously, the shopping center included two gas stations on Otis Drive.
These gas stations were replaced by retail stores in 1998 and 2005.
The current proposal to replace the existing bank building is consistent with the ongoing
redevelopment of the shopping center. In 2003, the adjacent shopping center proposed a
112,000 square feet expansion that included the removal of an existing gas station,
located on the corner of Otis Drive and Park Street. In response to public support for the
gas station, the Planning Board required as a condition of approval that the shopping
center owner locate a suitable site for a gas station. The U. S. Bank that previously
occupied this property has relocated to inside the newly constructed Safeway store in the
shopping center, making this site available for redevelopment with a gas station.
B. Surrounding Land Use
North --- Otis Drive, lagoon and residential
West -- Bank
South — Parking lot and shopping center
East — Driveway to shopping center and bank
111. ANALYSIS
A. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for this project (Attachment
No. 7). Potentially significant impacts were identified in the MND. Feasible mitigation
measures are included in the MND that will reduce these impacts to a less than significant
level. The MND was circulated for public review for thirty days. Comments were received
from the public and government entities (Attachment No.4). The comments are
summarized in the following section of this report along with responses to these comments.
Impacts 1 Mitigation Measures
The Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluated a wide range of potential
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 3
impacts. Due to project design, location and existing regulatory requirements, the following
impacts were determined to be less than significant: aesthetics, hazards and hazardous
materials, noise, public services, utilities and service systems. Potentially significant
y v �
impacts were identified in the following areas: air quality, cultural resources, geology and
soils, hydrology and water quality, and transportation and circulation. Feasible mitigation
measures were included in the MND that would reduce these impacts to la less than
significant level.
Potentially Significant Impacts
The following potentially significant impacts were identified in the MND:
Air Quality: The MND identifies construction — related dust as a potentially significant air
quality impact. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAMQD) CEQA
Guidelines consider potentially significant construction — related dust impacts to be
adequately mitigated with the implementation of recommended control measures.
Mitigation Measure No.1 requires the implementation of these control measures.
Cultural Resources: The MND identifies potential effects on archaeological and
paleontological resources as a potentially significant impact. It should noted that the
proposed project consists of the redevelopment of a commercial site, located within an
existing shopping center that was constructed in the late 1950's on dredged bay fill.
Consequently, the potential for adverse effects is quite low. Mitigation Measure No. 2
requires the applicant to stop work if archaeological or paleontological resources are
discovered and implement a resource protection plan.
Geology and Soils: The MND identifies construction related erosion as a potentially
significant impact on water quality. Mitigation Measure No. 3 requires the applicant to
submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the City prior to the issuance of Building
Permits and the implementation of best management practices (BMP) during the
construction phase.
Hydrology and Water Quality: The MND identifies contaminated stormwater runoff as a
potentially significant impact, due to the potential for petroleum product spills and other
debris. Mitigation Measure No. 4 requires the applicant to prepare and implement a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Traffic and Circulation: A focused traffic study was prepared by Omni Means for this
project. The traffic study is reproduced in Appendix B of the MND (Attachment No. 7). The
study evaluated two scenarios: 1) Both the gas station and the currently proposed
expansion of the shopping center (Target) would be approved; and 2) Only the gas station
would be approved. Based on thresholds of significance established in the City of Alameda
Traffic Study Guidelines, potentially significant impacts were identified at two entrances to
the shopping center. These impacts would occur, although to a lesser degree, if the
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 4
shopping center expansion is not approved.
If the shopping center expansion is approved, Mitigation Measure No. 5 requires the
applicant to contribute a proportional share to left turn lane improvements at the
intersection of Park Street and the north shopping center driveway (Whitehall Place).
If the shopping center expansion is not approved, the applicant (Safeway) will be
responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure No. 6
requires the applicant to provide a proportional contribution towards the installation of a
new traffic signal at the Otis Drive 1 Trader Joe's driveway intersection. Due to uncertainty
over funding for the signal, the MND originally included an alternative mitigation measure
that could be implemented if the shopping center expansion is not approved. Due to the
inclusion of this signal in the City Capital Improvements Program (CIP), which assures full
funding, the City is no longer considering the other mitigation which would have required
converting this entrance to right turn only.
The project driveway on Otis Drive was evaluated for full ingress /egress movements. With
no traffic signal at the Otis Drive 1 Trader Joe's driveway intersection, the project driveway
is projected to function properly. However, with the traffic signal installed, vehicles
attempting left turns into or out of the site would potentially conflict with eastbound vehicles
queuing at the new signal. Mitigation Measure No. 7 requires the applicant to limit the
project driveway to right turn movements only, when the traffic signal is installed.
Additionally, Mitigation Measure No. 8 requires annual monitoring for five years and
identifies operational modifications that may be required to ensure compliance with
projected conditions.
Comments 1 Responses
The City circulated the MND to the public, other government agencies and the public for
review. Comments were submitted by six private citizens, the East Bay Municipal Utility
District (EBMUD) and from the City of Alameda Transportation Commission. In addition to
comments on the MND that were received during the 30 - -day comment period, the City
received a few comment letters that address the project in more general terms. The City
held a Design Workshop for the Alameda Towne Centre expansion project (Target) on
March 12, 2007. This onsite workshop included the Safeway site. The applicant also held a
separate community workshop on April 5, 2007. Oral comments were received from the
public at both of these meetings concerning the Safeway gas station project design and
operations. Written comments are reproduced in Attachment No. 4. Most of the comments
addressed potential traffic impacts and Traffic Study methodology.Omni Means provided
written responses to these comments (Attachment No. 5). When responding to traffic
related comments, the following discussion may summarize the more detailed responses
prepared by Omni Means.
Comment: Project Size. Commenters questioned the need for a gas station of this size
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 5
(three islands, containing nine pumps, for a total of 18 fueling positions with a retail store
selling convenience items).
Response: The size of the station potentially affects the visual quality of the site and traffic
circulation. Since the publication of the MND, the applicant has redesigned the project.
The original design included a 625 square foot cashier's kiosk 1 retail store. The current
proposal reduces the size to 500 square foot and relocates the kiosk to the center of the
site resulting in the elimination of one pump. This more compact design allows more
landscaping and decorative architectural features, which reduces the apparent mass of the
project and provides better pedestrian access. Visual impacts were determined to be Tess
than significant in the MND. This revised plan further reduces potential visual effects.
The applicant and City engineering staff raised concerns about reducing the number of
pumps, due to the potential for additional vehicle queuing adversely affecting trafficflowon
Otis Drive and interior roadways within the shopping center. Omni Means evaluated the
effect of reducing the number of pumps and determined that this would not substantially
alter the length of vehicle queues. This conclusion is based on observations at a Safeway
gas station with a similar configuration. Omni Means noted that once vehicle queues
reached two or three cars, drivers typically would leave rather than queue into adjacent
vehicle lanes.
Comment: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Data: Commenters questioned the
appropriateness of relying on ITE trip generation data and requested that Omni Means use
traffic data provided by Safeway from other Safeway gas stations.
Response: Omni Means notes in their response that the study utilized vehicle trip
generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). These rates are
based on over 35 samples of various fueling stations including pay at the pump, traditional
fueling stations, and discount fueling stations. Additionally, to confirm the applicability of
the ITE rates, service flow rate data for Safeway Gas fueling stations was collected for the
analysis. Supplemental vehicle count data was also collected at the Dublin Safeway gas
station. Additionally, previous traffic studies were reviewed that surveyed the trip
generation and pass -by characteristics of Safeway Gas Stations. This supplemental data
on Safeway gas stations was collected to determine their service flow rate (for vehicle
queuing), pass-by and linked trip ratios, and overall trip generation. The use of ITE rates
supplemented by additional data from similar Bay Area facilities provides the best
available data to evaluate potential traffic impacts of this project.
Comment: Project and Cumulative Trips Commenters questioned whether the pass -by
rate used for this gas station was appropriate considering that Safeway would be selling
gas at discounted prices and whether the trips from the bank, that previously operated on
this site had been overstated, due to differing peak hours.
Response: Based on information provided by Safeway, Omni Means responded that the
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 6
typical discount is three cents per gallon when customers use their club card. Customers
may earn larger discounts ranging from six cents to ten cents based on the amount spent
on groceries and occasional special promotions. Based on their observations, these
discounts generated trip levels consistent with published ITE data. Omni Means also notes
that the traffic study relied on new trips and passby trips only. No credit was given for
linked trips, where shoppers visiting the Safeway grocery store and then the gas station,
as some other traffic studies have done. Since no allowance was given for these linked
trips, calculated net new trip generation for the proposed project is likely conservative and
does not underestimate peak hour vehicle trips related to the project.
Comment: Bank Peak Hour Commenters questioned the appropriateness of offsetting new
AM and PM peak hour trips generated by the gas station by peak hour trips for bank
customer activity since the bank didn't open until 9:00 AM and the Bank closed at 5:00
p.m. Monday through Thursday and 6:00 on Friday only.
Response: Omni Means notes that peak hour vehicle trips attributed to the bank were
subtracted from overall project vehicle trip generation due to the fact that Bank trips were
included in initial intersection counts analyzed for the project. Bank trips were subtracted
in order to not overstate proposed project impacts. Vehicle trip generation attributed to the
Bank would not be considered excessive. During the AM peak hour, the bank is projected
to generate 15 vehicle trips. This accounts for bank employees (10 employees) arriving
before 9:00 a.m. and some very minor bank traffic. During the PM peak hour, the bank is
projected to generate 41 trips. Again, these trips represent employees leaving the bank
and active use of the Bank's ATM/banking machines. The ATM/banking machines can be
used during non - banking hours and generate vehicle trips consistent with estimated bank
trip generation.
Comment: Gas Station Peak Hour Commenters requested clarification of why AM and PM
peak hours were used in evaluating project trips in the MND and midday peak hours were
used when observing traffic at the Dublin Fueling center.
Response: Omni Means notes that observations and vehicle data from the Dublin
Safeway Gas Station were collected during the 12:00 -2:00 p.m. period and the 4:00-6:00
p.m. period. Both these time periods were studied to provide a "worst case" analysis for
potential vehicle queuing and vehicle trip generation comparisons to ITE rates. From this
data, it was determined that vehicle trip generation closely correlated to vehicle fueling
service times. During both these times periods, the Dublin fueling station was at maximum
demand with two vehicles queued behind each island (with all fueling stations occupied).
This data was then used for vehicle queuing calculations and trip generation comparisons
for both the AM and PM peak hours.
Comment: Transportation Demand Management Program (TDMP) Commenters requested
that the project contribute to a TDMP or City Shuttle to help mitigate the added traffic and
emissions that the project would cause in the same manner that other large projects have
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 7
been required to.
Response: The project consists of the redevelopment of an existing commercial site from
a bank to a gas station. The net increase in traffic is marginal when compared to other
Iarge projects that have been required to develop or contribute to a TDMP. It should also
be noted that in some cases, it was determined that these Iarge projects would cause
significant and unavoidable traffic impacts; thus, there was a strong nexus for
implementing a TDMP. In this case, feasible mitigation has been identified to reduce all
potentially significant traffic impacts to a Tess than significant level. Omni Means notes that
typically patrons must drive their vehicle to the gas station (rather than use transit, walk, or
bicycle). The majority of the vehicle trips represent existing trips rather than new vehicle
trips. There is no nexus, based on substantial evidence, for requiring contributions to a
TDMP or a City Shuttle program. it should be noted, however, that in addition to project
specific mitigation, the applicant will be required to pay city-wide development fees that
fund transportation improvements throughout the city.
Comment: Alternative Transportation Commenters raised concerns that the project could
have an impact on transit operations at intersections and in the surrounding community
and that the bike and pedestrian environment could be impacted by additional traffic.
Response: The project location will not interfere with implementation of proposed transit,
bicycle and pedestrian improvements for the Alameda Towne Centre. The project includes
new pedestrian walkways that will connect to existing and proposed sidewalks. There is no
substantial evidence showing a nexus between the project and impacts to transit
operations or bicycle and pedestrian environments.
Comment: Truck Route Commenters asserted that the proposed truck route was not
consistent with City regulations.
Response:, The City of Alameda Municipal Code requires trucks to use established truck,
routes. When making deliveries, trucks are permitted to leave the designated truck route
when necessary, to complete the delivery. Existing truck routes in the vicinity of the project
include Park Street and Otis Drive, west of Park Street. The applicant has submitted plans
to the City showing trucks turning left into the Center at the "Office Max" entrance and
exiting back out onto Otis Drive via the project driveway. This approach has been
reviewed by City Engineering staff and determined to meet the requirements of City truck
route regulations.
Comment: Consistency of DEIR and MND Data: Commenters requested information
comparing the data used in the Alameda Towne Centre Draft EIR (DEIR) and the project
MND.
Response: Omni Means notes that the traffic study for the Alameda Towne Centre
expansion was prepared prior to the study for the gas station. The project trip generation
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 8
for the proposed Safeway Gas Station in the DEIR was slightly less than that assumed for
the Safeway Gas Station MND due to more specific project information provided by the
applicant at that later date. The DEIR assumed 125 total PM peak hour trips (total) and the
Safeway Gas Station MND assumed 154 total PM peak hour trips. These changes will be
reflected in the updated traffic study and FEIR being prepared for the proposed Alameda
Towne Center project.
Comment: Mitigation Measure No. 6: Commenters questioned the appropriateness of
providing more than one feasible mitigation measure to alleviate the waiting time for left
turning vehicles exiting the shopping center from the `Trader Joe's entrance.'
Response: The recommended mitigation measure for the proposed Safeway Gas Station
project is to have the applicant contribute a proportional share towards the installation of a
signal at the Otis Drive/ Trader Joe's driveway intersection. The MND included an
alternative mitigation requiring the modification of the `Trader Joe's entrance' to right -turn
only in the event that the shopping center expansion is not approved. This was because
full funding of the new signal was not assured without mitigation funding from the Shopping
Center. This signal has been added to the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP);
thus, assuring full funding. Consequently, this alternative mitigation is no longer being
considered by the City.
Comment: Pedestrian Access Commenters noted that the project plans did not include an
east -west sidewalk along the rear of the property.
Response: The project has been redesigned and now includes this sidewalk.
Comment: CEQA Piecemealing Commenters questioned the appropriateness of evaluating
the Safeway gas station separately from the Alameda Towne Centre expansion project.
Response: The Safeway gas station site is under separate ownership and the owner has
submitted a separate application. At this time it is unknown whether the City will approve
both projects. Therefore, the traffic study and DEIR prepared for the Alameda Towne
Centre expansion project included trips that would be generated by the gas station.
Similarly, the traffic study and MND prepared for the Safeway gas station project includes
new trips that would be generated by the Alameda Towne Centre expansion project and
full development of the shopping center. The studies also account for trips from other
projects that have been approved but not constructed yet and increased traffic due to
population growth. This methodology incorporates a number of conservative assumptions
that ensure potential impacts have been thoroughly evaluated. The full effects of these two
projects have been evaluated both cumulatively and separately. Feasible mitigation
measures have been identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than
significant level under the full range of foreseeable development scenarios.
The two projects include integrated designs that ensure compatibility. Vehicle and
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 9
pedestrian circulation between the gas station, the shopping center and neighboring
properties has been evaluated. The gas station design incorporates architectural features
used in the shopping center. The project will be compatible architecturally with neighboring
properties and will be integrated into existing and proposed pedestrian and vehicle
circulation improvements.
Comment: Utilities The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) requested confirmation
from the City Public Works Department that the existing wastewater system has adequate
capacity to accommodate the project.
Response: Public Works has confirmed that adequate capacity exists.
Comment: Public Safety: Commenters raised concerns about alcohol sales and increased
crime.
Response: The applicant has withdrawn the Use Permit Application for alcohol sales and
reduced the floor area of the store. Alameda Police Department (APD) staff have reviewed
the project and provided operational and design recommendations (Attachment 6). With
the proposed modifications to the project and implementation of APD recommendations,
the project will not cause substantial increase in crime.
Other Comments: Some commenters noted that a service station with mechanics on duty
would be preferable; others commented that an alternative use such as an In-n-Out Burger
would be more appropriate for this location and others commented that Safeway should
comply with State law concerning access for the disabled.
Response: These comments are provided to the Planning Board to ensure a complete
record of public input. The Planning Board may find these comments useful in evaluating
this project, they are not, however, related to the adequacy of the CEQA evaluation and no
responses are required.
Summary
Comments generally focused on traffic impacts and traffic study methodology. Other
comments addressed CEQA procedure, and public safety. No new impacts have been
identified that would require additional CEQA evaluation. The City has made minor
modifications to some mitigation measures, to ensure timely implementation and that
impacts will be fully mitigated. These changes do not have the potential to cause new
impacts. The City can make all mandatory CEQA findings for this project. The applicant
has reduced the project size, further reducing impacts that have previously been
determined to be less than significant.
B. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 10
Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) Section 30 -4.13 Planned Development (PD) allows
developers flexibility in establishing site design standards that differ from the underlying zoning
district standards if this results in a more effective use of the property. The project is located
in a C -2 Zoning District with Planned Development Overlay. In 1986, the City amended the
Zoning Map and applied the PD zoning overlay to the existing South Shore Shopping
Center. Because this was an existing development, no specific development standards
were established, as part of the rezoning, that would modify the standards contained in the
AMC for C -2 Zoning Districts.
Since the City adopted the PD zoning overlay, the shopping center owner has applied for
planned Development Amendments (PDA) that have resulted in reduced parking
requirements and allowed larger signs. However, the subject property being under
separate ownership was not included in these PDAs. Thus, those changes do not apply to
this project. Substantial changes in use that could potentially adversely affect neighboring
properties require a PDA. The Planning Director determined that the proposed project
represented a substantial change in use with the potential to adversely affect neighboring
properties. Consequently, a PDA is required.
Table 1 summarizes the proposed project and compares to C-2 zoning district standards.
Table 1.
As shown above, the project generally complies with C-2 Zoning District development
standards. However, the project does include setback encroachments, a larger monument
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 11
AMC Standard
Project
Notes
Setbacks
Front
Rear
Side (east)
Side (west)
0
12
0 or 12
0 or 12
5 (sign) 20 canopy
8 (kiosk) 3 (trellis)
13 (canopy)
20 (canopy)
4 (trash enclosure)
Sideyard: May be 0.
However, if a setback is
provided it must be 12 feet.
Rear: May be 0, unless
adjacent to street, alley or
parking lot, then 12 ft.
Building Height
8 stories /100 ft
21 ft.
Signage
Monument
150 sq ft for business
with two frontages
30 /face, 5 sq. ft.
exempt for gas prices;
12 ft. hgt; 75 ft from
nearest monument
sign.
188 sq. ft. (includes 10
sq ft. exempt)
34 ft /face (including 5
sq. ft exempt), hgt: 7.5
ft
Over 100 ft, to other
monument signs.
Monument sign includes
appox. 26 sq. ft. of structural
support and decorative
design elements (wood
trellis) and 5 sq, ft of gas
price information / face that
is exempt under the AMC
Parking
Retail: 1 / 250 sq ft
2 spaces
2 spaces
No AMC standard for gas
station / retail
As shown above, the project generally complies with C-2 Zoning District development
standards. However, the project does include setback encroachments, a larger monument
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 11
sign than would normally be allowed in this zoning district and exceeds the 150 square feet
of maximum allowed signage for a business with two frontages.
The recently redesigned project, relocates and reduces the size of the proposed cashier's
kiosk 1 retail store. In this new location, the structure will encroach into the required rear
setback. However, this site plan provides a more compact footprint that allows more
landscaping, decorative architectural details and better pedestrian and vehicle circulation.
The Safeway name and logo occupy 29 square feet per face of the monument sign. An
additional 5 square feet, per face is provided for gas price information. The structural and
decorative architectural elements add another 26 square feet per face. The AMC requires
that structural supports and decorative architectural elements be included in sign area
calculations. In this case, the total sign area exceeds the AMC standard, when the
structural supports and decorative architectural elements are included. This proposed sign
includes decorative elements including a heavy timber - supporting frame, which does not
increase lighting and is an important design element found throughout the Alameda Towne
Centre. The proposed monument sign is consistent in design and scale with existing and
proposed signage in the Alameda Towne Centre. The AMC limits monument signs to a
maximum height of twelve feet. The original proposal included a twelve feet high
monument sign. The current proposal has reduced the height to approximately 7.5 feet.
The AMC requires a minimum distance of 75 feet between monument signs. The current
proposal meets this requirement. Overall, the project exceeds the 150 square feet of
signage allowed for a business with two frontages. However, in this case the business
actually has three frontages. One of the three proposed facade signs faces internally
towards the shopping center. Consequently, the proposed signage is appropriate for this
project and is allowed under PD zoning.
Conclusion
The project does not meet AMC standards for rear and sideyard setbacks and the
proposed monument sign is larger than 30 square feet, including structural and decorative
elements. However, staff can make the required PDA findings that the project enables a
more effective use of the site and will be compatible with neighboring properties.
C. Design Review
New structures are subject to design review. The primary purpose of design review is to
ensure that new buildings are compatible with neighboring properties and will not
adversely affect historic resources or neighboring properties. The City Design Review
Manual (DRM) provides guidance in reviewing projects. The DRM identifies six primary
design elements: site planning, building design, landscaping, historic preservation, traffic
and parking and signs.
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 12
Site Plan
The DRM notes that site layout should take into consideration the project's effect on
adjacent properties. Important considerations, identified in the DRM, include locating
buildings to avoid monotony and a monolithic appearance and thoughtful integration of site
access and other outdoor activity areas into site design.
The project incorporates landscaping around the perimeter, planters at the ends of the
fueling islands and a vine covered trellis along the south side of the cashier's kiosk. This
feature is integrated into the proposed pedestrian walkway and serves as a refuge to break
up the otherwise wide expanse of project driveways. The proposed walkway will connect to
existing and proposed sidewalks, providing enhanced access to the shopping center.
Along the southern boundary of the project, the sidewalk will consist of a combination of
traditional concrete sidewalk, where feasible, and a raised patterned walkway bisected by
the vehicle entrances to the site. The walkway will be raised one to two inches above the
adjacent asphalt and will be constructed of a patterned material of a different color than
surrounding vehicle lanes, providing a clear demarcation between the different
transportation modes.
Building Design
The DRM notes that building design should have a harmonious relationship with the
surrounding neighborhood. In evaluating building design, important design factors include
an appropriate design theme, scale, compatible roofline, and harmonious colors, textures,
and building materials. Windows, doors, eaves, and parapets should have good
proportions and relationships to one another.
Review of project plans shows that the project includes decorative architectural features
found in the recently renovated areas of the shopping center. These include wooden roof
brackets, trellises, and stamped concrete. Colors and signage will be consistent with the
new Safeway grocery store and shopping center monument signs. Proposed building
height is consistent with other buildings fronting Otis Drive. The project will appear
substantially different than the existing bank building. However, it is consistent with historic
development patterns in this area, which previously included two gas stations.
