The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-11-06 PacketTime: Place: CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY -- - - NOVEMBER 6, 2007 - - - 6:00 P . M . Tuesday, November 6, 2007, 6:00 p.m. gity_Sipaask.1211.arnbessw.corltreng9..orri,, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street Agenda: 1. Roll Call - City Council 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only Anyone wishing to speak on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3 -A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations: All Public Safety Bargaining Units 3 -B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment - City Council (c) of CITY OF ALAMEDA •CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) TUESDAY - - - NOVEMBER 6, 2007 - - - 7 :25 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/Board on agenda items or business introduced by the Council/Board may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Council/Board/Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - City Council, HABOC 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council/Board or a member of the public. 2 -A. Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioners meeting held September 4, 2007. (Housing Authority) [HABOC] 3. AGENDA ITEMS 3 -A. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager or her designee to accept a Deed of Release of Restrictions from the National Park Service for Neptune Park and a Declaration of Restrictions for a new City -owned parcel located near Towata Park and to enter into a license agreement with the Housing Authority to provide parking for Independence Plaza residents on an 11,575 square foot tract of land on Neptune Park. (Housing Authority) [City Council/HABOC] 4. ADJOURNMENT - City Council, HABOC Beverly J Chair, Hou Commissioners [ or ority Board d of CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) TUESDAY - -- - NOVEMBER 6, 2007 - - - 7:29 P.M. Location: Sitx,S2RTILLgtAt§2Es, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council /Commission an 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. 1. ROLL CALL - City Council, CIC 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council/Commission or a member of the public 2 -A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission meeting held on October 16, 2007. (City Clerk) [City Council /CIC] 2-B. Recommendation to approve a Contract with Ampco Parking, Inc., in the amount of $124,682 for the management and operation of the Civic Center parking structure. (Development Services [CIC] 2 -C. Recommendation to approve a Lease with Alameda Wine Company for 2315 Central Avenue in the Historic Alameda Theater. (Development Services) [CIC] 2 -D. Recommendation to approve a Lease with BurgerMeister Management, Inc. for 2319 Central Avenue in the Historic Alameda Theater. (Development Services) [CIC] 3. AGENDA ITEM 3 -A. Public Hearing to consider approval of a first addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed -use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, first amendment to the Development Agreement, and first amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project to modify the Public Waterfront Promenade; • Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed -Use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. [City Council]; • Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing Execution of a First Amendment to a Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) . [City Council]; • Adoption of Resolution Approving an Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed -Use Development Project Authorizing the Executive Director to Amend the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC. [CIC] • Introduction of Ordinance Approving a First Amendment to Development Agreement DA -06 -003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation). (Development Services) [City Council] (To be continued to December 4, 2007) 4. ADJOURNMENT - City Council, CIC Beverly Chair, Commission yor n y Improvement AGENDA CITYOFALAMEDA.CALIFORNJA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three (3) minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY NOVEMBER 6, 2007 - - - - 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall, Council Chimers, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak St] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non- Agenda (Public Comment) 7. Council Communications (Communications from Council) 8. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6 :00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda (Closed Session) SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7:25 P.M. HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Separate Agenda SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 7 :29 P.M. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public 4 -A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on October 16, 2007. (City Clerk) 4 -B. Bills for ratification. (Finance) 4 -C. Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 5 to the Alameda County Emergency Dispatch Consortium Mutual Aid Agreement to assign the rights and obligations of the Regents of the University of California to Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. (Fire) 4 -D. Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Repealing Article I (Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes) in Its Entirety and Adding a New Article I (Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes) to Adopt the 2007 California Building Code, the 2007 California Historical Building Code, the 2007 California Electrical Code, the 2007 California Plumbing Code, the 2007 California Mechanical Code, the 2007 California Energy Code, the 1997 Uniform Housing Code, and the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, and by Amending Chapter XV (Fire Prevention) by Repealing Section 15-- 1 in Its Entirety and by Adding a New Section 15 -1 to Adopt the 2007 Edition of the California Fire Code. (Planning and Building) 4-E. Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing and Amending Various Sections of Article I (Parking Lots) and Article II (On Street Parking Meter Zones) of Chapter XII (Designated Parking) and Adding a Definition Section (Section 12 -0) Applicable to All Articles to Provide for the Regulation of Public Parking Surface Lots and Parking Structures Administered by the City of Alameda. (Development Services) 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5 -A. Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Peter Y. Horikoshi as a Member of the Civil Service Board, and Jeff Wood as a Member of the Golf Commission. 5 -B. Public Hearing to consider adopting Amendment #1 to Fiscal Year 2007 -2008 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan, and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute grant agreements and related documents. (Development Services) 5 -C. Adoption of Resolution to Increase On- Street Parking Meter Rates in Certain Areas of the Park Street Business District from $0.50 to $1.00 per hour. (Development Services) 5 -D. Adoption of Resolution to Increase Civil Penalties for Parking Violations. (Police) 5 -E. Public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Board's decision to approve the First Addendum to the Catellus Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the revised Waterfront Promenade Development Plan, and the second amendment to the Site -wide Master Landscape Plan; and adoption of related resolution. (Planning and Building) 5 -F. Public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Board's decision to approve Design Review DR07 -0003 at Tract. 7884 (Alameda Landing Retail Center); and adoption of related resolution. (Planning and Building) 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment) Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda 7. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended 8. ADJOURNMENT - City Council • For use in preparing the official Record, speakers reading a written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e -mail to: lweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter. • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available. • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print. • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. • Please contact the City Clerk at 747 -4800 or TDD number 522 -7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. Housing ••.•..••••..••,.„,:• Authority City of 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - TEL: (510) 747 -4300 - FAX: (510) 522 -7848 TDD: (510) 522 -8467 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA HELD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 The Board of Commissioners was called to order at 7:42 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Torrey and Chair Johnson Absent: None 2. CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioner deHaan moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Gilmore seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Items accepted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *2 -A. Minutes of the Regular Board of Commissioners meeting held July 3, 2007. Minutes were accepted. *2 -B. Award of Flooring Contract. The Board of Commissioners: 1. Approved awarding a contract to Bay Area Contract Carpets for an amount not to exceed $154,000; and to 2. Authorized the Executive Director to execute the contract. *2 -C. Extend Contract for Tree Maintenance. The Board of Commissioners: 1. Extended the existing contract with Tree Sculpture Group, Inc., for tree maintenance for two additional years, with the final year contingent upon adoption p p of a Housing Authority budget with adequate funding for this work, for an amount not to exceed $37,220 for the second contract year and $34,206 for the third contract year; and 2. Authorized the Executive Director to execute the amendment to the agreement. Item #2 -A Joint CC HABOC Mtg 11 -06 -07 Minutes of the September 4, 2007 Special Meeting of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 3. AGENDA None. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS None. 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7 :44 p .m. Attest: Beverly Johnson, Chair Michael T. Pucci Executive Director I Secretary Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue - Alameda, California 94501 -2161 - Tel: (510) 747 -4300 - Fax: (510)522 -7848 - TDD: (510) 522-8467 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Housing Commissioners and City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager and Chief Executive Officer Date: November 6, 2007 Re: Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or Her Designee to Accept a Deed of Release of Restrictions from the National Park Service, for Neptune Park and a Declaration of Restrictions for a new city -owned parcel located near Towata Park and to enter into a license agreement with the Housing Authority to provide parking for Independence Plaza residents on an 11,575 square foot tract of land on Neptune Park BACKGROUND Neptune Park was created from federal surplus land transferred to the City in 1981. During World War 11, the land served as a parking lot for Bethlehem Shipyard. The federal government conveyed the property to the City at no charge but with the restriction that it would be used only for public park and recreation purposes. The deed instructs that the land cannot be sold, leased or assigned except to another governmental entity that the Department of the Interior agrees can assure the same restricted use; however, the deed restriction can be transferred to a parcel which the Department agrees to be equal in value. At its March 1 and April 15, 2005, meetings, the City Council, acting as the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, considered a proposal to purchase two real estate parcels, consisting of a total of 5,190 square feet, from East Bay Municipal Utility District ( EBMUD). The purpose of this transaction was to allow for an exchange of this parcel with the City for a release of deed restrictions on a parcel of comparable value at Neptune Park. The Neptune Park parcel, therefore, could be leased