Landscaping
The DRM notes that the landscape plan should be planned as an integral component of
the project and should be harmonious with the building design.
Landscaping includes extensive planting along the north, west and east frontages (Otis
Drive, adjacent bank and one of the major entrances to the shopping center). The planting
palette consists of a mix of trees and low growing plants. A trellis with vines is incorporated
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 13
into the southern facade of the cashier's kiosk. Decorative planter boxes and urns are
incorporated into the fueling area. Landscaping is well integrated into the project and is
consistent with that found in the recently renovated courtyard and walkways in the
shopping center and along the adjacent street frontages. The landscaping serves to
reduce visual effects of proposed lighting and reduces the apparent mass of the buildings.
Historic Preservation
The DRM encourages the preservation of historic resources and notes that new buildings
should be designed to be compatible with the historic character of the neighborhood.
The proposed new design incorporates some design elements found in craftsman style
buildings, throughout Alameda. The shopping center and neighboring properties were
originally developed in the late 1950's and 1960's, on fill material dredged from the bay.
No buildings in the center were constructed prior to 1942. There are no historic resources
on this property.
Signaqe
The DRM notes that signs should be harmonious with surroundings, improve the
appearance of areas that are in need of upgrading and should be an integral part of the
building design.
Facade signs are proposed for the north, east and south facing facades of the canopy,
consisting of the store name and logo. Each sign includes lettering approximately two feet
tall and covers approximately 40 square feet. Proposed signs are well integrated into the
project and shopping center design. As noted in the PDA Analysis section of this report,
the proposed signage exceeds the area allowed under AMC sign standards. However, this
may be allowed under PD zoning. Considering the project location, design and spacing of
other business signage in this area, the proposed signage is well integrated with the
overall project design and neighboring properties.
Vehicle, Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
The DRM notes that circulation systems should be designed to avoid conflicts between
vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists. Truck loading areas should be located to prevent
delivery trucks from interfering with street traffic. Offstreet parking should be attractively
screened from the public right -of -way.
Traffic circulation has been extensively evaluated and is discussed throughout this report.
The project includes new pedestrian walkways that will connect to existing and proposed
sidewalks. Site design allows for the orderly flow of vehicles through the site. Delivery
trucks may enter and exit the site without blocking traffic or backing onto adjacent streets.
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 14
Conclusion
Staff has reviewed the project for consistency with the DRM and determined that the
project is consistent with the design criteria of the DRM. Staff can make the required
findings for Design Review approval.
Use Permit
The City of Alameda requires Use Permits for businesses that are, due to their location or
type of use, potentially incompatible with nearby land uses. In the C -2 zoning district, Use
Permits are required for businesses that remain open between the hours of 10:00 PM and
7:00 AM and for businesses that that are not conducted principally indoors. Additionally,
Use Permits may be required for some other types of businesses, which due to their nature
may create a public nuisance. In the C -2 zoning district, businesses that require Use
Permits include liquor stores, gas stations, car washes, drive- through restaurants, and
other businesses that remain open later than 1 0:00 PM; such as, restaurants, taverns and
convenience stores. The purpose of the Use Permit is primarily to ensure that late night or
outdoor activities do not adversely affect neighboring residential areas. The applicant
applied for Use Permits allowing the operation of a twenty -four hour gas station with
alcohol sales. The Use Permit application for alcohol sales has been withdrawn by the
applicant.
The primary compatibility concerns that have been evaluated for these Use Permit
applications include: light and glare, noise, traffic and public safety.
Light and Clare
The project is located within an existing shopping center. Other existing businesses, in the
shopping center, fronting onto Otis Drive include banks and a fast food restaurant. The
nearest residential uses are north of the tidal lagoon and Otis Drive and on the north side
of Otis Drive, west of the site on Otis Drive. There is extensive landscaping along Otis
p g g
Drive, between the project site and the lagoon. The apartment buildings on, Otis Drive to
the West, are oriented towards the lagoon and do no have windows directly facing the site.
Potential areas of concern are offsite impacts due to illuminated signs and other Tight
sources. The replacement of the bank with a gas station will cause an increase in the
amount of lighting due to building design and hours of operation. This potential impact was
evaluated in the MND and determined to be Tess than significant. Project design includes
shielded, downward pointing Tight fixtures and extensive perimeter landscaping that
substantially reduces offsite effects. The photometric analysis submitted with the project
application, shows no substantial offsite lighting effects on adjacent properties. As
discussed in previous sections, the proposed monument sign, evaluated in the MND, has
been relocated further away from the street and reduced in height and area. With these
changes, light and glare will be further reduced.
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 15
Noise
The proposed gas station will be a relatively low intensity noise generator, when compared
to some other uses that would typically require a Use Permit. The project does not include
automobile repair facilities. The project is surrounded by other commercial uses and fronts
onto a busy street. Consequently, the potential for project noise adversely affecting
neighboring properties is minimal. This potential impact was evaluated in the MND and
determined to be less than significant.
Traffic
The project consists of redevelopment of a commercial lot. Changing the use from a bank
to a gas station will result in a net increase in local traffic. A focused traffic study was
prepared for this project. Based on this study, the MND identified potentially significant
impacts. Feasible mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce these impacts
to a Tess than significant level. The traffic issues are discussed in greater detail in the
Environmental Review Section of this report.
Public Safety
Project design, alcohol sales and proposed twenty -four hour operations have been
evaluated by the Community Oriented Policing and Preventive Services (COPPS) Unit of
the Alameda Police Department (Attachment No. 6). COPPS recommended denial of the
alcohol sales Use Permit, due to documented alcohol related crime problems at other gas
station / convenience stores in Alameda. The applicant has withdrawn this Use Permit
application (UPO6-0012) for alcohol sales. COPPS also provided security
recommendations for late night operations. Condition No. 22 requires implementation of
security recommendations. With the project modifications proposed by the applicant and
the implementation of security measures recommended by COPPS, it is not anticipated
that the project will cause a substantial increase in nuisance crimes that could adversely
affect neighboring properties.
Conclusion
Staff can make the required findings for approval of the two Use Permit applications for a
gas station use and twenty -four hour operations.
C. Summary
Potential project impacts have been evaluated as required under CEQA. Feasible
mitigation has been identified that will reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than
significant level. The applicant has reduced the size of the project and redesigned the site
layout, further reducing the potential for adverse effects. The redesigned project has been
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 16
determined to be compatible with neighboring uses. Staff can make all required findings for
approval of the PDA, Design Review and Use Permits for a twenty -four hour g as station.
Iv. Recommendation
Adopt Initial Study 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1S05-0001 and then approve Planned
Development Amendment PDA05 -001 , Use Permits UPO6 -0003 and UPO6 -O013 and Major
Design Review DR05 -0010.
G: I PLAN NINGIPBIReports12007104- 23- 0710tis 2230 PDA05 -0001 DR05 -0090 UP06 -0003 UPO6-OO13 Safeway Gas
Planning Board
Staff Report
Meeting of April 23, 2007
Page 17
CITY OF ALAM EDA
Memorandum
Date:
To:
From:
Re:
July 9, 2007
President Lynch and
Members of the Planning Board
Douglas Garrison
Supervising Planner
Supplemental Report for Safeway, Inc. 2234 Otis Drive: Initial Study
1 505 -0001; Planned Development Amendment PDAO5 -0001; Major
Design Review DR05- 0010; Use Permits UPO6 -0003, and UPO00013
BACKGROUND
On April 23, 2007, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the Safeway, Inc
proposal to build a new gas station at 2234 Otis Drive. After closing the public
hearing and considering all the pertinent information and reports, the Planning
Board adopted a resolution to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) 1505-
0001 for the proposed project. After further discussion, the Planning Board voted to
continue the Planned Development Amendment PDAO5 -0001; Major Design
Review DRO5 -0010; Use Permits U PO5 -0003, and U PO5 -0013 for the project to the
May 14, 2007 meeting to allow time for the applicant to re- design the project in
accordance with specific direction provided by the Planning Board. The April 23,
2007 Planning Board Report is attached (Attachment No.2). The report includes a
detailed description of the original proposal.
On May 1, 2007, the City Council called for review the Planning Board's action to
adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
On May 14, 2007, staff requested that the Planning Board continue the hearing on
the project to the meeting of June 11, 2007 to allow time to address the City Council
call for review of the MND.
On June 5, 2007 the City Council upheld the Planning Board decision to adopt the
MND.
At the June 11, 2007 Planning Board meeting, the item was continued to the June
25, 2007 meeting to provide staff additional time to review the revised submittal. On
City Council
Public Hearing
Attachment 3 to
Agenda Item #5 -A
08-07-07
June 11, 2007 the Planning Board voted to continue the hearing to July 9, 2007, to
allow the public more time to review the revised project plans.
REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project evaluated by the Planning Board on April 24, 2007, included a twenty -
four hour gas station, with sixteen covered fueling stations (3 islands, containing a
total of 8 double -sided pumps), a 6,790 square -foot canopy, and a 500 squarefoot
building, housing the cashier's desk, restrooms and retail sales of convenience
items. At that hearing, the applicant noted that they planned to sell biodiesel fuel in
addition to the other petroleum products. The Planning Board requested that the
applicants reduce the number of pumps to twelve, increase the length of the
sidewalk along the southerly project boundary by reducing driveway widths, and
limit fuel deliveries to non -peak traffic hours.
The revised proposal includes a smaller 4,770 square -foot canopy covering twelve
pumps. The sales kiosk retail store has been relocated to the western edge of the
property and increased in size to 604 square feet. The trash enclosure has been
relocated from the northwest corner of the site to the southwest corner. A
freestanding trellis has been added to further define the pedestrian right -of -way and
sidewalk along the southerly boundary. Proposed signage is consistent with the
earlier proposal (Attachment No.3, Project Plans).
Condition No.14 has been added which limits fuel deliveries to non -peak traffic
hours, as requested by the Planning Board on April 23,2007. Condition No. 13 is
included in the attached Draft Resolution to reflect the applicant's commitment to
install and advertise a biodiesel product.
COMMENTS
The City received a number of comments prior to the April 23,2007 Planning Board
hearing. Those comments were included as an attachment to the April 23, 2007
staff report and responses were provided in the report. Additionally, comments were
submitted to the City Council prior to and during the call for review hearing on the
Planning Board decision to adopt the MND. The City Council considered those
comments on June 5, 2007 and then voted to uphold the decision of the Planning
Board.
DISCUSSION
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
The project is located in a Planned Development (PO) zoning district.
Consequently, exceptions to AMC standards may be allowed if the project design
provides a more effective use of the property and is compatible with neighboring
Planning Board Report
Meeting of
July 9, 2007
Page 2
properties. Staff evaluated the April 23, 2007 design and determined that the
proposed exceptions to AMC development standards for rear and side yard setback
standards and proposed signage were appropriate. The following analysis
addresses the currently proposed changes to the project.
In the earlier design, the sales kiosk was set approximately nine feet from the rear
property boundary. The AMC requires a rear setback of twelve feet. Due to the
close proximity to the proposed east -west sidewalk, the kiosk included features that
served to integrate the structure with the sidewalk. These included an attached
trellis, connecting sidewalks, planters and a rail along the southern edge of the
proposed east -west sidewalk.
The redesigned project now meets the AMC required sideyard setbacks of zero feet
(west side) and twelve feet (east side). With the exception of the proposed trash
enclosure and the freestanding trellis located along the southerly property
boundary, the redesigned project meets AMC setback requirements. Proposed
signage, lighting and landscaping is consistent with the earlier proposal. The AMC
limits the height of barriers in commercial districts to a maximum of eight feet. The
proposed trellis would be approximately 13.5 feet tall.
Construction of the freestanding trellis in the rear setback is intended to provide
protection for pedestrians who would otherwise be surrounded on all four sides by
vehicular traffic with little or no buffer. The purpose of this structure is consistent
with the previous design intent to provide enhanced visibility and protection for
pedestri ans.
The proposed trash enclosure is located six feet from the rear property boundary.
The AMC requires a minimum setback of twelve feet. In this case locating the
enclosure in close proximity to the east -east sidewalk provides a visual cue for
motorists that will discourage drivers making left turns into the project from cutting
across the edge of the sidewalk. This location also allows additional space for
onsite parking.
This proposed trellis and trash enclosure require exceptions to AMC standards for
rear setbacks and barrier height limits. This will allow a more effective use of the
site and will be compatible with neighboring properties.
DESIGN REVIEW
The redesigned project includes four fewer pumps. The canopy location and height
is generally unchanged, however, the size has been reduced by approximately
2,000 square feet. The sales kiosk retail store size has been increased by
approximately 105 square feet and relocated from the center of the site to the
western side of the property.
Planning Board Report
Meeting of
July 9, 2007
Page 3
Reducing the number of pumps and enlarging and relocating the kiosk retail store to
the west side of the property results in a less compact design than previously
proposed. However, visibility of the new structure is minimized by location,
landscaping and other project features including the canopy and gas pumps.
In response to the Planning Board's April 23rd direction, the applicant revised the
plans for the sidewalk along the southern project property line to create two
driveways and extend the sidewalk. As shown on the plans, the revised project
includes two driveways of 32 and 30 feet in width crossing the improved sidewalk
which would be five (5) feet in width and located entirely on the Safeway project
parcel. Conditions included in the attached Draft Resolution require the applicant to
design and construct the sidewalk so that it will be integrated into the connecting
network of sidewalks. At this time, final design of the connecting sidewalks has not
been submitted to the City. The Draft Resolution requires Safeway to submit final
designs to the Planning and Building Director for approval prior to Building Permit
issuance. The Planning and Building Director may approve minor modifications and
if the project includes substantial changes, the final plans will be referred to the
Planning Board for approval.
USE PERMITS
Use Permits are required for gas stations and for businesses with extended
operating hours. The redesigned project includes four fewer pumps than were
previously evaluated. The sales kiosk has been increased by approximately) 05
square feet, for a total of 604 square feet. However, the MND evaluated a project
that included a 650 square feet kiosk. Thus, this current design that includes six
fewer pumps and a 650 square -foot sales kiosk is within the project description
evaluated in the MND. The City's traffic consultant, Omni Means, evaluated
potential queuing effects of both an eighteen -pump and a twelve -pump gas station
and determined that reducing the project to twelve pumps would not cause
significant impacts due to increased queuing (see April 23, 2007, Planning Board
report for more detailed discussion). As discussed above in the PDA and Design
Review sections, the redesigned project will not cause a substantial change in
visual effects. Based on the above analysis, the required Use Permit findings can
be made.
Environmental Review
On June 5, 2007, the City Council upheld the decision of the Planning Board to
adopt the MND. The revised project is consistent with the project described and
evaluated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As described in the attached
resolution, no new impacts would result from the proposed revisions to the project.
Therefore no further action is required by the Planning Board regarding the MND.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Board Report
Meeting of
July 9, 2007
Page 4
Approve Planned Development Amendment PDA -05 -0001, Use Permit UP060003
(gas station), Use Permit UPO6 -0013 (24 hour operation) and Major Design Review
DRO5 -OO10, as modified on plans submitted to the City on June 18, 2007.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. April 23,2007 Planning Board Report (without resolutions)
3. Project Plans (Full size plans are available in the Planning & Building
Dept. for review)
G: IPLANNING1P61Reports12007107 -09- 0712234 Otis Drive PDA05-0001- DR05 -Q010- UP08 -0003 UP06.0013 Safeway OOs,dx
Planning Board Report
Meeting of
July 9, 2007
Page 5
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CASSIDY
SHIMKO
DAWSON
KAWAKAMI
August 1, 2007
Mayor Beverly Johnson
and Members of the Alameda City Council
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320
Alameda, CA 94501
Sender's e -mail address:
DLK@CSDKLAW.COM
Re: Proposed Safeway Fuel Center at Alameda Towne Centre
Dear Mayor Johnson and Members of the Alameda City Council:
As you know, on July 9, 2007, the Planning Board approved a Planned Development
Amendment, Major Design Review and two Use Permits for Safeway's proposed fuel center
(the "Project ") at the former site of U.S. Bank on Otis Street in Alameda. That action was
appealed to the City Council by Ms. Anne Marie Walsh, and on August 7, 2007, you are
scheduled to consider the appeal. This letter briefly outlines the evolution and current status
of the entitlements process for the Project, 1 discusses the key aspects of the Project design and
g
then responds to the points in Ms. Walsh's appeal letter. Finally, this letter addresses some
points that were raised earlier regarding the environmental review for the Project, even though
g
you have already approved the adequacy of that review. As you will see, both the Planning
Department and the Planning Board have been extremely diligent and thorough in their
review of the Project, and carefully considered all aspects of the proposal over a lengthy
g y
period of time before Planning Board approved the Project. We hope that this information
will be useful to you as you prepare to consider the Project on August 7.
Project Design, Entitlements and CEQA Process
on February 3, 2005, Safeway submitted an application to the City of Alameda
( "City ") to demolish an existing building located at 2234 Otis Drive in Alameda (the former
U.S. Bank building) and construct a fuel center in its place. On September 23, 2005, Safeway
resubmitted its application for a slightly different configuration of the fuel center. As of that
date, the fuel center plan (the "Original Project ") consisted of nine multi-product dispensers
(providing 18 vehicle fueling positions), with a cashier's kiosk of slightly over 600 square feet
located along the western property line of the site. The Original Project was designed to
'Much of the information in this section was previously provided in our prior letter to you dated June 1, 2007,
but has been reproduced here for your ease of reference.
2 Although the scope of your review on August 7 generally will be limited to the design of the Project, the
� ,
circumstances of the environmental review for the Project are provided here for informational purposes.
20 CALIFORNIA ST. SUITE 500, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 TELEPHONE: (415) 788 -2040
Re: Agenda item #5 -A
FACSIMILE: : (41 5) 788 -2039 08-07 -07
Mayor Beverly Johnson
and Members of the Alameda City Council
August 1, 2007
Page 2 of 9
include a single 130 -foot driveway in from the adjacent shopping center to the south, as well
as a 30 -foot driveway providing ingress from and egress onto Otis Street. A single, flag -
shaped monument sign was proposed to be located to the east of the driveway onto Otis
Street.
In December 2006, the City circulated for public review the Initial Study for which the
MND was adopted. This document analyzed the environmental impacts of the Original
Project. The Initial Study was circulated for 30 days, and in the months following that period,
the City and its consultants analyzed and prepared responses to the handful of comments that
were received.
On March 9, 2007, Safeway representatives met separately with Planning Board
Member Marilyn Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Lena Tam to discuss the particulars of the
proposal.
On March 12, 2007, Safeway representatives attended a Planning Board workshop for
other changes to Alameda Towne Centre, during which the proposed fuel center was
discussed and commented upon by both members of the Planning Board and public attendees.
On April 3, 2007, Safeway representatives met with Planning and Building Director
Cathy Woodbury and Supervising Planner Douglas Garrison regarding proposed revisions to
the Original Project that responded to issues and concerns raised by City staff and members of
the public.
On April 5, 2007, Safeway representatives held a public meeting to which all
community members within 300 feet of the shopping center had been invited — eleven
members of the public attended. At that meeting, they presented to the community a revised
plan for the fuel center that incorporated the revisions discussed on April 3.
On April 13, 2007, Safeway formally amended its application to modify the design of
the proposed fuel center. The revised design relocated the kiosk to the south side of the site,
and reduced the size of the structure to approximately 400 square feet. This change
eliminated one dispenser beneath the fueling canopy, reducing the total number of dispensers
from nine (18 fueling positions) to eight (16 fueling positions). The previously-proposed
driveway accessing the shopping center to the south was reconfigured so that instead of one
wide driveway, there were two narrower driveways.3 Finally, the monument sign was
reduced in size and moved to the west of the driveway onto Otis Street.
On April 23, 2007, the Planning Board adopted the MND and then considered whether
to approve the Project itself. Ultimately, while Planning Board members were generally in
favor of having a fuel center at the Project site, they requested two changes to the site design:
3 This new configuration works much better with the proposed pedestrian path to the south of the site, as will be
discussed further below.
Mayor Beverly Johnson
and Members of the Alameda City Council
August 1, 2007
Page 3 of 9
(i) a reduction in the number of dispensers from eight (16 fueling positions) to six (12 fueling
positions), and a decrease in the width of the driveways accessing the shopping center to the
south so that the openings measured no more than 70 feet in total.
On May 1, 2007, Councilmember DeHaan called up the Planning Board's adoption of
the MND for review by the City Council.
On June 5, 2007, the City Council held a hearing upon, and subsequently upheld, the
Planning Board's adoption of the MND.
On June 5, 2007, Safeway submitted to the City revised designs for the proposed fuel
center. The revised plan relocated the kiosk to the west side of the site, and increased the size
of the structure to approximately 604 square feet (less than the square footage of the kiosk
studied in the MND). Two additional dispensers were eliminated, reducing the total number
of dispensers from the eight considered in April 2007 (16 fueling positions) to six (12 fueling
positions). The two proposed driveways accessing the shopping center to the south were
narrowed. A freestanding trellis was added in the prior approximate location of the kiosk at
the south of the Project site in order to further define the pedestrian right -of -way and sidewalk
along the southern boundary of the site.
At the June 11, 2007, Planning Board meeting, the item was continued to the June 25,
2007, meeting in order to provide staff more time to review Safeway's revised plans.
At the June 25, 2007, Planning Board meeting, the item was continued to the July 9,
2007, meeting in order to allow members of the public additional time to review the revised
plans.
On July 9, 2007, the Planning Board approved the Project.
On July 19, 2007, Ms. Walsh appealed the approval of the Project to the City Council.
The Project Design
The Project design has undergone rigorous scrutiny by the City and by members of the
public. As a result of input from staff, City decision - makers and members of the public,
Safeway has made significant design changes to the Project which has resulted in an evolution
of the Project design from a nine- dispenser configuration, with a kiosk to the east and a single
wide driveway to the south, to a six- dispenser configuration, with a kiosk to the west and two
narrower driveways to the south. The Project has become more compact and pedestrian -
friendly, and incorporates many more decorative elements such as stamped concrete paving,
planters and trellises. The driveway configuration proposed for the Project is now nearly
identical to the driveway configuration that currently exists, and Safeway has incorporated a
pedestrian walkway at the southern boundary of the site that would be extended across the
shopping center property to the east and west.
Mayor Beverly Johnson
and Members of the Alameda City Council
August I, 2007
Page 4 of 9
While the design of the Project has changed, the revised proposal does not represent a
change to the Original Project (ie., the project that was evaluated in the MND) such that any
new significant impacts, or impacts that are substantially more severe than those previously
considered in the MND, have been identified. The reduction in fuel dispensers from nine
(eighteen fueling stations) that were included in the Original Project to six (twelve fueling
stations) represents a substantial decrease. Because the project trip generation numbers
calculated in the MND are based on the number of fueling stations (then eighteen), the traffic
impacts of the revised project proposal (based on only twelve fueling station) would likewise
be substantially decreased from those of the Original Project and as analyzed in the MND.
Because air quality impacts are based primarily on traffic calculations, the air quality impacts
of the revised proposal would also be less than those of the Original Project. All other aspects
of the revised project proposal (including traffic flow patterns, visual appearance and noise)
would remain either substantially the same or less than those analyzed in the MND. The
mitigation measures suggested in the MND therefore would appropriately mitigate the
environmental impacts of the Project as now proposed.
The Project Appeal
Ms. Walsh's appeal raises six points, each of which is addressed in turn below:
• Pollution. Ms. Walsh contends that the Project would "cause pollution to be
blown into the atmosphere in such a manner as to be a detriment to the public health and
safety of local residents." To the contrary, the Initial Study (specifically on pages 15 through
20) thoroughly analyzed the Original Project's potential to exceed acceptable standards for
different types of common pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, dust,
asbestos, and gasoline vapors. The Initial Study concluded that with the implementation of
the mitigation measures contained therein, any adverse health effects that potentially could be
caused by such pollutants would be avoided. The Project as currently proposed would
generate substantially the same (or less) pollutants than the Original Project, as the number of
fuel dispensers has decreased. Thus, the Project would not generate pollutants that could
harm the public health and safety of local residents.
• Neighborhood Health, Safety and General Welfare. Ms. Walsh argues that the
operation of the Project would adversely impact the safety of pedestrians and drivers on Otis
Drive, which she characterizes as "primarily a residential neighborhood." Again, the Initial
Study (specifically on pages 44 through 48) analyzed the traffic that would be generated by
the Original Project and found that, with the implementation of specified mitigation measures,
the Original Project would not adversely impact the safety of pedestrians or drivers in the
area. The revised Project would generate approximately 33% less vehicle trips than the
Original Project; thus, the revised Project would be even safer for pedestrians and drivers than
the Original Project. In addition, the Project as currently proposed would add to the safety of
pedestrians by (i) incorporating a pedestrian sidewalk at the southern border of the site and (ii)
contributing to a new traffic light at which pedestrians may cross Otis Drive, at the
Mayor Beverly Johnson
and Members of the Alameda City Council
August 1, 2007
Page 5 of 9
intersection of Otis Drive and the Trader Joe's driveway. Lastly, we note that while there are
a number of residences located to the north of Otis Drive, the southern side of Otis Drive in
this area is occupied solely by businesses such as drug stores, banks and office superstores.
The Project is consistent with the commercial nature of these businesses and would not
conflict with the character of the neighborhood.
• Impact of Construction on Surrounding Properties. According to Ms. Walsh,
the Project "[would] not be compatible and harmonious" with surrounding properties, and
would have a detrimental effect on nearby residential properties. As discussed above, the
Project is consistent with the existing commercial activities along the southern side of Otis
Street. Construction activities — which are temporary in nature and thus would not impact the
value of nearby residences — would be conducted so as to minimize dust and noise and in
compliance with all City standards and regulations. Further, the fuel services offered by the
Project are not new uses in the area; up until relatively recently, there was a Chevron station
on the corner of Otis Drive and Park Street, and another gas station was located only a few
blocks to the west. The Project therefore would not introduce any new or detrimental element
to the area which would adversely impact the occupancy or value of nearby residential
properties.
• Instability of Property Values. Ms. Walsh again argues that the Project would
destabilize property values and adversely impact occupants of nearby residences. As
discussed above, the Project is consistent with surrounding uses and would not impact
property values. In addition, the Project would provide area residents with a much more
convenient location to buy gasoline, and also would provide biodiesel (which, to our
knowledge, is not available anywhere else in Alameda) to area residents. Thus, the Project
would actually provide an amenity to area residents.
• Noise. Ms. Walsh requests that an "independent study" be prepared to confirm
that the noise generated by the Project would comply with the Alameda Noise Ordinance
(Section 4 -10 of the Alameda Municipal Code). The issue of noise is addressed in the Initial
Study (specifically on pages 38 through 40), which concludes that the new vehicle traffic
generated by the Original Project (approximately one additional vehicle every two minutes)
would be "negligible compared to the ambient noise of the current traffic on Otis Drive and
within the shopping center." Furthermore, under the Alameda Noise Ordinance, any trucks
that deliver fuel to the site are prohibited from making deliveries between 10 pm and 7 am.
The Initial Study concludes that the addition of traffic related to the Original Project would
have a negligible impact on the overall noise in the area. Since the revised Project is expected
to generate even less new traffic than the Original Project, the expected amount of noise to be
generated by the revised Project would be even less than that analyzed in the Initial Study.
Finally, it should be noted that the revised Project is required to comply with the Alameda
Noise Ordinance. It therefore would be consistent with the noise levels deemed acceptable by
the City.
Mayor Beverly Johnson
and Members of the Alameda City Council
August 1, 2007
Page 6 of 9
• Utility of the Project. Lastly, Ms. Walsh argues that the Project would not
"meet the needs of the general population of Alameda." On the contrary, we have found
during the entitlements process that many neighborhood residents are looking forward to
having a gas station that is conveniently located near their homes and/or shopping
destinations, which has the additional benefit of eliminating extra trips to obtain fuel. As
mentioned earlier, there were not one but two gas stations in the area up until relatively
recently; the loss of those gas stations prompted the Planning Board to request that the
developer of the Alameda Towne Centre provide a gas station somewhere within the shopping
pp g
center. Furthermore, the addition of another gas station within Alameda would likely
stimulate competition among the other stations, which could result in lowered fuel p rices for
City residents. In summary, the Project would be of tremendous benefit to many Alameda
residents, and Safeway looks forward to serving them.
Earlier Comments Regarding Environmental Review
At your hearing on the MND on June 5, 2007, Ms. Eugenie Thomson submitted a
letter to you that raised six points as to the adequacy of the MND. While the MND is not the
subject of your hearing on August 7, we have responded to each of those points below in
order to establish a comprehensive record for the Project.
• Significant Impacts of Revised Project. Ms. Thomson asked how the MND
could determine that the revised Project would have no significant impacts if the MND was
adopted prior to finalization of the Project design. Under the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), the MND was required to analyze the environmental impacts of the
Project as originally proposed. Accordingly, the Planning Board (and later the City Council)
)
found that the MND 's analysis of the Original Project was adequate. Upon the Planning
Board's approval of the revised Project, it was required to determine whether the revised
Project created any new significant impacts, or impacts that were substantially more severe
than those previously considered in the MND. As discussed in more detail on page 4, above,
no such impacts were identified, and the mitigation measures suggested in the MND therefore
would appropriately mitigate the environmental impacts of the Project as now proposed.
• Intersections at Interior Driveways. Ms. Thomson asked why the intersections
at Trader Joe's/East -West Driveway and Office Max/East -West Driveway were not evaluated
by Omni- Means. As discussed in Omni- Means's traffic impact analysis for the Original
Project (located at Appendix B to the Initial Study), only 25% of the traffic generated by the
Original Project would leave or enter the Project site via the interior driveways. Based on the
traffic impact analysis (specifically page 3), this means that only 14 net new vehicle trips
would use the interior driveways during the AM peak hour, and only 15 net new vehicle trips
would use the interior driveways during the PM peak hour and weekend mid -day peak hour.
Assuming that the revised Project would generate 33% less trips than the Original Project,
only 10 net new trips would use the interior driveways during the AM peak hour, PM peak
hour and weekend mid -day peak hour. If half of those drove through the Trader Joe's 1 East-
Mayor Beverly Johnson
and Members of the Alameda City Council
August 1, 2007
Page 7 of 9
West Driveway and the other half drove through the Office Max 1 East -West Driveway, then
each of those intersections would receive from the Project no more than one new vehicle trip
every twelve minutes — and the trips would branch out from there, thus ensuring that the other
internal intersections at the shopping center would used be even less frequently by new
Project trips.4 This rate of new traffic would not unduly burden the interior circulation of the
shopping center. Ms. Thomson also alleged that Safeway has not proven that the fuel trucks
serving the Project would be able to make the necessary turn movements within the shopping
center in order to access the Project site; Safeway has submitted the required calculations,
which demonstrate that there would be sufficient room for the truck movements. Ms.
Thomson finally alleged that adequate queuing analyses have not been performed for the
Y p
Project; as discussed on pages 6 and 7 of the traffic impact analysis, SimTraffic software was
used to calculate the projected vehicle queue lengths for all critical turn movements, and in
Omni- Means's professional judgment, with the provided mitigation, no vehicle queuing
problems are projected to occur.
• Distinction from Towne Centre Expansion Project(s). Ms. Thomson argued
that the Project and the proposed Towne Centre Expansion Project together constitute a single
"project" for the purposes of CEQA. As discussed in detail in my letter to you dated June 1,
2007, the Project is completely separate from any proposed expansion of the Towne Centre.
To summarize, the CEQA Guidelines clarify what circumstances would constitute
"piecemealing ": "Where an individual project is a necessary precedent for action on a larger
project, or commits the lead agency to a larger project, with significant environmental effect,
an [environmental impact report's must address itself to the scope of the J ro
larger project." 14
g p
Cal. Code Regs. § 15155 (emphasis added). In the present case, approval of the Project is
neither a necessary precedent for action on the shopping center project, nor would it commit
the City to approving the shopping center expansion project. The two projects have been
proposed by two different applicants and would be undertaken on parcels which, though
adjacent to one another, are owned by different, non - affiliated landowners. Therefore, it is
proper to conduct the environmental analysis of the Project separately from any proposed
expansion of the Towne Centre, so long as the cumulative analysis of the Project includes
consideration of the expected impacts from the Towne Centre expansion (which has occurred
here) .
• Traffic Baseline and Cumulative Data. Ms. Thomson argued that because the
baseline and cumulative traffic data used in the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
proposed Towne Centre Expansion Project has been questioned, the MND cannot rely on any
of that data. In fact, the MND for the Project relied upon the most recent, reliable data
available. The analysis and assumptions made by the traffic impact analysis for the Project
4 Even if 45% of all traffic entered the Project site from the internal driveways and 55% of all traffic exited the
Project site from the internal driveways, as alleged by Ms. Thomson, each of the intersections in question would
receive from the Project only one new vehicle trip approximately every six minutes.
5 This section specifically addresses the preparation of environmental impact reports but may be interpreted to
apply equally to negative declarations.
Mayor Beverly Johnson
and Members of the Alameda City Council
August 1, 2007
Page 8 of 9
that are common to the CEQA analysis of the Towne Centre Expansion Project were based on
direction from City staff, were calculated according to standard protocols and methodologies,
and were and are legally sufficient under CEQA without the need for further analysis. The
mere fact that commentors challenged that data in connection with a different proposed
project with different uses and travel characteristics than the Project does not compel the City
to undertake additional analysis for this Project. See CEQA Guidelines § 15204 ( "CEQA
does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and
experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors.").
• Cumulative Traffic Conditions. Ms. Thomson questioned how the addition of
12,637 cumulative vehicle trips per day would have no significant impact at the intersections
studied in the MND. The traffic impact analysis (page 4) and attached calculations
demonstrated that the under cumulative scenarios, the intersections analyzed for the Project
would operate at acceptable levels (level of service D or better) with the exception of the Otis
Drive 1 Trader Joe's Driveway intersection, which would operate at a level of service of E
during the weekday PM peak hour and the weekend mid -day peak hour. As required under
CEQA, the traffic analysis proposes -- and the MND requires — that Safeway contribute
toward the installation of a traffic light at that intersection. Since Safeway will be paying its
fair share of a light that is planned for by the City and projected to be installed, the Project's
incremental contribution to the cumulative traffic impact at that intersection will be less than
cumulatively considerable.
• Ramifications of Approval of the Project. Ms. Thomson argued that if the City
adopted the MND for the Project, the City would also be approving the impacts associated
with the Towne Centre Expansion. In fact, the City makes no decision with respect to the
environmental impacts of the Towne Centre Expansion unless and until the City certifies an
environmental impact report for that project (which may take several more months). The
City's adoption of the MND, and its approval of the Project (subject to the appropriate
findings under CEQA), apply only to the Project. Should the City at some point consider
certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Towne Centre Expansion, members of the
public may critique any aspect of that Environmental Impact Report.
Mayor Beverly Johnson
and Members of the Alameda City Council
August 1, 2007
Page 9 of 9
Conclusion
We hope that you find this letter to be informative and useful as you consider the
Project. As you can see, the Project has undergone thorough review and has evolved into a
design that would minimize impacts on its neighbors and remain attractive to passers -by.
Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions regarding any aspect of the
Project in advance of the August 7 hearing, please feel free to contact me or Todd Paradis, the
Real Estate Manager in charge of the Project. I can be reached at (415) 788 -2040, and Todd
can be reached at (925) 467-2078.
Very truly yours,
CAS S IDY SHIMKO DAWSON & KAWAKAMI
Deborah L. Kartiganer
cc: Debra Kurita
Cathy Woodbury
Doug Garrison
Steve Gouig
Steve Berndt
Todd Paradis
Dan Goalwin
Chris Ferko
Anna Shimko
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD DECISION TO APPROVE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PDAO5 -0001, MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW
DRO5 -001 O AND USE PERMITS UPO5 -0003 AND UPO5 -0013 ALLOWING
THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING BANK BUILDING AND
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WITH A TWENTY -FOUR HOUR
GAS STATION LOCATED AT 2234 OTIS DRIVE
WHEREAS, applications were made on February 9, 2005, March 3, 2006,
and August 16, 2006, by the applicant requesting approval of Planned
Development Amendment PDAO5 -0001, Use Permits U P05 -0003 and U Po5 -0013
and Major Design Review DRO6 -0010; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board found the Initial Study complete and
correct, and after holding a public hearing on this application on April 23, 2007,
and examining pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony, found on the
basis of the whole record before it that there was no substantial evidence that the
project would have a significant effect on the environment; and adopted Initial
Study 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration 1505 -0001; (together, the "MND ") pursuant
to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "); and
WHEREAS, the Board evaluated the design of the Original Project and then
requested that the applicant make specific changes to the project design and then
voted to continue the hearing to allow the applicant time to submit revised plans;
and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2007, the City Council called for review of the
Planning Board decision to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2007, the City Council voted to uphold the Planning
Board decision to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 2007, the project applicant submitted to the City
revised designs for the project that reflected the changes requested by the
Planning Board on April 23, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on July 9, 2007, and
examined pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony, determined that
the revised design would not cause new significant impacts, would be compatible
with neighboring properties, and then approved PDAO5 -0001, DRO5 -0010, UPO6-
0003 and UPO6 -0013; and
WHEREAS, on July 19, 2007, Ann Marie Walsh, of 911 Chestnut Street,
submitted an appeal of the July 9, 2007 Planning Board decision to approve the
project; and
Resolution #5 -A
08 -07 -07
WHEREAS, the Council held a public hearing on August 7, 2007, and
examined pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby makes the
following Findings of Fact Regarding the Environmental Impacts of the Project:
Finding 1:
The current proposal does not represent a change in the project as
evaluated in the MND such that new significant or substantially more
severe environmental impacts have been identified that were not
previously considered in the MND.
Evidence: The six fuel dispensers (twelve fueling stations) in the revised project
proposal represents a substantial decrease from the nine fuel
dispensers (eighteen fueling stations) that were included in the
project as originally proposed and as analyzed in the MND.
Because the project trip generation numbers calculated in the MND
are based on the number of fueling stations, the traffic impacts of
the revised project proposal will likewise be substantially decreased
from those of the project as originally proposed and as analyzed in
the MND. As air quality impacts are based primarily on traffic
calculations, the air quality impacts of the revised proposal will also
be Tess than those of the original project. All other aspects of the
revised project proposal (including traffic flow patterns, visual
appearance and noise) will remain either substantially the same or
less than those analyzed in the MND. The mitigation measures
suggested in the MND therefore would appropriately mitigate the
environmental impacts of the project as now proposed.
Finding 2: No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken that
would require revisions of the MND due to the involvement of new or
substantially more severe significant environmental impacts that
were not evaluated in the MND.
Evidence: There is no evidence that any such environmental changes have
occurred.
Finding 3: No new information of substantial importance, which was not known
and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable
diligence at the time the MND was adopted, either:
(a) Shows that the project will have one or more significant
effects not discussed in the MND, or that any of the
significant effects identified in the MND will be
substantially more severe than indicated in the MND; or
(b) Requires a reassessment of the mitigation measures.
Evidence: All information that has been submitted to or developed by the City
since approval of the MND could readily have been known before
the MND was adopted. Furthermore, no such information implicates
either (a) or (b) above; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Section 30 -4.13, the City Council of the City
of Alameda hereby makes the following Findings of Fact Regarding Planned
Development Amendment PDAO5 -0001:
Finding 4: The proposed development is a more effective use of the site than is
possible under the regulations for the C -2 Zoning District and the
project will not have an adverse effect on adjacent land uses.
Evidence: Based on evidence contained in the MND, the project file, the April
23, 2007 and June 25, 2007 Planning Board Reports, the June 5,
2007 City Council report, other City records, site visits and
consultation with other City departments, this finding can be made.
The project encroaches into the rear setback and the proposed
trellis along the sidewalk to be located on the southerly property
boundary will exceed the maximum barrier height as established in
the AMC. However, this design provides more effective pedestrian
and vehicle access_to and within the site; groups the building
frontages along Otis Street in a more visually pleasing manner; and
adds interest to the proposed pedestrian pathway along the
southern boundary of the site. The monument sign, with decorative
structural elements would exceed the maximum area allowed in the
AMC. However, this design better incorporates the important design
elements of the shopping center than if the decorative structural
elements were removed in order for the sign area to comply with the
AMC. The project will not adversely affect adjacent land uses.
Finding 5: The project relates favorably with the General Plan.
Evidence: The property is designated as Community Commercial on the
General Plan Diagram and Central Business District (C-2) on the
Zoning Map. General Plan policies support the continued operation
of commercial activities in this district. The proposed commercial use
is consistent with uses permitted, subject to Use Permit approval, in
the C -2 Zoning District.
Finding 6: The project complies with the Subdivision Map Act.
Evidence: The project entails the redevelopment of an existing legal lot and
does not include the creation of new lots or modifications of existing
lots.
Finding 7: The project complies with applicable health and safety standards.
Evidence: Based on evidence contained in the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the project file, the April 23, 2007 and June 25, 2007
Planning Board Reports, the June 5, 2007 City Council report, other
City records, site visits and previous consultation with other City
departments, this finding can be made. The project includes
demolition of an existing building and construction of a new gas
station. Demolition, construction and operational activities are
subject to regulatory requirements that ensure compliance with
health and safety standards. Additionally a MND was prepared for
this project that includes mitigation measures that will ensure that
the project will not adversely affect water or air quality. The Planning
Board adopted this MND on April 23, 2007 and the City Council
upheld this decision on June 5, 2007; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Section 30 -21.3, the City Council finds as
follows regarding the Use Permits UPO6 -003 and UPO0 -0013:
Finding 8: The location of the proposed use is compatible with other land uses
in the general neighborhood area.
Evidence: Based on evidence contained in the Initial Study 1 Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the project file, the April 23, 2007 and June 25, 2007
Planning Boa rd Reports, the June 5, 2007 City Council report, other
City records, site visits and previous consultation with other City
departments, this finding can be made. Properties to the east and
west of the project site along Otis Drive have been developed as
commercial businesses, and the Alameda Towne Centre Shopping
Center lies to the south of the project. The project is bordered to the
north by Otis Drive; on the far side of the street there is a tidal
lagoon, with residences beyond. Given the commercial nature of its
setting, the project represents an infill replacement of an existing
business establishment (i.e., the development formerly occupied by
U.S. Bank). Furthermore, until recently, a fueling facility existed on
the corner of Otis Drive and Park Street, and there was another gas
station in the past on the site now occupied by the OfficeMax store.
The MND evaluated a wide range of potential impacts. Feasible
mitigation has been identified that will reduce potentially significant
impacts to a less than significant level. Additionally, the proposed
project has been reduced in size, further reducing potential impacts
previously determined to be less than significant. The potential
effects of reducing the project size and redesigning the site plan
have been evaluated. These changes will not cause an increase in
significance of previously evaluated impacts and no new significant
impacts have been identified.
Finding 9: The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and
service facilities.
Evidence: Based on evidence contained in the Initial Study 1 Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the project file, the April 23, 2007 and June 25, 2007
Planning Board Reports, the June 5, 2007 City Council report, other
City records, site visits and 'previous consultation with other City
departments, this finding can be made. The project is a gas station,
located in an existing urbanized location. Most patrons will drive to
the gas station. Traffic impacts have been evaluated and determined
to be less than significant with the implementation of proposed
mitigation measures. City engineering staff have determined that
adequate sanitary sewer, stormwater, and electrical system capacity
exists to meet the requirements of this project.
Finding 10: The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which
approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property
in the vicinity.
Evidence: Based on evidence contained in the Initial Study 1 Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the project file, the April 23, 2007 and June 25, 2007
Planning Board Reports, the June 5, 2007 City Council report, other
City records, site visits and previous consultation with other City
departments, this finding can be made. An Initial Study 1 Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Feasible
mitigation measures have been proposed that will reduce all
potentially significant impacts to Tess than significant level. For
example, the project has been designed to include decorative
elements of the Alameda Towne Centre Shopping Center so that it
will enhance the existing visual character of the site. The project
lighting has been designed to include recessed lights beneath the
gasoline canopy, lower wattage accent wall fixtures on the kiosk
building, and freestanding lot lights; the applicant has submitted a
photometric analysis which indicates that (with the exception of the
Otis Drive driveway due to safety considerations) the proposed
lighting at the property lines will not exceed 2 to 3 foot - candles of
illumination. In addition, the project incorporates an east -west
pedestrian pathway along its southern border which will provide a
safe and convenient way for pedestrians to travel between retail
establishments located along the internal east -west drive aisle of the
shopping center. Finally, the project will be required to limit fuel
deliveries to non -peak hours, thus reducing the potential for traffic
conflicts with fuel trucks serving the project site; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Section 30 -37, the Council finds as follows
regarding this Major Design Review approval:
Finding 11:
The project will be compatible with the site and neighboring buildings
and surroundings and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and
character between different designated land uses.