or licensed to the Housing Authority so a parking lot could be constructed to serve the residents of Independence Plaza. The Council /Board approved the concept of adding parking spaces for residents of Independence Plaza on a small portion of Neptune Park; however, they instructed staff to purchase the EBMUD property with City open space funds. Council approved the purchase of the EBMUD property at its April 19, 2005 meeting, and the property was subsequently purchased in May, 2005. Item #3 -A Joint CC HABOC Mtg 11 -06 -07 Honorable Chair and Members November 5 2007 of the Housing Authority and City Council Page 2 g of 3 DISCUSSION In 2006, staff submitted a formal request to the National Park Service to release the deed restriction on two tracts at Neptune Park, consisting of 11 575 square s q are feet and 5,292 square feet, in exchange for placing the deed restriction on the 5,190 square foot EBMUD parcels. Last month the National Park Service responded by providing a Deed of Release (Exhibit A) for the Neptune Park property and a Declaration of Restrictions (Exhibit B) for the EBMUD p arcels. The 11,575 square foot tract at Neptune Park is located directly north of independence Plaza and would be used for additional parking spaces for Independence Plaza residents. The license agreement between the City and the Housin g Authority Authorit is attached as Exhibit C. Charter Section 22 -12(b) authorizes the City Council to grant a license for a portion of the park property for this purpose. The 5,292 square foot tract is located on the western edge of Neptune Park, along Webster is g Street, where the land s required for transportation improvements. These improvements will consist of a right -of -way for a bus stop, sidewalk and utility trench along the east side of Webster Street. The new bus stop will provide direct access to Neptune Park, and the sidewalk will enable pedestrian access. The need for the improvements at the west side of the park stems from the redevelopment of the former Naval Air Station, Alameda, for civilian use. The proposed development of that site requires the installation of a queue jump lane for buses traveling north on Webster, adjacent to Neptune Park, to accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated. The proposed encroachment of the right -of -way into Neptune Park is needed in order to make way for the bus queue jump lane which pushes the existing sidewalk and parkway which was in State right of way into Neptune Park. The new parkway strip and Y p sidewalk will fall behind State right of way and be within the City's right of way. Y This will be a City Park to City transfer. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT Funding for design and implementation of the Tinker/Webster (SR260) project will be funded from Bayport Project Revenues and a grant from the State Transportation Improvement Program. No general fund revenues will be used. The Housing Authority has budgeted $190,000 to build the parking lot for Independence Plaza residents. The license between the City and Housing Authority is for $1.00 per year for 12 months and automatically renewed unless revoked. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In August 2001, the City of Alameda, in its role as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tinker Avenue Extension Project ( "the Project "). The ro osed p p Honorable Chair and Members November 6, 2007 of the Housing Authority and City Council Page 3 of 3 new intersection meets the criteria for a CEQA/NEPA Categorical Exemption /Exclusion Determination which was provided previously to the Federal Highway Administration. The Programmatic Section 4(fi) evaluation addressed the effects of Section 4(0 lands and completes the documentation and supports the Categorical Exemption /Exclusion Determination. On July 25, 2006, the Federal Highway Administration signed off on the Categorical Exemption/ Categorical Exclusion Determination for the new WebsteNTinker intersection within the existing Webster Street right -of -way and the minor encroachment of the sidewalk and utility relocation into Neptune Park. It has been determined that the parking lot property is categorically exempt. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to: 1. Accept the Deed of Release from the National Park Service on two tracts of land at Neptune Park totaling 16,867 square feet; 2. Accept the Declarations of Restrictions for the Waterfront Replacement Parcel near Towata Park and record those restrictions; and 3. Authorize the City Manager and the Chief Executive Officer of the Housing Authority to enter into a license agreement for the 11,575 square foot tract to provide additional parking for Independence Plaza residents. Respectfully submitt T. Pucci Etc- e Directo Leslie Little Development Services Director DK/mk Exhibits: A. Deed of Release B. Declaration of Restrictions C. License Agreement Exhibit A Recording requested by: When recorded mail to: Neptune Park, City of Alameda 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE DEED OF RELEASE This Deed of Release (this "Release ") is from THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through the undersigned Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service, under and pursuant to the power and authority contained in the provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377), as amended (the "Act "), and regulations and orders promulgated thereunder (hereinafter designated "Grantor "), to the City of Alameda, California ("Grantee"), and its assigns. Recitals: A. On June 25, 1981, Grantor conveyed to Grantee, pursuant to authority delegated by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior, and as authorized by the Act and regulations and orders promulgated thereunder, 3.08 acres of real property, more or less, located in City of Alameda (formerly the Naval Air Station, Alameda), currently known as Neptune Park as more fully described in the Quitclaim Deed recorded on June 25, 1981 in Official Records of Alameda County, California, as Document N2 81- 106165 (the "Quitclaim Deed "). B. The Neptune Park Property