Evidence: Pursuant to AMC Section 30- 37.5(c) the City may rely on project
consistency with the principles and standards contained in the City
Design Review Manual (DRM) to make this finding. Based on
evidence contained in the Initial Study 1 Mitigated Negative
Declaration, the project file, the April 23, 2007 and June 25, 2007
Planning Board Reports, the June 5, 2007 City Council report, other
City records, site visits and previous consultation with other City
departments, this finding can be made. The project has been
evaluated and determined to be consistent with the principles and
standards of the DRM, specifically those principles and standards
described on pages 13 -15 of the April 23, 2007 Planning Board
report.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Alameda hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Board approval of
Planned Development Amendment PDAO5 -0001, Use Permits U Poo -0003 and
UP05 -0013 and Major Design Review DR00 -0010, subject to the following
conditions:
CONDITIONS
Mitigation Measures
1. Mitigation Measure No. 1 Air Quality: Construction activities must comply
with the "Basic Control Measures" and "Enhanced Control Measures" for
dust emissions as outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These
requirements are listed as follows:
Basic Control Measures
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris or require all
trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
▪ Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on
all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction
sites.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas,
and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent public streets.
Enhanced Control Measures
• Hydroseed or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction
areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non -toxic soil binders to
exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
•
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff
to public roadways.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
2. Mitigation Measure No. 2 Archeological Resources: If archeological
materials or artifacts are identified, work on the project shall cease until a
resource protection plan conforming to CEQA Section 1 5054.5 is prepared
by a qualified archaeologist and /or paleontologist and approved by the City
of Alameda. Project work may be resumed in compliance with said plan. If
human remains are encountered, the County Coroner shall be contacted
immediately and the applicable provisions of state law shall be carried out.
3. Mitigation Measure No. 3: The improvement plans shall include an erosion
and sediment control plan subject to approval of the City Engineer to
effectively prevent the entry of soil, dirt, debris and other pollutants to
stormwater runoff and the storm drain system. Plan sheets prepared for the
construction phase shall indicate the notes for the installation and upkeep
of the erosion control mechanisms. Details and specifications shall be
provided for the perimeter protection(s), any silt fencing and fiber rolls used,
the storm drain inlet protections, the stabilized construction entrance(s) and
exits and vehicle tire wash area(s), the vehicle and equipment servicing
area(s) and the materials handling and storage area(s). These
specifications should meet the same level of erosion and sediment control
effectiveness identified for erosion and sediment control practices
established in the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board's Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual and the California
Stormwater Quality Association's Stormwater Best Management Practice
Handbook — Construction (www.cabmphandbooks.com).
4. Mitigation Measure No. 4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan: The
project developer's civil engineer shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) adhering to the City of Alameda and Regional
Water Quality Control Board standards to assure long -term adherence to
surface water quality standards. The SWPPP shall incorporate the most
recent Best Management Practices for preventing petroleum impacts to
stormwater, including, but not limited to, oil /water separators, containment
sumps, spill clean -up kits, safety signage, emergency response
procedures, periodic maintenance, and labeling storm drain inlets. The
applicant shall be responsible for monitoring water quality and maintenance
of facilities. A written record of monitoring and maintenance activities shall
be maintained by the fueling center operator, who shall provide these
records to City staff upon request.
5. Mitigation Measure No. 5 Park Street Two -- Way - Left -Turn -Lane: The
project shall contribute a proportional share toward the installation of a two-
way-left-turn-lane on Park Street if this improvement is constructed as part
of the Alameda Towne Center shopping center expansion. Should the
proposed Alameda Towne Center project not be approved, the proposed
Safeway Fuel Center project will be responsible for installation of the two -
way -left -turn -lane.
6. Mitigation Measure No. 6 Otis Drive I Trader Joe's Driveway Intersection
Improvements: The Applicant shall contribute a proportional share toward
the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Otis Drive and Trader
Joe's driveway, based on data contained in the project traffic study,
prepared by Omni Means. The Public Works Director shall determine the
final pro -rata share. The applicant shall make said payment to the City, at
the time of Building Permit issuance, unless a later date is approved by the
Public Works Director. The City shall implement this improvement as soon
as practical but no later than ten years from the date of Building Permit
application submittal.
7. Mitigation Measure No. 7 Otis Drive Driveway Improvement: The applicant
shall limit the Otis Drive driveway to right -in /right -out when a traffic signal is
installed at the Trader Joe's driveway. This improvement shall be
accomplished with a raised curb or median subject to the approval of the
Alameda Public Works Department.
8. Mitigation Measure No. 8 Annual Monitoring: At the applicant's expense,
the City shall conduct the traffic monitoring for the traffic associated with
Safeway Gas Station on a yearly basis for a period of five years to ensure
the operation is consistent with projected condition for traffic delay, vehicle
queuing, and overall safety per the Dec 2006, Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration. Traffic monitoring shall be stamped and signed by a
licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer. The monitoring scope shall be approved
by the Public Works Director. At the minimum it will include, collision
analysis including comparison of collision data before and after the
development at all driveways to the gas station and at the Trader Joes /Otis
Drive intersection, peak hour counts at the affected intersections including
the project driveway, evaluation of traffic queues, circulation at the Gas
Station driveway, and Trader Joes Driveway on Otis Drive, and at southerly
driveways on the internal parking area street.
If in any year, the 95th percentile queues extend beyond the gas station
driveway on Otis Drive or the total number of collisions increases at the
driveways to the gas station and at the Trader Joes /Otis intersection, the
following will be implemented as a stepped approach:
First Step: Safeway gas station driveway operation will be converted to
right -in and right -out operation only with raised curb or median on Otis
Drive.
Second Step: If in the following years traffic evaluation indicates that the
95th percentile queues are continuing to extend on to Otis Drive beyond the
gas station driveway or the total number of collisions increase persists, then
the Safeway Gas station driveway will be converted to an exit only
driveway.
Planning and Building Department
9. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit the
following materials for approval by the Planning and Building Director:
a. Final building elevations with color and materials boards.
b. Window details including material and manufacturer cut sheets.
c. Final design, materials, alignment and cross - sections for the
sidewalk located on the southerly property boundary and the trellis
to be located adjacent to said sidewalk.
10. Prior to occupancy, the applicant shall request a final inspection by
Planning staff. Final occupancy shall not be granted until Planning and
Building staff determine that buildings, landscaping and other
improvements have been constructed in substantial conformance with
approved Design Review plans.
11. This Planned Development Amendment, Use Permit and Major Design
Review approval is valid for one year. Construction must commence under
valid permits prior to July 9, 2008 unless the applicant applies for and is
granted a one (1) year extension prior to expiration.
12. The applicant shall include a final landscaping plan that includes
recommended plants and techniques from the publication Bay Friendly
Landscape Guidelines available at jittp://www.stopwaste.org, with the
submittal of Building Permit applications. If landscape maintenance is to be
shared with neighboring property owners, a maintenance plan shall be
submitted, detailing the responsibilities of individual parties. Landscaping
within the public right of way shall be subject to approval by the Public
Works Director, otherwise all landscaping shall be subject to approval of the
Planning and Building Director.
13. Starting with its initial opening for business of the fuel station, in addition to
the gasoline product(s) which Safeway otherwise offers for sale at the fuel
station, Safeway shall offer for sale in one or more of its fuel pumps at this
site a biodiesel product selected by Safeway, with the understanding and
agreement that Safeway may, at its sole option, modify, or cease to offer
for sale, such biodiesel product at this site at anytime thereafter, Safeway
shall notify the Planning and Building Director in writing within 30 days after
modifying or eliminating the sale of a biodiesal product.
14. The applicant shall limit fuel deliveries to non -peak hours, as defined in the
traffic study for this project. No fuel deliveries shall be permitted on
weekdays between 7:00 to 9:00 am and 4:00 to 6:00 pm and on weekends
between 1 1:30 am and 1:30 pm. The applicant shall be responsible for
monitoring compliance with this condition and maintaining records of
compliance. These records shall be made available to the City upon
request.
15. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the
applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from
any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, and
employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City
concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the
applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in
the defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or
proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall
not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the
City.
Public Works
The developer shall incorporate the following into its plans, to the satisfaction of
the Public Works Director and in accordance with City standards:
16. The applicant shall obtain all required encroachment permits related to any
aspect of the project that encroaches on public rights of ways or utility
easements to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director prior to issuance
of Building Permits.
17. The applicant shall provide evidence of all required access easements with
the adjacent shopping center prior to the issuance of Building Permits.
18. The sidewalk shall be designed and constructed integral and consistent
with connecting pedestrian sidewalks in the Alameda Towne Centre to
provide a reasonably direct pathway for pedestrians and shall meet ADA
requirements. Along the southerly side of the project, the sidewalk shall be
raised with ADA compliant pedestrian access ramps installed at both ends
to create two driveways into the gas station.
19. All driveways required for fuel truck access shall be designed to ensure that
the trucks do not encroach into the opposing lanes on Otis Drive and the
Alameda Towne Centre internal circulation streets to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Director (prior to the approval of the final improvement plans).
However, trucks exiting the site may briefly encroach into the two -way left
turn lane at the center of Otis Drive, if necessary to ensure a safe turn.
20. A minimum of one bicycle rack shall be provided at a suitable location and
as per City standards.
21. The trash enclosure area shall be covered with a solid roof and designed to
prevent water runoff onto the area and runoff from the area. The enclosure
shall be designed to contain litter and trash, and prevent their dispersion by
the wind. The trash area shall be designed to prevent pollutants from being
discharged to the storm drain system and the floor drain from the trash
enclosure area shall be connected to the sanitary sewer. The enclosure
shall accommodate a front -end loader trash bin (H = 6'X9', W = 4'X5', H =
5') a recycling bin, and an organics bin.
22. Final Improvement plans shall show grades, direction of surface runoff and
other applicable drainage information to meet City standards. The pad
around the fueling pumps shall be Portland Cement Concrete and be
graded so that there is no surface runoff onto the pad. Runoff other than
from the fuel slab area shall be directed to the perimeter landscaped areas
along Otis Drive and allowed to enter the landscape area for treatment.
Drainage plans shall be approved by the Public Works Director prior to
issuance of Building Permits.
23. Roof drains from the canopy shall be connected to the site's underground
storm system and not allowed to run over the paved areas. Roof drainage
shall be directed to the landscape areas for flow - through treatment.
24. Citywide Development Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of Building
Permits.
Alameda Police Department
25. The applicant shall implement appropriate security measures, substantially
similar to the measures recommended by the COPPS unit of the Alameda
Police Department, in written communications dated February 25, 2005 and
March 1 3, 2007. The applicant may implement alternative security
measures, if approved by COPPS.
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 7th day of August, 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
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Approve the Second Amendment to the Contract for the Use of HOME
Funds between Alameda Development Corporation and the City of
Alameda for Buena Vista Commons
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2000, the City Council approved a loan to the Alameda Development
Corporation (ADC) in the amount of $280,000 in HOME Funds as part of an overall
$540,000 loan for the acquisition of a vacant car wash and the development of up to
nine units of workforce ownership housing at Buena Vista Commons, located at 626
Buena Vista Avenue, Alameda. After obtaining the City loan, the ADC purchased the
property and conducted a number of predevelopment activities towards the
development of a nine -unit condominium project; however, changing conditions
increased costs beyond the original budget. On February 21, 2006, the City Council
approved the First Amendment to the Contract for the Use of HOME Funds to increase
the HOME loan amount to $'1,030,000 as part of an overall $'1.74 million loan and
approved other amendments which would allow the ADC to develop an eight -unit
subdivision in partnership with Habitat for Humanity East Bay (Habitat). As part of the
Amended HOME Contract, construction was to start by November 2006, with initial
occupancy scheduled for November 2007. Although ADC broke ground on the Buena
Vista Commons Project on December 12, 2006, the project is behind schedule, placing
the ADC in breach of its contract with the City. A copy of the original contract, first
amendment, and proposed second amendment are on file with the City Clerk.
DISCUSSION
The development of Buena Vista Commons will provide eight units of ownership
housing, affordable to families at very low, low, and moderate income levels, and help
the City of Alameda meet its Housing Element goals. While ADC, in partnership with
Habitat, has made steady progress in moving the project forward, it has not performed
according to the time frame originally contemplated in its contract. The ADC /Habitat
partnership adds benefit to the project through lower construction costs and Habitat's
green community building model, but the partnership has also been responsible for
much of the delay. Delays to the project have compounded over time, due in part to:
City Council
Agenda Item #5 -B
08 -07 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
August 7, 2007
Page 2 of 3
• Difficulty of ADC and Habitat for Humanity East Bay agreeing on terms of a
Memorandum of Understanding;
• Difficulty of ADC and Habitat for Humanity East Bay agreeing on design issues,
resulting in the late submittal of Planned Development and Major Design Review
applications;
• Late submittal of subdivision application;
• Late submittal of construction loan application; and
• Difficulty of ADC and Habitat resolving construction contract issues.
City staff has provided ongoing support and assistance to both ADC and Habitat,
facilitating bi- weekly check -in meetings, maintaining a project tracking log, expediting
the entitlement process, anticipating critical path issues, and following up on
outstanding items to keep the project on schedule. These bi- weekly meetings were
unable to resolve the problems between ADC and Habitat.
ADC broke ground at Buena Vista Commons on December 12, 2006, and started
demolition and site work the next day. Habitat performed the work under a construction
contract for site work only. In negotiating the terms of the house construction contract,
the ADC and Habitat ran into issues as to the sufficiency of Habitat's insurance. As of
July 13, 2007, these insurance issues were resolved, and ADC and Habitat signed a
construction contract. ADC has a loan commitment from the Bank of Alameda for $1
million, which is sufficient to complete construction and will be paid back from sales
proceeds. Once the Bank of Alameda loan is closed, the ADC intends to issue a Notice
to Proceed to Habitat, and construction will commence, with substantial completion 365
days from the Notice to Proceed. The Second Amendment to the Contract for the Use
of HOME Funds will resolve the delay of contract issue and allow the ADC to complete
the project. If the Council approves the Second Amendment, Bob Haun will be assigned
to oversee the construction phase and to work with the developers to ensure that the
project is completed with the new time allotted.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City has approved $750,000 in HOME funds and $450,000 in City /Community
Improvement Commission Housing Funds (Affordable Housing Unit/Fee and Business
and Waterfront Improvement Project [BWIP] Housing) for this project; $081 ,000 of this
amount has been expended for site acquisition, architectural and engineering services,
consultants, entitlements, permits and fees, and demolition and grading work. There is
no impact on the General Fund.
MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This project is consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
August 7, 2007
Page3of3
An Initial Study leading to a Negative Declaration was prepared for the original project
approvals. The Initial Study consisted of a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and
BWIP Plan Amendment, Planned Development, and Major Design Review. The re-
entitlement of the Planned Development and Major Design Review would be
categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15332
(InfiII Development Project).
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Second Amendment to the Contract for the Use of HOME Funds between
Alameda Development Corporation and the City of Alameda for Buena Vista Commons.
Respectfu submitted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager Business Development Division
By: Rachel Silver
Development Manager, Housing
DK/LAUDES /RS:ry
cc: Alameda Development Corporation
Habitat for Humanity East Bay
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
TWO VACANCIES
(FULL TERMS EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2011)
Rod A. Arrants
Monetha Hatcher
Dian McPherson
Council Communication #7 -A
08 -07 -07
CURRENT APPLICATIONS
TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
ONE VACANCY — SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE
(PARTIAL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2008)
Nielsen Tam
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The meeting convened at 7 :10 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2 -A
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
2 -A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 6, 2007.
2 -B. Review and Approve Subleases for Antiques by the Bay at Alameda Point.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
3. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3 -A. Alameda Point Environmental Remediation Update: Installation Restoration Site L
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an update on the IR
Site 1 project. On May 8, ARRA directed staff to send a comment letter to the Navy regarding
their proposed plan for the clean -up. At the next RAB meeting, Member Matarrese, as the ARRA
liaison, determined that it was appropriate for ARRA to work directly with EPA, and that the
EPA reconsider its oversight and participation with the Navy's process for recommending
cleanup. Staff sent a letter to EPA requesting that more data analysis was needed before the
Navy determines a clean -up recommendation. Navy agreed to do additional trenching as
recommended by ARRA and confirmed that they will also be undertaking a data gap analysis.
The update was for information only and no action from the Board was required.
3 -B. Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with Clyde G Steagall, Inc. for
Construction Management Services for Pier 2 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point with a
Total Project Cost Not to exceed $1,719,000.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, gave an overview of the Pier 2 upgrade project,
stating that in April of 2006, the ARRA approved a new 20 -year lease with MARAD. Under
that lease agreement, ARRA is obligated to make repairs on the piers, specifically electrical
upgrades for the piers.
Member deHaan expressed concern that the project cost is significantly higher (almost doubled)
than the original estimate of $900,000 - $1M. Nanette Banks explained that the original cost
estimate was based on the Pier 3 repair estimate of 1999. With Pier 2 in worse condition, and the
ARRA Item #2 -A CC
08-07-07
design for the electrical upgrade more complex, the cost increased. She also explained that the
fund balance in 20 -year spreadsheet is sufficient to pay for this project.
Member Matarrese was concerned about the maintenance that is being deferred to pay for this, as
mentioned in the staff report. Ms. Banks and Ms. Little confirmed that maintenance is NOT
being deferred at all, that they established a "reserve" budget for maintenance issues in the event
funds were needed, but there is no "maintenance schedule" and that $100,000 for pier
maintenance was not used over a two -year period.
Member Matarrese stated that MARAD's resources are greater than ours. Chair Johnson
suggested that staff have a conversation with MARAD about subsidizing this project so that
ARRA isn't the sole bearer of the cost. Staff agreed to bring this item back to the Board at its
next meeting.
3 -C. Approve a Contract with Universal Protection Service in an Amount Not to Exceed
$200,000 for Private Security Service at Alameda Point.
Leslie Little discussed the challenges in securing the buildings and preserving the historical
aspects of Alameda Point. The ARRA has an obligation under the LIFOC to manage these
assets and protect and preserve buildings so that they can be turned over to a new use. Even with
the current mechanisms (new motion sensors, PM Realty staff patrol, etc.) in place to secure the
buildings, break -ins, theft, and vandalism still occur. APD has recommended we increase
security patrol, and they have committed to help train and position the private security.
Chair Johnson brought up the question whether this cost is reimbursable by the master developer.
Ms. Little said that we have not yet had this conversation with the master developer. She
explained that the transfer of the buildings will happen in phases, and when they are transferred,
the responsibilities will also transfer. The ultimate resolution for the ARRA regarding this issue
is the quick transfer of the property, as deterioration occurs exponentially as time passes.
Member deHaan motioned to approve the contract, seconded by Member Gilmore and
passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
4. ORAL REPORTS
4 -A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
The RAB did not meet officially last month, but there was a meeting of members without the
Navy on July 5th. At this meeting, members, reiterated concerns of major sites: Site 1 and 2.
Other areas of concern were the Coast Guard Housing site where there has been some
remediation, some plumes north of Bayport; and the site east of Seaplane Lagoon, (Bldg. 360).
These issues will be brought back to the full RAB meeting with the EPA and Navy
representatives at the next meeting the first week of August.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:52 by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Unapproved
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the
City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The meeting convened at 7 :53 p.m. with Mayor /Chair Johnson presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor /Chair Beverly Johnson
Councilmember /Boardmember /Commissioner Marie Gilmore
Councilmember /Boardmember /Commissioner Doug deHaan
Counci lmember /B oardmember /Commissioner Frank Matarrese
Vice Ma yor /B oardmember /Commi s si oner Lena Tam
2. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
2 -B
Item 2 -A. Recommendation to Approve Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between
ARRA, CIC, City of Alameda (Alameda) and SCC Alameda Point, LLC ( SunCaI).
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, introduced staff and those involved in the ENA
process: for SunCal was Bill Myers, Amy Freilich, their Counsel, and Steve Elieff, President of
SunCal. For ARRA was Matt Fragner, Real Estate transaction attorney and special Counsel to
the ARRA, and Jim Musbach Financial Consultant from EPS.
Ms. Little gave a powerpoint presentation as an overview of the ENA process, citing the purpose
of the ENA:
- Define redevelopment and entitlement process for Alameda Point
- Provide a framework for negotiation of a Disposition and Development Agreement
- Establish a process for negotiating and executing various other transaction
documents.
Included in the presentation was a summary of the major terms of the ENA, including the length
of tern, schedule of performance, initial payment and cost recovery, project labor agreement,
fiscal neutrality, project pro forma, existing city leases, and transfers.
Next steps included:
- SunCal to provide a pre - development schedule for achieving mandatory and non -
mandatory milestones within 30 days to be updated quarterly
- SunCal, in conjunction with ARRA staff, to commence project planning and
negotiations
At the conclusion of the presentation, there was concern by all Councilmembers/Boardmembers /
Commissioners of three issues included in the ENA, specifically regarding: 1) the financial
structure and knowledge of who the financial partners are before the DDA process, including the
reference to the 5% contribution relative to the DDA; 2) the liability of the acquisition price of
$108.5M ; and 3) prohibiting transfers during the ENA period.
At 9:50 p.m., Mayor /Chair Johnson called a recess so that the SunCal team could discuss these
issues with their principals. The meeting reconvened at 10:22 p.m.
ARRA Item #2 -B CC
08 -07 -07
Matt Fragner, with the Counci l mem ber' sB o ardmember' s /Commissioner's approval, revised and
recited the precise language modifying the three specific issues of the ENA.
Councilmember /Boardmember /Commissioner deHaan motioned to approve the ENA with
the modifications to the specific sections in the ENA. Motion was seconded by Vice
MayorBoardmember /Commissioner Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5 Ayes,
0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:27 by Mayor /Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
6&6(40
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Interoffice Memorandum
August 7, 2007
TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
FROM: Debra Kurita, Executive Director
3 -A
SUBJ: Approve a 12 -Month Contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., in the
Amount of $185,000 to Provide Negotiation Support and to Conduct a Fiscal
Impact Analysis for the Redevelopment of Alameda Point
BACKGROUND
At its October 4, 2006, meeting, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA)
authorized staff to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to determine if there were
developers interested in becoming the new Alameda Point Master Developer. SCC Acquisitions,
Inc., (SunCaI) responded to the RFQ through initial and subsequent responses. On May 8, 2007,
the ARRA selected SunCal as its Master Developer and established a 60 -day due diligence and
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) negotiation period. The due diligence period was
completed, and the ENA between SunCal and the ARRA, Community Improvement
Commission (CIC), and City Council was approved on July 18, 2007. The ENA includes cost
recovery provisions that require Sun Cal to reimburse the ARRA for its pre - development costs,
including third -party consultant and legal costs and ARRA staff time.
Upon approval of the ENA, including the cost recovery budget, ARRA staff commenced efforts
to execute agreements with third -party consultants in preparation for upcoming negotiations with
SunCal. ARRA staff selected Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to provide real estate
economic consulting services to the ARRA for a total contract amount of $185,000 during the
first year of the two -year pre - development period. This contract will be amended next year to
cover EPS' expenses for the second year of the ENA period. The proposed contract is attached.
DISCUSSION
EPS provided economic consulting services to the ARRA during the previous ARRA -led pre -
development period, which included negotiations with the Navy and preparation of the
preliminary development concept. As a result, EPS has in -depth knowledge of the opportunities
and constraints presented by the Alameda Point project site and the provisions of the draft Navy
Term Sheet. In addition, EPS has extensive experience working on other large-scale reuse and
redevelopment projects throughout the State, including former Navy bases such as Hunter's
Point Naval Shipyard and Naval Station Treasure Island in San Francisco, and Tustin Marine
Corps Air Station in Tustin, California.
ARRA Item 3 -A
08 -07 -07
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 7, 2007
Page 2
EPS will be responsible for conducting an update to the existing fiscal impact analysis over the
next several months. That analysis will be a strategic tool for evaluating the impacts of the
proposed Alameda Point redevelopment project on the City's annual General Fund budget and
ensuring that the City's goal of fiscal neutrality is met. EPS will also provide ongoing support
during the negotiation of the business plan, including the project pro forma; changes to the
development concept; a Conditional Acquisition Agreement, if applicable; and a Disposition and
Development Agreement. The following describes these tasks in greater detail:
Fiscal Impact Analysis
EPS will work closely with ARRA staff and the City's Finance Department to prepare an update
to the existing fiscal impact analysis that will estimate the impact the proposed Alameda Point
redevelopment project will have on the City's current and future fiscal situation. The previous
fiscal impact analysis was conducted nearly five years ago. It is important to update the baseline
assumptions underlying the previous fiscal analysis to ensure that they reflect the City's current
financial situation.
As part of the update, EPS will analyze the City's current standards for providing services and
conduct interviews with relevant City departments to estimate the future revenue and service cost
requirements of the proposed Alameda Point project. Once SunCal proposes a development
concept, EPS will evaluate the annual net fiscal impacts of the proposed concept and develop
financing alternatives to mitigate the adverse impacts of the project for those years in which
costs exceed revenues. The results of this analysis will be incorporated into the financial pro
forma for the project.
Negotiation Support
As directed by ARRA staff, EPS will participate in meetings with SunCal and the Navy, as
appropriate, and provide ongoing analytical and strategic support to the ARRA in negotiations
regarding business terms, revisions to the development plan, conditions of property transfer, and
the project pro forma. Specifically, EPS will assist in the evaluation of market values, absorption
rates, phasing, land uses, fiscal mitigation, financing mechanisms, public improvements, and
infrastructure requirements and costs. EPS will also control and maintain the "project pro
forma" for the project, jointly prepared with SunCal.
BUDGET CONSIDERATION 1 FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact on the General Fund, CIC, or ARRA budgets. The cost recovery
provision in the ENA will ensure that SunCal pays for ARRA staff costs and consultant
expenses.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a 12-month contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., in the amount of
$185,000 to provide negotiation support and to conduct a Fiscal Impact Analysis for the
redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Honorable Chair and Members of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 7, 2007
Page 3
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
Attachment:
1. EPS Contract
G:\Corndev \Base Reuse& Redevp \ARRA \STAFFREP12007108 August12 -A EPS contract.doc
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this 7th day of August 2007, by and between the
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a Joint Powers Authority,
(hereinafter referred to as "ARRA"), and Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., a California
corporation, whose address is 2501 Ninth Street, Suite 200, Berkeley, CA 94710 (hereinafter
referred to as "Consultant "), is made with reference to the following:
RECITALS:
A. ARRA is a Joint Powers Authority established by the City of Alameda and the
Community Improvement Commission under the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act and a
public entity lawfully created and existing under the State of California with the power to carry
on its business as it is now being conducted.
B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special
services which will be required by this Agreement; and
C. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and
knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions
described herein.
D. ARRA and Consultant desire to enter into an agreement upon the terms and
conditions herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as
follows:
1. TERM:
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 7th day of August 2007, and shall
terminate on the 31st day of August 2008, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED:
Consultant shall perform each and every service set forth in Attachment "A" and
Attachment "B" which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3. COMPENSATION TO CONSULTANT:
Consultant shall be compensated for services performed pursuant to this Agreement in
the amount not to exceed $145,000.00 as set forth in Attachment "A" and in the amount not to
exceed $40,000.00 as set forth in Attachment "B" which are attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference. Payment shall be made by checks drawn on the treasury of the ARRA.
4. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE:
Consultant and ARRA agree that time is of the essence regarding the performance of this
Agreement.
EPS
A rrgusl 2007
ATTACHMENT #1
ARRA Item 3 -A
08 -07 -07
5. STANDARD OF CARE:
Consultant agrees to perfornn all services hereunder in a manner commensurate with the
prevailing standards of like professionals in the San Francisco I3ay Area and agrees that all
services shall be performed by qualified and experienced personnel who are not employed by the
ARRA nor have any contractual relationship with ARRA..
6. INDEPENDENT PARTIES:
ARRA and Consultant intend that the relationship between them created by this
Agreement is that of employer- independent contractor. The manner and means of conducting the
work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are limited by statute, rule or
regulation and the express terms of this Agreement. No civil service status or other right of
employment will he acquired by virtue of Consultant's services. None of the benefits provided by
ARRA to its employees, including but not limited to, unemployment insurance, workers'
compensation plans, vacation and sick leave are available from ARRA to Consultant, its
employees or agents. Deductions shall not be made for any state or federal taxes, FICA
payments, PERS payments, or other purposes normally associated with an employer-employee
relationship from any fees due Consultant. Payments of the above items, if required, are the
responsibility of Consultant.
7. IMMIGRATION REFORM AND CONTROL ACT (IRCA) :
Consultant assumes any and all responsibility for verifying the identity and employment
authorization of all of his/her employees performing work hereunder, pursuant to all applicable
RCA or other federal, or state rules and regulations. Consultant shall indemnify and hold
ARRA harmless from and against any loss, damage, liability, costs or expenses arising from any
noncompliance of this provision by Consultant.
8. NON-- DI.SCRIMINATI ON
Consistent with ARRA's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable
employer /employee conduct, Consultant agrees that harassment or discrimination directed
toward a .job applicant, a ARRA employee, or a citizen by Consultant or Consultant's employee
or subcontractor on the basis of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, handicap,
disability, marital status, pregnancy, sex, age, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated.
Consultant agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach
of this Agreement.
9. HOLD HARMLESS:
Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless ARRA, its Board, officials,
employees, and volunteers ('lndenmitees") from and against any and all loss, damages, liability,
claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees ( "Claims "),
arising from or in any manner connected to Consultant's negligent act or omission, whether
alleged or actual, regarding performance of services or work conducted or performed pursuant to
this Agreement. If Claims are filed against Indemnitees which allege negligence on behalf of the
Consultant, Consultant shall have no right of reimbursement against Indemnitees for the costs of
defense even if negligence is not found on the part of Consultant. However, Consultant shall not
be obligated to indemnify Indemnitees from Claims arising from the sole or active negligence or
willful misconduct of Indemnitees.
EPS
A itgrr,rr 2007
I'('. r' 2 (#.8
As to Claims for professional liability only, Consultant's obligation to defend
fndemnitees (as set forth above) is limited to the extent to which its professional liability
insurance policy will provide such defense costs.
10. INSURANCE:
On or before the commencement of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall furnish
ARRA with certificates showing the type, amount, class of operations covered, effective dates
and dates of expiration of insurance coverage in compliance with paragraphs 10A, B, C, D and
E. Such certificates, which do not limit Consultant's indemnification, shall also contain
substantially the following statement: "Should any of the above insurance covered by this
certificate be canceled or coverage reduced before the expiration date thereof, the insurer
affording coverage shall provide thirty (30) days' advance written notice to the ARRA by
certi fled mail, Attention: Risk Manager." It is agreed that Consultant shall maintain in force at
all times during the performance of this Agreement all appropriate coverage of insurance
required by this Agreement with an insurance company that is acceptable to ARRA and licensed
to do insurance business in the State of California. Endorsements naming the ARRA as
additional insured shall be submitted with the insurance certificates.
EPS
August 2007
A. COVERAGE:
Consultant shall maintain the following insurance coverage:
�l } Workers' Compensation:
Statutory coverage as required by the State of California.
(2) Liability:
Commercial general liability coverage in the following minimum limits:
Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence
$1,000,000 aggregate - all other
Property Damage: $100,000 each occurrence
$250,000 aggregate
If submitted, combined single limit policy with aggregate limits in the
amounts of $1,00 0,000 will be considered equivalent to the required
minimum limits shown above.
(3) Automotive:
Comprehensive automotive liability coverage in the following minimum
limits:
Bodily Injury: $500,000 each occurrence
Property Damage: $1.00,000 each occurrence
or
Combined Single Limit: $500,000 each occurrence
(4) Professional Liability:
Professional liability insurance which includes coverage for the
professional acts, errors and omissions of Consultant in the amount of at
least $1,000,000.
Ng() 3 g/.8
B. SUBROGATION WAIVER:
Consultant agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which he/she has
agreed to provide comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance, Consultant shall
look solely to his/her insurance for recovery. Consultant hereby grants to ARRA, on behalf of
any insurer providing comprehensive general and automotive liability insurance to either
Consultant or ARRA with respect to the services of Consultant herein, a waiver of any right to
subrogation which any such insurer of said Consultant may acquire against ARRA by virtue of
the payment of any loss under such insurance.
C. FAILURE TO SECURE:
If Consultant at any time during the term hereof should fail to secure or maintain the
foregoing insurance, ARRA shall be permitted to obtain such insurance in the Consultant's name
or as an agent of the Consultant and shalt be compensated by the Consultant for the costs of the
insurance premiums at the maximum rate permitted by law and computed from the date written
notice is received that the premiums have not been paid.
D. ADDITIONAL INSURED:
ARRA, its Board, officers, employees and volunteers shall be named as an additional
insured under all insurance coverages, except any professional liability insurance, required by
this Agreement. The naming of an additional insured shall not affect any recovery to which such
additional insured would be entitled under this policy if not named as such additional insured.
An additional insured named herein shall not be held liable for any premium, deductible portion
of any loss, or expense of any nature on this policy or any extension thereof. Any other
insurance held by an additional insured shall not be required to contribute anything toward any
loss or expense covered by the insurance provided by this policy.
E. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURANCE:
The insurance I i mits required by ARRA are not represented as being sufficient to protect
Consultant. Consultant is advised to confer with Consultant's insurance broker to determine
adequate coverage for Consultant.
l I . CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
Consultant warrants that it is not a conflict of interest for Consultant to perform the
services required by this Agreement. Consultant may be required to fill out a conflict of interest
form if the services provided under this Agreement require Consultant to make certain
governmental decisions or serve in a. staff capacity as defined in Title 2, Division 6, Section
18700 of the California Code of Regulations.
I2. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS:
Consultant shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this Agreement, or any
interest therein, directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise, without prior written
consent of ARRA. Any attempt to do so without said consent shall be null and void, and any
assignee, sublessee, hypothecate or transferee shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such
attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. However, claims for money by Consultant
from ARRA under- this Agreement may be assigned to a bank, trust company or other financial
1:P
Aroorsr 2007
t'rrgr) 4 (4'8
institution without prior written consent. Written notice of such assignment shall be promptly
furnished to ARRA by Consultant.
The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding
capital stock of Consultant, or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate
member or cotenant, if Consultant is a partnership or joint venture or syndicate or cotenancy,
which shall result in changing the control of Consultant, shall be construed as an assignment of
this Agreement. Control means fifty percent (50 %) or more of the voting power of the
corporation .
13. SUBCONTRACTOR APPROVAL:
Unless prior written consent from ARRA is obtained, only those people and
subcontractors whose names and resumes are attached to this Agreement shall be used in the
performance of this Agreement.
In the event that Consultant employs subcontractors, such subcontractors shall be
required to furnish proof of workers' compensation insurance and shall also be required to carry
general, automobile and professional liability insurance in reasonable conformity to the
insurance carried by Consultant. In addition, any work or services subcontracted hereunder shall
be subject to each provision of this Agreement.
14. PERMITS AND LICENSES:
Consultant, at his/her sole expense, shall obtain and maintain during the term of this
Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and Iicenses including, but not limited to, a
ARRA Business License, that may be required in connection with the performance of services
hereunder.
1 5. REPORTS:
A. Each and every report, draft, work product, map, record and other document,
hereinafter collectively referred to as "Report ", reproduced, prepared or caused to be prepared by
Consultant pursuant to or in connection with this Agreement, shall be the exclusive property of
ARRA. Consultant shall not copyright any Report required by this Agreement and shall execute
appropriate documents to assign to ARRA the copyright to Reports created pursuant to this
A.grecment. Any Report, information and data acquired or required by this Agreement shall
become the property of ARRA, and all publication rights arc reserved to ARRA.
B. All Reports prepared by Consultant may be used by ARRA in execution or
implementation of:
(1) The original Project for which Consultant was hired;
(2) Completion oldie original Project by others;
(3) Subsequent additions to the original project; and/or
(4) Other ARRA projects as appropriate.
C;. Consultant shall, at such time and in such form as ARRA may require, furnish
reports concerning the status of services required under this Agreement.
EPS
August 2007
Page .5 o/ '(
D. All Reports required to be provided by this Agreement shall be printed on
recycled paper. All Reports shall be copied on both sides of the paper except for one original,
which shall be single sided.
E. No Report, information or other data given to or prepared or assembled by
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available to any individual or organization
by Consultant without prior approval by ARRA.
16. RECORDS:
Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs,
expenses, receipts and other such information required by ARRA that relate to the performance
of services under this Agreement.
Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to
permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with
generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.
Consultant shall provide free access to such books and records to the representatives of ARRA or
its designees at all proper tines, and gives ARRA the right to examine and audit same, and to
make transcripts therefrom as necessary, and to allow inspection of all work, data, documents,
proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting
documents, shall be kept separate from other documents and records and shall be maintained for
a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
If supplemental examination or audit of the records is necessary due to concerns raised by
ARRA's preliminary examination or audit of records, and the ARRA's supplemental examination
or audit of the records discloses a Failure to adhere to appropriate internal financial controls, or
other breach of contract or failure to act in good faith, then Consultant shall reimburse ARRA for
all reasonable costs and expenses associated with the supplemental examination or audit.
17. NOTICES:
All notices, demands, requests or approvals to he given under this Agreement shall be
given in writing and conclusively shall be deemed served when delivered personally or on the
second business day after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid,
registered or certified, addressed as hereinafter provided.
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from Consult= to ARRA shall he
addressed to ARRA at:
Development Services Department
950 W. Mall Square, 2' }d Floor
Alameda CA 94501
Attention: Jennifer Ott
All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from ARRA to Consultant shall be
addressed to Consultant at:
EPS
2501 Ninth Street, Suite 200
Berkeley, CA 94710 -2525
Attention: Richard Berkson
Al rr g?ISI 200 7
Pew. Ci r) /. 8
18. TERMINATION:
In the event Consultant fails or refuses to perform any of the provisions hereof at the time
and in th.e manner required hereunder, Consultant shall be deemed in default in the performance
of this Agreement. If such default is not cured within a period of two (2) days after receipt by
Consultant from ARRA of written notice of default, specifying the nature of such default and the
steps necessary to cure such default, ARRA may terminate the Agreement forthwith by giving to
the Consultant written notice thereof.
ARRA shall have the option, at its sole discretion and without cause, of terminating this
Agreement by giving seven (7) days' prior written notice to Consultant as provided herein. Upon
termination of this Agreement, each party shall pay to the other party that portion of
compensation specified in this Agreement that is earned and unpaid prior to the effective date of
termination.
1 9. COMPLIANCES:
Consultant shall comply with all state or federal laws and all ordinances, rules and
regulations enacted or issued by ARRA.
20. CONFLICT OF LAW:
This Agreement shall be interpreted under, and enforced by the laws of the State of
California excepting any choice of law rules which may direct the application of laws of another
jurisdiction. The Agreement and obligations of the parties are subject to all valid laws, orders,
rules, and regulations of the authorities having jurisdiction over this Agreement (or the
successors of those authorities.)
Any suits brought pursuant to this Agreement shall be filed with the courts of the County
of Alameda, State of California.
21. ADVERTISEMENT:
Consultant shall not post, exhibit, display or allow to be posted, exhibited, displayed any
signs, advertising, show bills, lithographs, posters or cards of any kind pertaining to the services
performed under this Agreement unless prior written approval has been secured from AR.RA to
do otherwise.
92. WAIVER:
A waiver by ARRA of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained herein
shall i -iot be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term,
covenant, or condition contained herein, whether of the same or a different character.
23. INTEGRATED CONTRACT:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding of every kind or nature
whatsoever between the parties hereto, and all preliminary negotiations and agreements of
whatsoever kind or nature are merged herein. No verbal agreement or implied covenant shall be
held to vary the provisions hereof. Any modification of this Agreement will be effective only by
written execution signed by both ARRA and Consultant.
EPS
August 2007
Page 7 of 8
24. INSERTED PROVISIONS:
Each provision and clause required by law to be inserted into the Agreement shall be
deemed to be enacted herein, and the Agreement shall be read and enforced as though each were
included herein. If through mistake or otherwise, any such provision is not inserted or is not
correctly inserted, the Agreement shall be amended to make such insertion on application by
either party.
25. CAPTIONS:
The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only, are not a part of the Agreement
and in no way affect, limit or amplify the terms or provisions of this Agreement,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused the Agreement to be executed on the
day and year first above written.
ALAMEDA REUSE &
ECONOMIC PLANNING & SYSTEMS, INC. REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By:
Title:
Walter F. Kleser
Managing Principal
James R. Musbach
Managing Principal
1:1'.5'
August 200?
Debra I(uri to
Executive Director
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
ebt le otter, Manager
Base Reuse & Community Development
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Teresa. Highsmith
City Attorney
Pa, [' 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
SCOPE OF WORK FOR
NEGOTIATION SUPPORT FOR
ALAMEDA NAVAL AIR STATION REDEVELOPMENT
The City of Alameda has retained Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to provide
support to the City in negotiations with prospective developers and the United States
Navy to facilitate the transfer and development of the Alameda Naval Air Station
(NAS). EPS proposes the following Scope of Work in assisting the City with ongoing
NAS negotiations.
After several years of planning and negotiations, the developer originally selected opted
not to proceed with the development. The City issued a Request for Qualifications to
solicit other developers to assume the Master Developer role for NAS and proceed with
negotiations with the City and Navy. The City recently approved an ENA with a new
developer and will proceed with negotiations. Tasks to be performed by EPS to support
the negotiation process are described below.
SCOPE OF WORK
TASK 1: NEGOTIATION SUPPORT
Over the past several years, EPS has participated in numerous strategic and technical
meetings with the City, APCP, and the Navy to discuss the development project. In
addition, EPS has created and maintained the Alameda Point project pro forma that
documents the various development revenue and cost projections as well as policy
decisions (public financing, fiscal mitigation, public benefits, etc.) made by the ARRA
Board. These materials are key to understanding the implications and sensitivity of the
development economics to various choices and deal points to be made by the City, the
Navy, and the developer.
As directed by the City, EPS will participate in meetings with the City, the selected
Master Developer, and the Navy, as appropriate, and provide ongoing analytical and
strategic support to the City of Alameda in negotiations regarding the possible
amendment of the existing plan documents, business terms, financial pro forma, and the
terms and conditions of a transfer of NAS to the City, and subsequent disposition of the
property to the Master Developer. EPS will assist in the evaluation of potential changes
to market values, absorption rates, phasing, intensification and modification of land
uses, fiscal mitigation, alternative financing mechanisms, public improvements, and
infrastructure requirements and costs, and provide strategic input to the business terms
of the Development and Disposition Agreement and supporting documents, as directed
by the City.
A -1
l':1 I41JO() 1'1,1i11'ithipniril l Arlurio 1C r► nIr►r.-ll N,w.i[J71 A ft; l.rliir
Attachment A
Scope of Work
Jule 24, 2007
MANAGEMENT, STAFFING AND BUDGET
Jim Musbach, Managing Principal, will serve as Principal -in- Charge of this effort. He
will be responsible for overall direction of the firm's efforts and will provide strategic
input and assistance in the formulation of business terms. Working closely with Mr.
Musbach will be Richard Berkson, Principal, who will serve as day -to -day Project
Manager, providing analytical and strategic support as well as taking primary
responsibility for proforma financial analysis. Additional EPS staff will be called upon
as necessary for research and analysis tasks.
The duration and intensity of the negotiations with the Master Developer and the Navy
are difficult to predict. For purposes of this Scope of Work, it is assumed that EPS will
provide support for negotiations on a time and materials basis with a total budget not to
exceed $290,000 ($145,000 per year) without prior authorization from the City. Charges
for consultant time are based on the amount of time actually spent, billed at standard
hourly rates (see attached rate sheet), plus reimbursement For out -of- pocket expenses
without markup. Invoices are submitted monthly and are payable upon receipt.
A -2
l':1'I,HU()U \ 14()1 2fan jlnlilI1,1,1nil1110ml:wi lliVtwot1 lnlMaim'
ATTACHMENT B
WORK PROGRAM
ALAMEDA POINT REDEVELOPMENT FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
This Work Program describes the effort by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to
assist the City of Alameda to update and maintain a fiscal impact model pertaining to
the redevelopment of Alameda Point. The fiscal impact model is intended to identify
any ongoing costs associated with the delivery of public services (police, fire, etc.) to
Alameda Point during and following the buil dou t of the project. The model will also
calculate the ongoing stream of public revenues from the project (property taxes, sales
taxes, etc.), and determine the extent to which those revenues offset the public service
costs. For any years in which service costs are projected to exceed public revenues, the
model will be used to determine an appropriate means of recovering those costs from
the developer and /or occupants of the development to ensure that the City's goal of
"fiscal neutrality" is met.
TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
EPS will meet with City staff to discuss the contents and desired policy assumptions to
be included in the fiscal impact model. It is currently anticipated that the model will
account for the full costs of providing services to the occupants and facilities at Alameda
Point, but will also enable certain adjustments to estimate the "fair share" service costs
attributable to Alameda Point occupants rather than the occupants of other nearby
developments or the City at large.
As part- of this initial effort, ET'S will work with representatives from the City's Finance
and Development Services departments and the City Manager's office to create a set of
"Guiding Principles" for the fiscal impact analysis, establishing the preliminary ground
rules for the analysis. For example, the Guiding Principles may state that the fiscal
impact analysis will assume that the Alameda Point project will receive public services
at the level enjoyed by the existing residents and workers in Alameda, and thus will not
be subject to more burdensome standards.
TASK 2: DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO DEFINITION
Using the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) as a guide, EPS will define the
development scenario(s) to be incorporated into the fiscal impact model. The Alameda
Point project is conceived as multiple phases with multiple product types. Working
with the City and the previous project pro forma, EPS will define the development
programming, property value, and phasing assumptions to be incorporated into the
fiscal impact analysis model. These assumptions can be changed as the plan for
Alameda Point evolves, but will serve to provide a framework for the initial fiscal
impact analysis.
B -1 P:\ 1')(HH1,1 l4[)J2nfnpoiul 1 ArII:,Ilr 1 Con II a(f 1 !-i rri1071llllf;.r)oc•
Attachment B
Work Program
July 24, 2()()7
TASK 3: ANALYSIS OF CURRENT CITY STANDARDS
To establish a baseline of current standards for public services, EPS will evaluate the
City's most recent General Fund budget, General Plan, and other policy documents as
appropriate. Information gleaned from this review will include, without limitation, the
City's current standards for the following:
• Police and fire facilities and staffing
• Library and park facilities and staffing
• Public facilities operations and maintenance expenditures
• City administrative costs
By establishing the current City standards, EPS will be able to determine whether the
projected or requested service levels derived through departmental interviews (Task 4)
meet, exceed, or fall short of the service levels enjoyed by other Alameda residents and
workers.
TASK 4: PUBLIC SERVICE COST PROJECTIONS
The Alameda Point redevelopment will be unique in the City for various reasons,
including the location and scale of the development as well as the fact that certain
facilities and services are already being provided while others will be new.
To ensure that each affected City service department understands the nature of the
Alameda Point development and the potential impacts on their department's staffing
and expenditures, EPS will conduct interviews with department representatives to
discuss the services currently provided to Alameda Point, the nature and timing of
additional services required for new development on the site, and the costs of staffing
and other departmental expenses associated with such new services. EPS and the
department representatives will also discuss the availability of various funding sources
for such departmental expenses, including dedicated revenue sources, inter-
governmental grants, etc. EPS will review the individual departments' inputs with
representatives from the City Finance department, Development Services department,
and City Manager's office to ensure that all of these stakeholders understand and concur
with the assumptions regarding service levels, facility needs, etc.
TASK 5: PUBLIC REVENUE PROJECTIONS
The development of Alameda Point will generate significant public revenues. While
some of these revenues may be used to help finance infrastructure investments and
ether capital costs associated with the new development, others will be available for the
City's General Fund. Also, some of these revenues will be generated directly by the new
B -2 P: 14900s 11r1[]12nlnptiiaar lAilaaailr 1Cnaalrrarr 1 Fitirrrl(li ti X11 r 13.11oe
tllfacl' ?i ?c1? t 8
Work P) () t, 1'!111
/1(11/ 24, 2007
development, while other revenues are allocated from state government based. on
population and thus will increase as a result of the new development. Examples of
revenue sources to be considered include, without limitation, the following:
• Property taxes
• Sales taxes
• Fines and forfeitures
• Property transfer taxes
• Franchise fees
• Business license taxes
• Motor Vehicle inn --lieu
• Gas taxes
EPS will work with the City's Finance department, Development Services department,
and City M.an ager's office to determine appropriate methods for projecting these
revenues and incorporate those assumptions into the fiscal impact model.
TASK 6: ANALYSIS OF NET FISCAL IMPACTS
The fiscal impact model will project the public service expenditures and the public
revenues on an annualized basis during and following the buildout of the Alameda
Point project. In some years, the fiscal impact of the project may be positive --- that is,
public revenues generated may exceed the costs of public services. In years in which the
fiscal impacts are negative (costs exceed revenues), EPS will identify the magnitude of
these cost overruns by year, cumulatively, and in terms of their present value. These
figures will serve as the basis of any fiscal mitigation payments or vehicles incorporated
into the overall Alameda Point development pro forma and negotiations.
TASK 7: ANALYSIS OF FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
The negative fiscal impacts to the City can he mitigated through a variety of alternative
financing arrangements. In this task, EPS will evaluate the potential impacts of
alternative mitigation approaches, including lump sum payments and annuities, on the
feasibility of the overall project to the developer as well as the City's ability to fund its
necessary services. In addition, EPS will consider alternative financing arrangements
that may shift some of the burden of service costs away from either the City or the
developer, such as community services districts. EPS will work with the City to explore
the impacts of such arrangements on the quality and reliability of services, the value
and /or marketability of the development at Alameda Point, end the developer's financial
returns returns and needs for public subsidy.
8 -3 1: 11. ?( O(;' \ I JD'12u!frl+oiilr \ A tli'riii \ Cr'rrlr'fzi 11 Fiscrrll)7 \ n rr I5.rio
A ttach nwi7l �a
Work P rogra;ii
July 24, 2007
TASK 8: ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
The new master developer entity selected for Alameda Point will have a strong interest
in the assumptions and implications of the fiscal impact model as it affects their financial
responsibilities and risks. The City Council, the Navy, and other community
stakeholders may also wish to engage the issue of fiscal neutrality as they consider the
merits of the redevelopment of Alameda Paint. On a time- and - materials basis, EPS will
participate in discussions and negotiations with the master developer and Navy, as well
as presentations to City Council and other stakeholders.
MANAGEMENT, STAFFING AND BUDGET
Jim Musbach, Managing Principal, will serve as Principal --in- Charge of this effort. He
will be responsible for overall direction of the firm's efforts and will provide strategic
input and assistance in the formulation of business terms. Working closely with
Mr. Musbach will be Richard Berkson, Principal, providing analytical and strategic
support as well as taking primary responsibility for fiscal research and analysis.
Additional EPS staff will be called upon as necessary for research and analysis tasks.
EPS will prepare the fiscal analysis on a time - and - materials basis with a total budget not
to exceed $40,000 without prior authorization from the City. Charges for consultant
time are based on the amount of time actually spent, billed at standard hourly rates (see
attached rate sheet), plus reimbursement of out -of-- pocket expenses without markup.
invoices are submitted monthly and payable upon receipt.
Participation in ongoing negotiations with the new master developer, discussions and
presentations to the Navy, City Council and other stakeholders may require an
amendment to the budget amount, depending on the extent of EPS participation.
SCHEDULE
EPS is prepared to begin work immediately upon receiving written authorization to
proceed. We anticipate that a project initiation meeting, per Task 1, will be scheduled
immediately. At that meeting, a schedule will be developed for meetings and working
sessions with City staff to verify the development scenario (Task 2), document a
development scenario (Task 3), and interview departments.
It is anticipated that an administrative draft fiscal analysis will be completed within six
to eight weeks following completion of the department interviews. This analysis will be
subject to further City staff review, followed by discussions and review with the master
developer. EPS will revise the draft analysis as appropriate in response to City
comments. The document will include a summary findings, as well as documentation of
key assumptions and analysis.
B-4 P: \ 14000,174!" 2alnlrrri;ri l Arlrrlirr 1 CI11lf1'lrrf 1 Fis(QlQ7 1 A f l U.rlor•
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -JULY 17, 2007- -7:25 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:43 p.m.
Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -- Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(07- ) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking
Structure Project.
The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation on the
theater, a Power Point presentation illustrating restoration
work, and a brief presentation on the garage.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether trees could be planted
instead of banners along the northern elevation of the parking
structure.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the property line is an
issue; stated the property line is close to the garage; the
architect does not think there would be enough room to plant
trees.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether staff talked to Long's.
The Redevelopment Manager responded easement discussions have
been lengthy; stated the construction easement is a concern
because trucks drive up to the storage warehouse.
Commissioner Matarree stated the City is providing a huge
benefit to Long's; that he would like to see staff push for a
live solution such as bamboo or Italian Cypress; requested more
detail on said option.
The Redevelopment Manager stated vines may be a more feasible
landscape option; other options would be reviewed.
Commissioner deHaan stated that other options should be reviewed
because of the cost and life expectancy of banners; the
Historical Theater tenant improvements should start in early
Novemer.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
July 17, 2007
1
The Redevelopment Management stated tenant improvements include
screens, seats, audio- visual and projection equipment,
concession case work, ticket booth equipment, automatic ticket
machines, and signage.
Commissioner deHaan stated said improvements should be completed
by January; inquired whether the Cineplex schedule could be
accelerated.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the City does not have
control over the Contract; stated work is on schedule; staff is
confident that all work will be completed by March 2008.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Operation and
Management Plan is clear.
The Redevelopment Manager responded a detailed budget will be
presented on August 7; stated staff feels that the budget is
realistic; staff will have a better understanding of costs once
proposals are received.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether staff is solitified on the
fee structure.
The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a
fifty cent per -hour rate is recommended, which is the same as
street parking.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the contractor would be
responsible for fee collection and hours of operation.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the contractor would be
responsible for revenue collection; stated staff recommends that
the Police Department be responsible for enforcement.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he hopes that the Park Street
Business Association (PSBA) would provide support to keep the
area clean.
The Redevelopment Manager stated the parking management company
should perform daily trash pick up.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda, submitted handout; stated the
proposed banners should be larger to cover the three center
bays; a trompe d'oil treatment or grilled panels are options.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
July 17, 2007
2
Chair Johnson inquired whether the recommended options could be
done after the completion of the parking structure, to which Mr.
Buckley responded in the affirmative.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated evergreens are a good
decoration studio; that he does not think money should be spent
on banners; banners draw attention to the facade; an
architectural grilled screen system might be a possibility.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated the PSBA Board of Directors urges the
Commission to take a low cost option.
Chair Johnson stated the Cineplex developer should not be
rushed; the City waited more than twenty -six years for the
Historical Theater restoration; staff should inform the
Commission if other [restoration] items need to be addressed
while there is the opportunity; options need to be weighed;
inquired whether damaged niches are being replaced.
The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
the niches have been re- varnished.
Chair Johnson stated that she does not want items overlooked.
The Redevelopment Manager stated a list of items and cost
estimates would be provided.
Chair Johnson stated the project team is doing a great job.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether staff would ensure that
the viewable improvements, such as countertops and cabinetry,
are the same quality and are appropriate for the restored
interior, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the
affirmative.
MINUTES
(07- ) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) meeting and the Special CIC meeting held on
July 3, 2007. Approved.
Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
July 17, 2007
3
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
July 17, 2007
4
Unapproved
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the
City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:53 p.m. with Mayor /Chair Johnson presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor /Chair Beverly Johnson
Councilmember /B oardmember /Commissioner Marie Gilmore
Councilmember /Boardmember /Commissioner Doug deHaan
Councilmember /Boardmember /Commissioner Frank Matarrese
Vice Mayor/Boardmember/Commissioner Lena Tam
2. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
2 -A
Item 2 -A. Recommendation to Approve Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between
ARRA, CIC, City of Alameda (Alameda) and SCC Alameda Point, LLC (SunCal).
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, introduced staff and those involved in the ENA
process: for SunCal was Bill Myers, Amy Freilich, their Counsel, and Steve Elieff, President of
SunCal. For ARRA was Matt Fragner, Real Estate transaction attorney and special Counsel to
the ARRA, and Jim Musbach Financial Consultant from EPS.
Ms. Little gave a powerpoint presentation as an overview of the ENA process, citing the purpose
of the ENA:
- Define redevelopment and entitlement process for Alameda Point
- Provide a framework for negotiation of a Disposition and Development Agreement
- Establish a process for negotiating and executing various other transaction
documents.
Included in the presentation was a summary of the major terms of the ENA, including the length
of term, schedule of performance, initial payment and cost recovery, project labor agreement,
fiscal neutrality, project pro forma, existing city leases, and transfers.
Next steps included:
- SunCal to provide a pre - development schedule for achieving mandatory and non -
mandatory milestones within 30 days to be updated quarterly
- SunCal, in conjunction with ARRA staff, to commence project planning and
negotiations
At the conclusion of the presentation, there was concern by all Councilmembers/Boardmembers/
Commissioners of three issues included in the ENA, specifically regarding: 1) the financial
structure and knowledge of who the financial partners are before the DDA process, including the
reference to the 5% contribution relative to the DDA; 2) the liability of the acquisition price of
$108.5M ; and 3) prohibiting transfers during the ENA period.
At 9:50 p.m., Mayor /Chair Johnson called a recess so that the SunCal team could discuss these
issues with their principals. The meeting reconvened at 10:22 p.m.
I
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Matt Fragner, with the Councilmember's /Boardmember's /Commissioner's approval, revised and
recited the precise language modifying the three specific issues of the ENA.
CouncilmemberfBoardmember /Commissioner deHaan motioned to approve the ENA with
the modifications to the specific sections in the ENA. Motion was seconded by Vice
Mayor/Boardmember /Commissioner Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5 Ayes,
0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.
3. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:27 by Mayor /Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY OF ALAM E DA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager /Executive Director
Date: August 7, 2007
Re: Review and Approve the Civic Center Parking Garage Management and
Operations Plan and Operating Budget
BACKGROUND
The City of Alameda's Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved a
construction contract with C. Overaa & Co. (Overaa) on July 26, 2006, for the design -
build construction of the 341 -space Civic Center Parking Structure. Construction on the
parking structure located at 1416 Oak Street, between Central and Santa Clara
Avenues began in October 2006. The garage is expected to be open by early 2008
and is currently approximately 50 percent complete. The new Civic Center Parking
Structure is designed with one lane each for entry to, and exit from, the structure on
Oak Street. The structure will have open ventilation on three sides of the building with
one elevator and two stair towers.
The City has formed an interdepartmental team among the Public Works, Police,
Finance, and Development Services Departments to develop a draft Parking
Management and Operations Plan ( "Plan ") for the new parking structure (Attachment 1).
The primary goal of the Plan is to help facilitate the effective and successful operation of
the City of Alameda's first public parking garage. The draft Plan was reviewed and
approved by the Economic Development Commission on April 19, 2007 (Attachment 2);
the Transportation Commission on April 25, 2007 (Attachment 3); and the Park Street
Business Association (PSBA) Board of Directors on May 30, 2007. The Plan was
revised based on comments received from these entities.
The City also recently issued a Maintenance and Operations Request for Proposals
(RFP) for a private parking management company to provide regular operation and
maintenance services for the parking structure. Other local jurisdictions, such as the
Cities of Berkeley, San Francisco, San Jose, and Walnut Creek have contracted for
C1C
Agenda Item #3 -A
08 -07 -07
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
August 7, 2007
Page 2 of 10
similar types of services for their public parking facilities. The contract is anticipated to
be awarded in September 2007.
DISCUSSION
During development of the draft Parking Management and Operations Plan, the City's
interdepartmental team contacted the staff responsible for parking structure
management and operations in other local cities and for the Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) facilities. The team also consulted with Spark Parking and William D. White Co.,
Inc., who were retained as subcontractors by Overaa, to oversee the installation and
programming of the "pay -by- space" parking payment system (discussed below). Below
is a discussion of some of the major elements of the Plan.
Hours of Operation: The parking structure will be open 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.
Parking Rates: The rates will be the same as current on- street parking at $0.50 per
hour as stipulated in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the
Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Entertainment Associates
(AEA), the developer of the cineplex (Attachment 4)—and in effect between the hours of
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, including holidays, and free in the
evenings and on Sunday. Parking rates will also remain in effect every Saturday
between Thanksgiving and Christmas, when there is historically free parking granted
elsewhere in the business district.
It is intended that the parking rates for the structure not exceed the costs of on- street
parking. The City's parking consultants recommend that the parking structure be priced
at or below on- street parking, especially for the City's first garage, since retail patrons
typically prefer on- street to structured parking. It is important that the City avoid creating
a disincentive to use the garage by over - pricing the rates relative to on- street parking.
Similar or lower parking rates for the structure will encourage its use. The City's on-
street parking rates are currently being examined as part of the Wilbur Smith Associates
(WSA) parking study for the Park Street and West Alameda Business Districts.
Pay -by -Space Machines: The structure includes pay -by -space machines for revenue
collection and will not have entrance /exit gates and a ticket booth with an attendant.
Two pay -by -space machines will be located near the ground floor elevator bank. The
motorist notes the space number that his or her vehicle is parked in (stenciled at the
rear of each parking space), types that space number on the machine's keypad and
inserts payment up to a maximum of four (4) hours. The motorist has the option to pay
by cash, credit card, validation "coupon," or monthly permit card. The screen indicates
the amount of time and prints out a receipt. The machines keep a running total of the
amount of cash in the machine and are able to provide a reconciliation report.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
August 7, 2007
Page 3 of 10
The type of payment system is an important factor in creating a user - friendly
environment for parking patrons and encouraging use of the garage. The pay -by -space
system was selected because it best fits with the size, scale, location, and rate policy of
the City's parking structure. The pay -by -space system has distinct advantages over
other options for the City's garage, including the "attendant/gate approach" used at Jack
London Square and other garages in surrounding Jurisdictions.
First, the pay -by -space system requires no equipment at the parking structure's
driveway that would interrupt the flow of traffic and cause congestion on either Oak
Street or within the parking structure. Cars would drive in and out of the structure
unimpeded by a ticket dispenser or gate. This is especially important during the busiest
times for the parking structure, such as when a movie lets out, so that vehicles do not
back up within the structure.
Second, the pay -by -space system requires Tess capital and operating expense. In
contrast, the gate /attendant approach is more expensive because it requires ticket
dispensers, gates, payment machines, and staff to help customers.
Finally, the pay -by -space system has lower labor costs. Since the operation of the gate
system is critical to motorists' entry and exit from the structure, the equipment's working
order is extremely important. If one exit reader fails, vehicles may not be able to exit the
premises. Consequently, gate systems require full -time staffing to ensure that
equipment or customer problems can be immediately rectified. Even though the Jack
London Square parking structure has an automated "pay -by- foot" system, it employs an
attendant and a supervisor on -site during the 19 or 20 hours a day the structure is open
during weekdays and weekends to help with customer emergencies. The pay -by -space
system requires none of these labor expenses.
Validation Program: The pay -by -space approach does not fit neatly into a traditional
validation program, since customers pre -pay for their parking. Therefore, the validation
program will include validation for customers for future use in the parking structure. The
initial market for the validation program will be the movie theater, which plans to
promote the program before the theater's grand opening in early 2008. The program
may expand to local merchants after parking patterns and practices have stabilized.
The customer will receive from the movie theater or participating merchant a paper
coupon with a printed code number, which may be entered at the pay -by -space
machine during a future visit. Merchants will be able to purchase these validation
coupons based on the hourly rate for parking in the structure.
The DDA requires a $10,000 annual payment from AEA for validations attributable to
the movie theater use. The DDA also requires that as a condition of participating in the
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
August 7, 2007
Page 4 of 10
parking validation program, AEA will be required to enter into a parking agreement with
the City and/or the CIC setting forth, among other things, limitations and requirements
on AEA's use of validations, including exclusions for employees of the cineplex, Historic
Theater or ancillary retail spaces, or any other persons other than paying movie theater
patrons. If the Plan is approved, the City will enter into a parking agreement with AEA
as required by the DDA.
The City included the administration of the validation program in the RFP for the private
parking management company as a separate budget item. The City will also evaluate
proposals for administering the program from the local business association and any
other potentially interested parties.
Monthly Permit Parking Program: The monthly permit parking will only be allowed: (1)
on the top level of the parking structure, including the exposed ramp spaces (for a total
of 40 monthly parking spaces), as stipulated in the DDA with AEA; and (2) between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The permit price is proposed
to be $80 per month, which will be evaluated after one year or sooner, if necessary,
based on actual demand. This price is based on current price demand as well as pricing
of monthly permit parking programs from surrounding jurisdictions.
The permit will guarantee the user space within the designated parking area until 10
a.m., Monday through Saturday. After 10 a.m., any unoccupied spaces will be available
on a "first come, first served" basis, similar to the restricted permit areas in BART
parking lots. The monthly permit will be a magnetic card key that the patron will use to
"pay" for the space at the ground floor machine. The card key will be a useful tool to
track information such as frequency and time of permit use that will support further
adjustments to the program.
Initially, permit parking will be available only to businesses in the Park Street Business
District. It is desirable to move owner and employee parking to the structure and out of
the surface parking lots and off the street meters. Any business in the Park Street
business district may apply for one of the 40 monthly permits available at the parking
structure. If there is insufficient demand from local businesses for the 40 permits, as
determined by the program administrator's monthly reports, other surrounding
institutions will be allowed to apply for parking permits.
Once actual demand for the structure can be evaluated, the City may decide to
"oversell" the permit program, realizing that not all permit holders will be using their
permits at exactly the same time. Also, the number of permit parking spaces may
eventually expand to lower levels depending upon the actual daytime demand for
parking. As recommended by the Transportation Commission, the City may also
consider other revenue generating options such as the availability of spaces for car -
sharing or park - and -ride customers.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
August 7, 2007
Page 5 of 10
The City included the administration of the monthly permit program in the RFP as a
separate budget item. The City will also evaluate proposals for administering the
parking permit program from the local business association and any other potentially
interested parties.
Enforcement: The pay -by -space system requires regular enforcement similar to on-
street parking meter enforcement to compel people to pay for parking or else receive a
parking citation. In general, the regular, part -time parking patrols are revenue neutral, or
possibly revenue generating, when factoring in the revenue generated from the citations
(as described below in the Budget section).
Parking enforcement should be evenly distributed throughout the entire business
district. Patrons will be less inclined to park in the structure if it is perceived to have
more stringent enforcement. Included in the proposed budget are two new part -time
parking enforcement technicians to enforce the parking structure and neighboring on-
street parking within the Park Street area.
The parking enforcement officer will be able to access the pay -by -space machines by
entering a code only available to the officer. The officer may select a printed report for a
specific floor or multiple floors. The report will list either the paid or unpaid spaces per
floor. The officer will then be able to compare the list to the spaces actually occupied on
a specific floor and issue the appropriate citations.
Request for Proposals (RFP): The City recently issued an RFP for a private parking
management company to assist with the operation and maintenance of the parking
structure. The scope of work will consist of providing general management,
maintenance /janitorial, and revenue collection. The City requested in the RFP separate,
optional line item budgets for the administration of the validation and the monthly permit
programs to enable the local business association and other interested parties to submit
proposals for these programs.
The City will be responsible for landscaping maintenance, such as the trees in the
public right -of -way, through the Public Works Department's existing processes;
therefore, landscape maintenance will not be part of the parking structure's
Maintenance and Operations RFP. Once the facility has been completed, the Public
Works Department will be responsible for the facility management, including:
• Assigning, negotiating, and managing the parking management company
contract;
• Processing contract invoices;
• Reviewing and approving annual parking report and other reports prepared by
the parking management company;
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
August 7, 2007
Page 6 of 10
• Overseeing maintenance and cleaning standards;
• Managing the parking structure budget and financials, including a capital
replacement budget; and
• Managing the maintenance and rehabilitation schedules for bike lockers,
graffiti removal, re- striping and painting, and other capital improvement
projects.
The proposed budget includes a 0.25 full -time equivalent (FTE) Parking Garage
Manager position to oversee the parking management company contract.
Ordinances: The addition of the parking structure to the City's inventory of off - street
public parking facilities will require amending certain sections of the Alameda Municipal
Code and administrative determinations. The Development Services and Public Works
Departments are working together to bring those changes before the City Council later
this summer.
Public Education: The City will develop a marketing and outreach campaign to help
ensure a smooth transition for opening and initial use of the parking structure and pay -
by -space machines. The City will coordinate these activities with PSBA and the
Chamber of Commerce.
Wilbur Smith Associates Parking Study: Concurrent to this work, the City has
contracted with WSA to conduct a parking study for the Park Street and West Alameda
Business Districts, addressing various downtown parking issues. Staff anticipates that
WSA's recommendations will include an increase in on- street parking rates, which are
currently $.50 per hour. The WSA study should be completed later this summer, with
presentations to the Economic Development Commission, the Transportation
Commission, the Planning Board, and the City Council.
Next Steps:
■ The RFP proposals are due Monday, August 6, 2007, with the selection
process to be completed by Friday, August 17, 2007, including the
determination of how the permit and validation programs will be
administered.
• The City anticipates recommending approval of the Maintenance and
Operation Contract to the City Council on Tuesday, September 18, 2007.
• The City anticipates City Council consideration and approval of changes to
the Alameda Municipal Code to include the parking structure on August 21,
2007, with the second reading of ordinance changes on September 4, 2007.
■ The City will launch the public education campaign later this year.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT
August 7, 2007
Page 7 of 10
The proposed operating and debt service repayment budget for the Civic Center
Parking Structure is provided in Attachment 5, Table 1 and Tables 2a -2d. A summary of
the estimated revenues and expenditures is provided below.
Expenditures
The estimated annual expenditures for the parking garage include debt service
payments on the $7 million HUD Section 108 loan awarded to the City for construction
of the parking garage, as well as garage operations and maintenance expenses.
Overall, the annual expenditures range from $500,000 to over $1 million, depending
primarily on the amount of the annual debt service payment (Attachment 5, Table 1).
The HUD debt service payments are currently structured to minimize principal payments
in the initial years of the garage operation in order to accrue an ongoing annual fund
balance. This fund balance will be available on an annual basis to provide debt
coverage for the loan payments associated with the Section 108 loan. If, once the
garage is operational, and the full amount of the annual fund balances is not required,
the HUD payments can be re- structured to accelerate payment of the loan to reduce
interest costs over the life of the loan.
A detailed description of the operations and maintenance costs is provided in
Attachment 5, Table 2c. A summary of these expenditures include:
(1) Salary and benefits associated with the Parking Garage Manager position
employed as a 0.25 FTE Public Works Supervisor in the Public Works
Department at Step 5 in the City's salary schedule;
(2) A contract with a parking management company for maintenance, supplies,
reporting, and revenue collection, among other services;
(3) Utilities;
(4) A security camera maintenance contract;
(5) A reserve fund for larger maintenance and capital replacement projects, such as
light fixture replacement and crack repair; and
(6) Salaries for two part -time parking enforcement technicians in the Police
Department at Step 5 in the City's salary schedule. The technicians will be
dedicated to the parking garage and Park Street downtown. The annual cost of
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
August 7, 2007
Page 8 of 10
these additional parking technicians is estimated to be offset by projected
enforcement revenues (Attachment 5, Table 2d) based on actual citywide
enforcement revenue data.
The proposed parking garage operations budget was compared to actual parking
garage budgets from other jurisdictions and standards of typical parking garage
operating expenses on a per -space basis. Once the City receives cost proposals from
parking management companies related to providing maintenance and operation
services for the garage, it may be necessary to adjust the operating budget. If required,
an amended operating budget will be presented to the City Council when the contract
for the parking management company is recommended for approval.
Revenues
The operating and debt service repayment budget for the garage assumes annual
revenues from a number of sources, including parking and Alameda Theater project
revenues. The total annual revenues available for garage operations and debt service
repayment are expected to stabilize around $1.3 million in FY 2008/2009 (Attachment 5,
Tablel ). In FY 2007/2008, the revenues are prorated to account for the garage and
Alameda Theater opening in early 2008.
Annual parking revenues consist of all parking - related revenues dedicated to parking
garage operations, including the following sources of funds:
• $10,000 payment fro AEA for validated parking in the parking garage for theater
patrons;
• $240,000 in daily parking meter and monthly permit revenue (Attachment 5,
Tables 2a -2b), inflated annually be three percent;
• $250,000 in a transfer from the City's existing parking meter revenue fund,
approved by the CIC as part of its repayment budget for the HUD loan on July
26, 2006.
Annual Alameda Theater project revenues are comprised of revenues generated from
the private leasing and operation of the Alameda Theater and its ancillary retail uses.
The annual project revenues include the following sources of funds:
• $72,000 to $200,000 in revenue fro AEA for the historic Alameda Theater
building lease. The lease payment to the CIC increases significantly in FY
2013/20/4 due to AEA's repayment of other project financing;
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
August 7, 2007
Page 9 of 10
• $12,000 to $130,000 in revenue from the ground lease for the Cineplex. The
lease payment to the CIC increases significantly in FY 2013/2014 due to AEA's
repayment of other project financing;
• $4,000 to $79,000 in percentage rent in the first six years of operation, as a
conservative estimate;
• $111,000 from AEA to repay the CIC's loan for Cineplex construction,
commencing in FY 2013/2014 due to AEA's repayment of other project financing;
and
• $70,000 in income from the retail space in the Historic Theater, inflated annually
by three percent.
Additionally, funds from an $800,000 HUD Brownfields Economic Development Initiative
(BED1) grant awarded to the City will be used to offset interest payments on the $7
million Section 108 loan for the parking garage during the initial years of the project.
Lastly, as described above, fund balances that accrue in the first several years are
available on an annual basis to provide debt coverage for the annual loan payments
associated with Section 108 loan.
MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 — Action F4 --- Consider building a parking
structure as part of a Downtown parking management program.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and approve the Parking Management and Operations Plan and Operating
Budget for the Civic Center Parking Structure.
Resp r- ctfg7 ubmitted,
Leslie A. Little
Development Services Director
By: Dorene E. Soto
Manager, Business Development Division
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
(..., fyvt_s p.,.....,
By: Eric Fonstein
Economic Development Coordinator
CONCUR:
1,1./,,,(,-(--/--
Matt Naclerio
Public Works Director
6, - - 7 7. ; 4 1 2„
Walter Tibbet
Chief of Police
DK/LAVDES /EF:ry
August 7, 2007
Page 10 of 10
Attachments:
1) Draft Parking Management and Operations Plan
2) Excerpt from the Economic Development Commission's April 19, 2007 approved
minutes, Item 5.a.
3) Excerpt from the Transportation Commission's April 25, 2007 draft minutes, Item
7C
4) Parking Pricing Plan (Attachment No. 14), from Disposition and Development
Agreement between the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda and Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.
5) Proposed Parking Garage Budget, Table 1 and Tables 2a -2d
DRAFT
Page 1
Pratt Parklng Management and OperaLlons Plan
I. Parklng Structure Descriptlon
The City of Alameda is constructing a 341 - space, six level parking structure on Oak Street,
between Central Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue. The parking structure — expected to be
completed by early 2008 —will be owned and operated as a public facility. It will be open
24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Other particulars include:
• One lane each for entrance to and exit from the structure;
• Open ventilation on three sides of the building with one elevator and two stair
towers;
• 24 bike racks and 16 bike lockers, accommodating bicycle parking for a total of 40
bikes;
• Two "pay -by -space parking stations" further described below. The structure will
not have entrance /exit gates and ticket booth with an attendant.
Pay -by -space system. A "pay -by- space" meter is a type of multi -space parking machine
that functions in a similar manner as the conventional single space meters, except that it
manages multiple vehicle spaces from one location. Also, pay -by -space meters are
typically highly advanced computerized machines. Located near the ground floor elevator
bank, the two pay -by -space machines will feature a keypad for input and a graphic screen
for operating instructions. The motorist notes the space number that his or her vehicle is
parked in (stenciled at the rear of each parking space), selects that space on the machine's
key pad and inserts payment up to the maximum allowed time in the same manner as a
single space meter. The screen indicates the amount of time remaining and prints out a
receipt. The transaction time is very quick, taking just a few seconds. Interior signage will
prompt people to remember their space number and direct people to the pay station. BART
uses a similar system for its parking lot patrons.
Attendant/gate approach. The structure will not have entrance /exit gates and ticket booth
with an attendant. An attendant/gate approach, with on -site labor, is at this time cost
prohibitive. An attendant/gate approach also presents traffic flow problems for the new
structure: it would slow down the exit from the parking structure during peak periods
related to the movie theater and contribute to traffic congestion inside the structure.
11. Parking Rates and Payment System
The Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment Associates (AEA), the Cineplex
developer, outlines a Parking Pricing Plan for the parking structure (see attachment):
• Parking rates —will be the same as current on- street parking at $0.50 per hour and
in effect between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday,
including holidays, and free in the evenings and on Sunday.
C1C
Attachment 1 to
Agenda Item #3 -A
08 -07 -07
DRAFT
Page 2
Parking rates will also remain in effect every Saturday between Thanksgiving and
Christmas, when there is free parking elsewhere in the business districts.
For the "pay -by- space" payment machines on the ground floor, patrons will:
• Pre -pay for up to four hours by typing in their parking space number;
• Have the option to pay by cash, credit card, or validation "coupon ";
• Be provided a parking payment receipt; and
• Not have to walk back to their cars once they have pre -paid for parking.
III. Parking Rnance [Daily Accounting, Deposits, Reporting, Audits]
The pay -by -space machines accept both cash and electronic /magnetic striped card
payments.
Cash Payments
• The machines are only equipped with coin and bill acceptors and coin dispensers,
not bill dispensers. Therefore, the machines can only provide coin change.
• The machines keep a running total of the amount of cash in the machine and is able
to provide a reconciliation report.
• The cash will need to be routinely collected, deposited, and restocked. This task
was included in the scope of work for a private parking management company that
will be solicited through a Civic Center Parking Structure Maintenance and
Operations Request For Proposals (RFP) (see below).
Electronic/Magnetic Striped Card Payments
• The machines are equipped to provide real -time authorization for credit and debit
cards. Stolen or deactivated cards would be instantly rejected.
• Card payments (Visa and Mastercard) will be processed through a credit card
"payment gateway" system accepted by the City. The funds would be deposited
regularly into the City's bank account.
• There would be a payment processing/ transaction fee to the City, which is being
evaluated by the Finance Department. The actual fee will be negotiated by the City
with the appropriate party.
DRAFT
Page 3
IY. Monthly Parking Permit Program
Time and Location
As specified in the DDA and subsequent discussions with AEA, the monthly permit
parking will only be allowed:
• On the top level of the parking structure including the exposed ramp spaces (a total
of 40 parking spaces); and
• Between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday.
Current Administration
• Park Street Business Association (PSBR) administers the current parking permit
program. Alt businesses in the Park Street business district are currently eligible for
the parking permit program.
• It is a "first come, first served" program for Parking Lots "A" (the Post Office
Court) and "C" (Alameda- Central Avenue) near Park Street.
• The cost of the permit is $60.00 per month.
• PSBA asserts that demand exceeds supply for their current permit program, which
they distribute through a lottery system. PSBA currently sells 22 permits for each
Lot (A and C) for a total of 44 permits. PSBA estimates that total monthly demand
may be between 50 and 60 permits.
DRAFT
Page 4
Proposed Program
• The permit will guarantee the user space within the designated parking area until 10
a.m., Monday through Saturday. After 10 a.m., any unoccupied spaces will be
available on a "first come, first served" basis.
• The permit price will be $80 per month, which will be evaluated after one year or
sooner, if necessary, based on demand. This price is based on current price demand
as well as pricing of monthly permit parking programs from surrounding
jurisdictions.
• Any business in the Park Street business district may apply for one of the 40
monthly permits available at the parking structure. If there is insufficient demand
from local businesses for the 40 permits, other surrounding institutions will be
allowed to apply for parking permits.
• The City will include the administration of the monthly permit program in the RFP
(discussed below) as a separate budget item. The City will also accept bids for
administering the program from the local business association and any other
potentially interested parties.
• In the future, once actual demand for the structure can be evaluated, the City may
decide to "oversell" the permit program, realizing that not all permit holders will be
using their permits at exactly the same time. Overselling by roughly 20 percent is
typical for parking permit programs in other jurisdictions.
• The number of permit parking spaces may eventually expand to lower levels
depending upon the actual daytime demand for parking. When evaluating the
actual demand for parking, the City may also consider other revenue generating
options such as the availability of spaces for car - sharing or park -and -ride
customers.
• The 44 parking permits will remain at Lots A and C and will not be moved to the
parking structure at this time. After evaluation of demand, PSBA and the City may
evaluate the possibility of moving the 22 permits at Lot C to the parking structure.
• The monthly permit will be a magnetic card key that the atron will use to "pay" for
p
the space at the ground floor machine. The card key will be a useful tool to track
information such as frequency and time of permit use that will support further
adjustments to the program.
Y. Parking Validation Program
The initial market for the validation program will be the movie theater, which plans to
promote the program before the theater's grand opening in early 2008.
• DDA with Alameda Entertainment Associates. In the DDA, the City agreed to
establish a parking validation program for the Parking Garage and to make it
available to the AEA (the Cineplex developer and tenant of the City -owned historic
theater). In addition, AEA agreed to pay the City $10,000 in the first year of the
DRAFT
Page 5
lease for an unlimited number of validations. The cost will be increased annually
by the local rate of inflation.
The pay -by -space approach does not fit neatly into a traditional validation program, since
customers pre -pay for their parking. Therefore, any validation would have to be for future
use in the parking structure. The program may expand to local merchants after parking
patterns and practices have stabilized.
• Validation Coupon. The customer will receive a paper coupon with a printed code
number, which may be entered at the pay -by -space machine during a future visit.
Merchants will be able to purchase these validation coupons based on the hourly
rate for parking in the structure, currently $0.50 per hour. The coupon has the
advantage that it can be easily audited. The coupons also have the potential to
provide advertising space on the back that may result in a "no- cost" solution.
• Administration. Like the monthly permit program, the City will include the
administration of the validation program in the RFP for a private parking
management company (discussed below) as a separate budget item. The City will
also accept proposals for administering the program from the local business
association and any other potentially interested parties.
VI. Enforcement and Security
There is a concern that the parking enforcement needs to be evenly distributed throughout
the entire business district. No one will park in the structure if it is perceived to have more
stringent enforcement.
Daily parking enforcement
• The parking enforcement officer will be able to access the payment machine by
entering a code only available to the officer.
• The officer may then select a printed report for a specific floor or multiple floors.
The report will list either the paid or unpaid spaces per floor.
• The officer will then be able to compare the list to the spaces actually occupied on a
specific floor and issue the appropriate citations.
• The system will be compatible with the existing hand -held citation recording and
printing device that the Police Department currently uses.
• The Alameda Police Department will regularly patrol the parking structure. In
general, the regular, part -time parking patrols are revenue neutral, or possibly
revenue generating, when factoring in the revenue generated from the citations.
• Two new part -time parking enforcement technicians to enforce the parking
structure and neighboring on- street parking within the Park Street area.
Potential problems and contesting citations
A rare problem may occur when an officer issues a ticket to a recently arrived car and the
patron has not paid before the officer printed his/her report. This may be remedied in two
ways.
DRAFT
Page 6
1) Citation appeal process —The patron may contest the ticket through the City's
established process (see Alameda Municipal Code Section 8 -12, Rules of Procedure
Governing the Contest of Parking Citations and Equipment Violations) by
completing an affidavit or declaration with an attached parking receipt. The
patron's time- and date - stamped payment receipt should closely match the time the
citation was issued. The City's appeal policy will allow up to a five-minute time
discrepancy between the ticket and the parking receipt.
2) Officer training — Officers may be trained to infer which are newly arrived cars
(e.g. ticking of the engine, cooling of metal, etc.) and therefore be careful before
issuing citations. In addition, officers will be encouraged to print reports for and
survey one floor at a time during peak occupancy periods.
VII. Parking Structure Operation and Maintenance
The City issued an RFP for a private parking management company to assist with the
operation and maintenance of the parking structure. The contract is anticipated to be
awarded in September. The scope of work will cover the following areas:
• Routine cleaning and maintenance based on specifications provided by the
contractor for the parking structure;
• Equipment maintenance and replacement;
• Litter pickup, trash removal, graffiti abatement, vandalism repair and replacement,
and accident cleanup;
• Replacement of light fixtures and light bulbs;
• Revenue collection, deposits, and other financial responsibilities (e.g. review and
set up of required credit card authorization accounts with clearing house and/or
bank, hire of armored car service, and conduct monthly parking access card
reconciliation);
• Reports and audits (e.g. parking fees reports, occupancy /utilization reports, audits
of computer /revenue control equipment transactions, and annual financial
statements) .
The City will request in the RFP separate, optional line item budgets for the following
tasks:
• Administration of monthly parking permit program; and
• Administration of validation program.
The City will be responsible for landscaping maintenance, such as the trees in the public
right of way, through the Public Works Department's existing processes and will not be
part of the parking structure's Maintenance and Operations RFP. Once the facility has
been completed, the Public Works Department will be responsible for the facility
management, including:
• Assigning, negotiating, and managing the Maintenance and Operations Contract;
DRAFT
Page 7
• Processing invoices;
• Reviewing and approving annual parking report and other reports prepared by
contractor;
• Overseeing maintenance and cleaning standards;
• Managing the parking structure budget and finance, including a capital replacement
budget; and
• Managing the maintenance and rehabilitation schedules for bike lockers, graffiti
removal, re- striping and painting, and other capital improvement projects.
• Adding a 0.25 full -time equivalent (FTE) Parking Garage Manager position to
oversee the parking management company contract.
VIII. Public Education /Promotion Campaign
The City will develop a marketing and promotion campaign to help ensure a smooth
transition for people using the parking structure and pay -by -space machines for the first
time. The City will coordinate these activities with PSBA and the Chamber of Commerce.
Campaign elements may include:
• Community events — booths at the Classic Car Show (October).
• Sidewalk Information Tables —set up on Park Street two weeks before the
opening of the structure.
• Collateral materials —a simple brochure to be given to local merchants and Park
Street patrons.
• Public meetings.
• Hand outs to enforcement officers —flyers providing a warning rather than a
citation during the first week.
• Onsite tutors —to help explain the pay by space machines during the first two
weeks. This could be included in the RFP as additional services for the first month.
DL Municipal Bode Amendments and Ailmlnlstrative Determinations
The addition of the parking structure to the City's inventory of off-street public parking
facilities will require amending certain sections of the Alameda Municipal and
administrative determinations.
12-4.1—Establishment of Public Off-Street Parking Lots.
12-4.2—Method of Regulation.
12-4.3—Time of Operation of Parking Lots.
12-4.4—Meter Charges.
DRAFT
Page 8
12-4.7—Overtime Parking.
12 -4.11 Permit Parking.
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF
CITY OF ALAMEDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2007
7:30 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chairman Wetzork called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
Present: Chairman Wetzork. Commission Members: Autorino, Bonta,
Lindsey, Ryan, Schmitz and Zuppan (arrived at 7:32 p.m.)
Absent: Commission Members: Dahlberg and Kelly
Staff: Dorene Soto, Eric Fonstein and Rosemary Valeska
Following roll call, Chairman Wetzork announced that this afternoon he
had received a phone call from Commission Member Kelly, who stated his
intention to resign from the Economic Development Commission effective
immediately.
2. MINUTES
2.a. Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 15, 2007
Motion (Bonta), seconded and unanimous (with abstention by Autorino) to
approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 15, 2007 as
submitted.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - PUBLIC
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
5.a. Recommendation to Review and Endorse the Draft Parking
Management and Operations Plan for the Civic Center Parking Garage
(continued from March 15, 2007)
Mr. Fonstein recapped the `written staff report. Public speaker: Robb Ratto,
Park Street Business Association Executive Director. Mr. Ratto stated that
the PSBA Board unanimously endorsed the proposed system. He also
stated that PSBA is trying to get a dedicated parking technician for
Downtown to ensure parking enforcement on the street as well as the
garage. He also stated that Lots A and C used to have gate arms with
attendants; however, this tuned out to be a "disaster" and PSBA had the
cic
Attachment 2 to
Agenda Item #3 -A
08 -07 -07
Economic Development Commission
Minutes
Page2of5
April 19, 2007
City install parking meters in those lots. Commission Member Ryan stated
that based on his own review, he does not want the system used at Jack
London Square but rather, the pay -by -space system. Commission
Member Bonta asked if there was a parking industry standard ratio for the
number of entrances and exits to the number of spaces. Mr. Fonstein
asked consultant Brandon Bidlak of Spark Parking to address this
question. Mr. Bidlak stated that there was no industry standard; it was site-
specific. One exit lane is do-able; however, arms would be a problem.
Commission Member Zuppan asked how much time was planned for
public education. Mr. Fonstein stated that an extensive public education
campaign was planned. Flyers will be distributed at the October Classic
Car Show. People will be on site at the garage to demonstrate the
payment system. Commission Member Autorino stated that based on his
experience with the pay -by -space system at Fruitvale BART, we need to
have simple instructions. Commission Member Bonta asked about the
cost of additional enforcement in the garage. Ms. Soto stated that DSD
staff had met with the Police Department today. The City now has four to
six part time parking enforcement officers. The City reeds to emphasize
enforcement of the street meters in order to send the message that
parking enforcement will be the same for both the street and the garage.
Motion ( Autorino), seconded and unanimous to endorse the Draft Parking
Management and Operations Plan for the Civic Center Parking Garage.
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.a. Recommendation to Endorse the Draft Transportation Element of
the General Plan Amendment CEQA Review
Obaid Khan of Public Works gave a PowerPoint presentation.
Commission Member Autorino recommended that Mr. Khan make this
presentation to the City of Alameda Task Force of the Alameda County
Climate Protection Project. The Task Force may have comments on this
and they are scheduled to make their recommendations on greenhouse
gas reductions to City Council by early summer. Commission Member
Schmitz commended Mr. Khan for the good work. Commission Member
Zuppan asked about redirection of traffic on Eighth Street. Mr. Khan stated
that they would need help from the consultant team to address that.
Possible solutions could include traffic calming, diverting traffic to other
streets, and signal coordination. The impact on other streets would need
to be evaluated. Commission Member Lindsey stated that she had
concerns regarding the use of bulbouts, as they cause the loss of parking
spaces. Mr. Khan stated that the use of bulbouts had not been decided
and that further study would be needed. Motion ( Bonta), seconded and
unanimous that this plan should be vetted by the City of Alameda Task
Force of the Alameda County Climate Protection Project, and that the
concerns regarding bulbouts should be noted.
C:I DOCUME- 11David1LOCALS-11TemplApr 19 Regular.doc
F: EDC/Minutes #4
Commissioner Subramanium believed that policies were in place in order to have consistent
implementation across the City, and did not believe that having exceptions would benefit the
City.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that it was best to work with Public Works and AC Transit to deal with
red curbs. He supported the bus plazas on Park and Webster Street, and believed that the
Transportation Commission might as well disband if they could not stand firm on this policy.
Pertaining to flexibility, he believed that staff should assist residents in consolidating bus stops
and work with AC Transit because there were exceptions to the rule. He believed the burden of
proof was on the appellant, and they need to show a real need for the parking spaces. He believed
the garage should be used for cars and not storage.
Commissioner Krueger moved that the burden of proof should be on appellant, and that the
appellant would work with staff, and to make better use of existing parking by freeing up
onstreet parking. Bus ridership should be weighed against the need for parking. Commissioner
Schatmeier seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4 -0.
7C. Review and comment on Civic Center Parking Garage Management Plan Policies and
Procedures.
Outcome: TC to review and provide comments on draft Parking Management and
Operations Plan. Discussion/Action
Staff Eric Fonstein, Economic Development Coordinator, Development Services Department,
summarized the staff report and described the scope and background of the proposed parking
structure, which should be completed by December 2007. He noted there was a perception of
reluctance to use a parking structure if it is difficult or complicated to use.
Commissioner Subramanium inquired whether car sharing had been considered, such as in
Oakland and San Francisco. Acting Chair Ratto noted that had not been examined at this time.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that car sharing was business operation, and that enough
business must be generated for it to be economically viable.
Open public comment.
Jim Strehlow noted that he was primarily a bicycle rider and pedestrian, and recalled the
discussion of this item at the City Council meeting. He noted that there could be alternatives to
paying for parking, such as free parking or alternative transportation, as well as merchant
validation programs. He requested clarification of the TDM page 1, section 1, line 4 -6, which
stated that it would generate limited revenue to pay for operations, and the remainder would
repay the loan. He would like to see the profit and loss for the next three years.
Closed public comment.
Staff Fonstein explained the attendant and gate approach, and noted that the 50 cents per hour
rate was similar to the parking rates on the street. He further explained the details of the structure
12
cic
Attachment 3 to
Agenda Item #3 -A
08 -07 -07
pay -by system, and noted that it was similar to eight of BART's East Bay parking structures. He
noted that a gate approach was twice as capital- intensive, requiring ticket dispensers and
receptors, as well as the gates themselves and staff required for maintenance, emergencies or
malfunctions.
Commissioner Krueger believed it was unusual to pay for the next time the driver would use the
parking structure. He inquired whether it could be purchased the same day if movie tickets were
ordered in advance. Staff Fonstein noted that he would consider that idea.
Staff Fonstein stated that there would be a four -hour maximum. He noted that daily parking
could be used via a monthly parking program.
A discussion of parking enforcement ensued.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that this garage was very close to the most heavily traveled
transit streets in the City, but given the maximum number of hours, could not be used as a park
and ride lot.
Acting Chair Ratto believed that if there was a surplus of monthly passes within the district, that
park and ride could be considered.
Commissioner Schatmeier noted that could be an attractive possibility for revenue generation,
although that was not the primary purpose of the garage.
Commissioner Krueger believed that onstreet parking should be more expensive to encourage
people to use the garage.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that the Class II bike lane on Central would be restored in front of the
high school, and that the diagonal parking be converted to parallel parking.
Staff Khan noted that the City was waiting for construction to be completed.
Acting Chair Ratto noted that was important, and should be included in the report. He thanked
staff for an excellent job on this item over the many months of development.
Commissioner Schatmeier moved to recommend that the City Council accept the proposal,
including restoring the Class II bike lane; prevalidation with a code for movie tickets; examine
car sharing; examine the optimum pricing of street parking versus garage parking; transit riders
included in monthly passes; return to parallel parking on Central. Commissioner McFarland
seconded. Motion passed unanimously, 4 -0.
8. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
Staff Khan noted that staff wished to discuss the EIR for Harbor Bay Village, which was
suggested to come before the Transportation Commission by the Planning Department. He
13
ATTACHMENT NO. 14
PARKING PRICING PLAN
The following terms are the general principles for a formal Parking Garage pricing plan to be
presented by Commission to the City Council for consideration and approval in its sole discretion as
provided in the Agreement. The parties acknowledge and agree that these terms are a general outline
of the proposed Parking Garage pricing plan and that the City Council has full and complete
discretion as to whether to adopt a pricing plan consistent with the terms outlined herein. As
provided in Section 301.3 of the Agreement, City Council's adoption of a Parking Garage pricing
plan substantially consistent with the terms hereof is a condition precedent to Developer's obligation
to ground lease the Cineplex Property and lease the Historic Theater from Commission. In addition,
it is expressly acknowledged, understood and agreed by the parties that Commission has not
undertaken any obligation to Developer to adopt any resolutions of necessity to acquire any real
property that would be required for the Parking Garage and that Commission has not made any
commitments to Developer regarding the findings and determinations to be made by Commission
with respect thereto.
The general principles for the proposed Parking Garage pricing plan are as follows:
1. Not more than $0.50 per hour shall initially be charged for Non -Peak Periods. The
hourly charge for Non -Peak Periods shall be kept current by reasonable adjustments for inflation, but
with minimum adjustments in 25 -cent increments. There shall be no charge for parking during Peak
Periods.
2. Peak Periods: Monday through Saturday after 5 p.m., and Sunday all day. All other
times shall be considered Non -Peak Periods.
3. All parking spaces within the Parking Garage other than top floor monthly parking
spaces shall be metered for at least 4 hours and marked accordingly.
4. Monthly or other long -term parking shall be permitted only on the top level of the
Parking Garage during Non -Peak Periods only. Except as provided in the foregoing sentence, no
other monthly or long -term parking shall be permitted.
5. Hours of operation: At a minimum, City shall open and operate the Parking Garage
at least one hour before opening of the first scheduled movie showing and the garage will remain
open at least one hour after the end of the last movie showing with the City having the option to close
the garage no later than 2:00 a.m.
6. City shall establish a parking validation program for the Parking Garage and make
such validation program available to Developer. In addition, City or Commission shall establish a
mechanism for reimbursing Developer an amount not to exceed a Maximum Annual Validation in
each Lease Year during the term of the Ground Lease and Historic Theater Lease. The Maximum
Annual Validation shall be equal to $10,000.00 in Lease Year 1 and shall be increased annually
thereafter by the annual percentage increase in the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of
Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumer, All Items, San Francisco - Oakland -San
Jose, California (1982 -1984 equals 100), or the successor of such index.
Attachment No. 14
788855v12 2194210017
CIC
Attachment 4 to
Agenda Item #3 -A
08 -07 -07
y+
12 8
( o
cr)a
C Q�
c
o
L.
le
id
Q)
L
415,
co L.f
E
E
3
N
l-
c) c
r � �
ca co
coO<
N
CO
0
iv
N
E
REVENUES
V � 0 0 CO co 0 0 N
N. o o r` N. 0 0 i -
d F
} 69
° o ur 00 oo � ° 0) oo 00 )
0 0 0 (0 1 0 0 N
0 N. - co Co i- Lo
ea to L 6 {'}
C °{9} 0 0 � °[f} CAD 0 o T
L() 0 0 0 N 0 0 CO
0 N.'- Tr N. v u) ci Lin
69- ea 69
69- ea
N 0 0 ° 0 0 0 0
0 0 0o r 0 0 N
f J
CO C O 0 0 N ° 0 0 0 0
N 0 0 0 r- 0 0 0 0
L LC} fN. TN- i- 0 _0 0 0
iz
N Cr) 69 te te N N
b ° r 0 0 00 a 4 ° 00 0 00 00
In 0 0 N u) u, 0 0
co ,- ea ea r _0
e
ea
Previous Year Fund Balance
BEDI Funds(1)
Project Revenues
0)
Jcn
cri
c
Q
0
oa
a p cc
U C 03
�L Q 0) ❑
n C v U_
Z U Q 5
Historic Theater Retail Income
Parking Revenues
Cineplex Parking Validation
Transferred Parking Meter Revenue Funds
See Tables 2a, 2b
Occupancy and Permit Income
r
N
D
0
c
0
T
T
co
0
N
r
ta-
co
Liz
c)
r
CPI
0)
T
N
0)
00
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
co Lon
r
0 CV
rvi
u) L(]
0 CD OS-
co co
0) •
crC
N r`
CO N
M
F
Qi 0
0 ti
Tr 0
(0 (0
0
N co
0 (0
T 0
CO LiT)
u fia
0 Lo
o Ln
0 N-
N
CO
See Tables 2c, 2d
Operations and Maintenance Caste)
HUD Section 108 Repayment
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
NET BALANCE
0
N
7,
L
ate)
.0
0
a)
U
a)
C Q
c
o
D N ?
V) [!7 C 0)
c a) 0 . U 2
U C L
E. 0 0)
a o 8 -v
L a) :2 N Zr)
N
.c . a 0
o U o E I-~
a}
C -c W -& a)
E a o
° .� u' 3 a)
cr) ❑ 0 0 Cll C m 'c
L
❑ c� a o N
2 E o
To L17 7 cm t a)
C cu 'c E
.L o ,�-
o -v o o L
cu 2 .0 E N a)
.
a) 0)
Q a N c
< 2 o cti E A. ro o 0W
CO E o N N
,2 c .� a
c al co cu
co w 00 C cu
C E U 0.(-) o
CI 0 o. U = co 7-
E �, C t c c�
a N _ T)
0 o E 8 N co
m 00
P . ;1' o 0 0
U aC) _ "0 C N
o co s o
0 c a' o. C c o N
• E
0 10
0
a a
�
E a a CO as
a) ) 2 0 v C
C E U ' N a-
c c o a)
0o co E 0 t
❑ E v o ca
E
N
= 7 U a)
0 [� a) (79v, L C
0 a) ❑ a) C
o °N' a) 72 a) 2
0 C
Attachment 5 to
Agenda Item #3 -A
08 -07 -07
IN
N
0
cv
N
E
REVENUES
N. Q (0 0 {n} N. Cr) 0 0
CD 0) co 00 0 0 N
oS co N. 0 _° 0) o u) co
4 4 te 49-
CO 69 0 t b ° Cr) N 0 0 0 °
Lc, (0 cor. co 0 v o Lo
6 w
0 o _a 0O7 a N
CO 4
CO {f} CO CO 40 N CO 0 0 ilt
r (0 CO 00 Cr] v 0 r
ov o 00 0 •- 0 o C+0
N CO 0) ,r 0) r LO r
40 to
0 0 0 t N 0 0 N
(0 0 0 CO CO 0 0 0
C1)
e ° (0 ° oc) o
419. 69 N
0 0 a °v °v to co 0] 00 O N
T o v CO 0 v v Y-
_� rn °_ CO 0 ° LC) rn
1- 44 0 0 b� o 00 00 CO
N 0 0 CO (0 0 0 (0
4 (0 0) ° oco ° vn cov
Ea
in 49- ° 0 0 W. N 0 0 N
00
v o op r- v 0 C•
N (0 co- o o v o N
te 49- 4 44
Previous Year Fund Balance
BEDI Funds(1)
Project Revenues
a
-J
C3)
2
`t7 C J
o c
U 0.) C 0)
.o D] 80)
C °
= 5 0 U
Historic Theater Retail Income
Parking Revenues
Cineplex Parking Validation
Transferred Parking Meter Revenue Fund
Occupancy and Permit Income
i1)
0
0
O-
m
C6
T
CO 0
0
c)
N.
T
CO
(0
LAG
T
M
T
(0
izt
T
0
c'V
r
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
CO CO
(0 0
0 (0
o
N.
N 00]
Cf) LO
N
CD N
c- o
co co
CD 0
0 0
co co
try 69-
$926,662 $1,047,664
N. 0
0 0
N 1.
r N.
0).„
r N
0 0
CO 0
r
0 00
0 r
CD '•
to to-
Operations and Maintenance Costs(4)
HUD Section 108 Repayment
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
NET BALANCE
�. oc tts r_8 w
v L co
a) as E Zr) N w
D Q, co
c ' ❑ °3' o°
C N
.0 E 02 o r o
0) E E v o
w . >► a a)
v E a =
ro °�'
Q.) ❑
E au
v u 0 c
CO co E a c -c
❑ >, E o Q} °
2 > U *u- V
QJ
e C
a 0 o
-p a) N
o c >
&0o c F-1-
E c.13 M ii
cD �
a co
L �+
C
co.-
o a
a it
a
co 0
E
E
co
V ♦
Q cC
T Er. d
fo E
I_Oa
N
;N
jN
N
'N
0
N
col
C;
'Q
W,
CD 0
T
V�
N
LL'
M
;0
N
N
N
0
IT
i0
E
REVENUES
7r r co o C7 0 0 0 vt
N. CO 0 CO T o o LC)
" a' - Q °o o y (r)
r- 49- N 'Cr
T-
CO 0 Lf] CO o Cr) O)
u7 N. CY)
N L N CO (0
a O N T
o N Zr r
r}}
o (.0 0 0 cY) rn
(0 tn. r r N
N CO C0 CO v.)
oa r: T= o ni
L C) CT) N r- r
0-. {} £;
CO
o Q CCD (O 00 N.
CO ov o CO 0
0 �-- c v c
0 r r ;;
F ■ R / A � A � A
r
N 3 CO
d' N C0 CO CO
h Lri
co 0
Cn r` r r
0 0 cY)
0 0 CO
0 0 CD
cd
C)
te
0 0 0
0 0 c
, - -
d
Ls.) co
N CO
ea
0 0 1-
0 0 0
0 0
LO N.
0 0 N
0 0 0
"
° Lo c) co
49. N C )
CO
0 ' t ) N. 00) 0 0
�- c0 N CO N. 0 0
00 0 T- 0 0 y- LO
0) r- ,-- r- r
te 69-
C1) LO 0 00 a0 0
�
0) n o ° rn °
O•) ,-- r- r- { ff
Previous Year Fund Balance
BEDI Funds(1)
Project Revenues
Historic Theater Building Lease
E
J v as
J
Q] L cc
L a 0
co ry
.) C CI3
aa) U
8 0-
Historic Theater Retail Income
Parking Revenues
Cineplex Parking Validation
Transferred Parking Meter Revenue Fund $250,000
0000
N
C)
Occupancy and Permit Income
M
0
00
N
N
Ah
Ci
N
to-
N
N
00
N
N
O-
m
M
T
N
T
M
T
N
CA-
C)
M
0
T
N
03
N
(7)
0
ni
TOTAL REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
CO N
C0 C0
N ui
te try
N C33
C71 r
N CC)
W
r.. Vi-
f� N
r �
N
o LC)
le N-
N° N
N
gcr
Cr) N •
Operations and Maintenance Costs(4)
HUD Section 108 Repayment
$992,497 $1,010,608 $1,058,264 $1,092,213 $1,144,741 $1,200,803
r '.
co-
0 Co
T 0)
r �
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
NET BALANCE
C C al
o C
a •- N
°) ^ i co u.
0) v E v 0
v7 t s 0
C r o v 0
C N
U v � �
'E o ro s o
c a c El O N
CD a) +r
0 >+ a ())
Q) E a '0 I'd a3
-o ^ N aa)i v 2
Q) (1)
C E v ro N 8-
E
D N C U
0 a co ca E 0 "�
co w E 0 E
co
a�
0 ro w L C
(I) o a)
0 g a N v = v
0 C 0) v
Q U O C I H
.= Et E
w
Co
PI
♦co
V
Y
L
co
a
ai
ig
C
ai
0
0
• >
0
t
L
2 o
O a
2 0
E i▪ ll
.175
a Cn
Pc" ,c
al
RR,,• n
. ` • W
D a
> c
2 t3
cu Q i
= 4..
O co
C.) CD
O LEL
r
Cy v -0
H=• aQ
co
?
m
tri
(1)
Paid Parking Hours
a)
Q
0
0
0
e
v
co
0)
co
a
(1)
✓
V
U
0
a)
U
0
0
0)
0
cti
a
CO
a
0
0
e v a o e o o e e
,--03°,1- 07 N T- ,- CD
r- ,- d' LO LO CD CO CD
Ch CO N. Lo Q ,- Cr) N CD
CY) CO CO CC) o ,- Q Q Ili
T- T- N N N N r
v e o 0 0 0 0 0
CO - c) Q %I' CO c ) L(7 CA
N 01 Cr) Ln LO LO CO CD
a r N C) ' CO Cl- N CD
O) T- Cr] (.D CO D) r- N CO
1- T- T- T- T- N N r
<0000_0- 0_ [i
0 0 0 0 Q Q O O 0
o(i:iNaooa >
6 T- ,- T- , cv 6r3 .4. d
N.
0
0
N
co.
N
C
0
0
0
E-
m
0
C
v
E
11
ID
0)
cq
CI
m
ic
ef
0_
x
20.
m
0
co
-0
0)
E
d
v
0
c
E
0)
0)
C
76
CI_
in
co
0
cur;
L
E
L
0
C
0
-0
v
CO
.0
i
a
0)
72
a
0
0
Percent occupied assumes a 341 -space garage.
0
z
0
E
E
N
co
See Table 2a
1. Cti
. C11
w CV a) t
L() c
▪ (13 11 CD
II v) II
r• Q Q Q v o (D o w 0 0 CD
' LI] CO 00 07 CO T- CO N 0 0 0
d Q I' CO ' CV di CO
N
ai
> E (-2'1)
N gOEa a? 0 Ca) U
C a' 0-CC
0 C) Q U i
a) _c };�0g , 0� c
� a a C p c a)
� CD cm �
> a)
C L _ a) Cr) _ C cn
L a3 'C ,_ i Qi 0
EL ate., z as a = E v a)
0 D cc CL f 0 Fs >, a D C V
L. a) i as
� �= v 0: F.) aa).SQ -Y >'a.
co E E o Ac �� 0 Ac �� c
,0zz�,a �� c� C 0— a.
E 0 0 o o Iii .-
c 0) 0 T :0 � o To' 0 0
aF- -H =a aQ - 3O.. =2i—
Si ( ca � a ai ,. th c _ .c ...:
4 d < <
TOTAL PARKING GARAGE INCOME
CD
07
CO
0)
L
cd
a.
L
a+
w
0
.0
0
Z
++
L
1
w
L
It
c
a.
W
0
E
a)
2
0
W w
v 'o
= L
co 0-
c.) a)
co co
2 0
C
.... c
co 2
2 1
ca
''AA
Y/ 0.
0 x
E a
cp w
a. us
00
'0
N 1 5 1 3
CD C
E
.0 5 co
1-wa
0)
0
z
Li
co
0.
cn
aL
To
C
a
>+
0
2
E
0.25 FTE PW Supervisor inc. salary and benefits
N. ar.a)[nco
0 0 0 0 0
0 0000
00000
c) 00ML6
C ) LO "d" N
69- 69
0 00100"
LO 0 r, LO CO
N In COcv0
N N c N
69
L.
IV
co 0
m a as
0) E
v p Cf
0 �= C.� a]
0 v w L
co U)
c
'a vs a) Es a]
2 C
ad 2 c
c W
0 0) c;) 0) .,8' 8 zip
16. + , , c) 'L c 2
0 CL XI
a . 0- o Dc./) CC u)
0
0
0
Rs
Ts;
N
fa
N.,
as
0
N
to
Id)
)
m
a)
E
L
W
2 part-time enforcement officers
See Table 2d
r-•
w 1—
w id-
w r
69
n
Co
(4-
CD
0
N.
te
C] N N co
0cvty ti
op a) r co
�
° cr
63- fife Oil
ta
V) 07 N.
T- a] CO 0
Cii CO 46 N
firk
Enforcement
TOTAL GARAGE EXPENDITURES (2)
cz
a
N C
CO >
c N
a)
a
a) CB
CB
CO .c
o O
Q) 0
C }'
VC "0
0 CO
.co E
0
w �
a sn
L 0L )
n1
o a
c
C
ms x
a) (3)
0) -
(d Q)
CM E
a)
0 Ts,
C 7
c 0
a] v
U?
C =
E 5,.
c c
o
o
it d
v
a a
0 0
a) °
0
N N
w E0
0 0
0 2
>
c
0
a fi
E a.
0
x
0
0
E
03 CO •N •
CO C V3
(� a
.t7
ciO
0 0
c : a
N
o- o.
j� C
o
0 t— c co
C CD 0
c t
c
E a
is 0 .7
0 a o
0
co co •-
Vi C N
Qa o 2
E
m co ti
((1) (1} L
< _ CO
r N
co
•■5•I
Q
o
a
U
0
C3 7.5
E
La
a)
im
a)
3 cp
C
CC •-
i
a a
E �c
L
o �
1
c
z
c
a�
F-
11) ctS
0.1 !p 0
as
E
mow-
0)
ai
0
Z
0
E
E
(d Q7
CD -C •-
11 11 11 11
as E
E c
11 11
1�f3 D ° N N N 0) M d' N c� v co N
CO Cr] 11.9 C] Q co C7 03 r- D
CO [�
N N c!, i17 f`
ft w 't
0
a)
v N L
n' ' 0 ) co
W 0
o
- o
: a)
o 0 0 CB a) 0 5 cts 0 D
co z E = c Q w> W
0) 0] L 0 Q CC
o o L ] 7 = W
0_ to = E . 0 3 c CO 0 it
-0 °0' > w z c c L 2 45 a� ° o Z
a) ozi
�ooa�._ a�
2 W> ili CCci) 6 rl (:),) LAI
jli C >
D3 ai C C cm 0 W
�.. c0 [a v > co cc 0 U �..� us CC ._.
w ai >� a) L L C ai a) = o o C 0)2 0
a. = '5 '5 a. - o o w w � 2 o ct Y GC
_ 0 W W al a3 °� 0) g:2, C3 C] a
D a� .-
2 , a. ow ow cz C] t3 13 .�G U c C W D t W
Q. 0) Q = D3 03 Y 0] CD CO IR .Y C 03 W
L L
03 u3 u3 C3 a� a. a U . ca 2 9 C3 1.1
Q m a? c 03 03 a? w �..� �G a C= cc
a
cu t E E —
4) ° a Vzz0_a° �=�a� >F..j L0.0QQ°w ...1
.-E. E C 6 ci. 6- 6 16
....: .. -NC
0o a 0 1—
will be allowed to occupy, and, as a result, will generate some enforcement revenue.