was conveyed to Grantee upon the express condition that the Property was to be used exclusively for public park and recreational purposes and certain restrictions were expressly set forth as paragraphs 1 through 10 of the Quitclaim Deed (collectively, the "Restrictions "). C. Subsequent to the said conveyance of Neptune Park Property, Grantee sought to convey a portion of the Property, consisting of a tract of approximately 11,575 ft2 in the southern portion of Neptune Park, as more fully described on Schedule 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Exchange Property 1"), and another tract of 5,292 ft 2 located in the western portion of Neptune Park adjacent to Webster Street as more fully described on Schedule 2 attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Exchange Property 2 ") for private development purposes and to obtain a release of the said condition that the Exchange Properties were to be used exclusively for public park and recreation purposes, in exchange for which Grantee would acquire other real property, as more fully described in Schedule 3 attached hereto and made a part hereof, consisting of 5,190 ftz of real property, more of less, known as the East Bay Municipal Utility District waterfront parcel and located at Towata Park near the Bay Farm Island Bridge (the " Replacement Property ") and would impose a condition that the Replacement Property be used exclusively for public park and recreation purposes, as required pursuant to the Act. D. Grantor and Grantee wish to make the Replacement Property available to be used exclusively for public park and recreation purposes. Exhibit A Agenda Item #3 -A Joint CC HABOC Mtg 11 -06 -07 Neptune Park; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B City of Alameda, California October 3, 2007 Page 1 of I 1 Deed of Release E. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to release the Exchange Properties from the Restrictions if certain conditions are met, which authority has been redelegated to the Director of the National Park Service and the Regional Directors of the National Park Service. F. The General Services Administration has advised the National Park Service by email dated June 22, 2006, that it concurs with releasing all Restrictions set forth in the Quitclaim Deed placed upon the Exchange Properties for public park and recreational purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, the said Regional Director, acting on behalf of the United States of America, does hereby release the Exchange Property from all Restrictions placed upon it in the Quitclaim Deed, including, without limitation, the requirement that the Exchange Property be used exclusively for public park and recreational purposes. This Release does not affect, and the Exchange Properties remain subject to, all legal easements, leases, agreements, rights-of-way, and other restrictions. In consideration of the release of the Exchange Properties from the Restrictions, Grantee has on this same day entered into a Declaration of Restrictions with the United States of America, acting by and through the Secretary of the Interior, whereby Grantee will pledge certain rights and interests in the Replacement Property to the United States of America, acting by and through the Secretary of the Interior. The form of this Declaration of Restrictions is attached as Schedule 4 to this Release. Neptune Park; 9-GR-CA-672 A & B City of Alameda, California October 3, 2007 Page 2 of 11 Deed of Release IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused this Deed or Release to be executed in its name and on its behalf on this the day of , 2007. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Acting by and through the Secretary of the Interior By Jonathan B. Jarvis Regional Director, Pacific West Region National Park Service STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ) ) ) On before me, DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE (SEAL) Neptune Park; 9-GR-CA-672 A & B City of Alameda, California October 3, 2007 Page 3 of 11 Deed of Release The foregoing conveyance is hereby accepted and the undersigned agrees, by this acceptance, to assume and be bound by all the obligations, conditions, covenants and agreements therein contained. City of By Date STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA On before me, DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the sane in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signatures) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE Neptune Park; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B City of Alameda, California October 3, 2007 Page 4 of 11 Deed of Release SCHEDULE 1 Exchange Property 1 All that real property situate in the State of California, County of Alameda, City of Alameda. described as follows: A portion of the parcel of land granted by the United States of America to the City of Alameda in the Deed recorded June 25, 1981, document number 81- 106165, in the Alameda County Recorder's office, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the northern property line of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda and the eastern line of Webster Street, as said intersection is shown on Parcel Ma p 5767, filed September 25, 1989, in Book 187 of Parcel Maps, at Page 33, in the Alameda County Recorder's office; said intersection also being the southwest corner of the parcel of land granted by the United States of America to the City of Alameda in the Deed recorded June 25, 1981, document number 81- 106165, in the Alameda County Recorder's office; thence, along said northern line (187 PM 33), South 89°41'14" East, 202.79 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, leaving said northern line (187 PM 33), North 06°19'59" West, 36.13 feet; thence, westerly along a non- tangent curve concave to the north, with a radius of 117.00 feet, whose radius bears North 05 °45'37" West;, through a central angle of 23047'53", an are length of 48.60 feet; thence, westerly and southwesterly along a reverse curve, concave to the south, with a radius of 130.75 feet, whose radius bears South 18°02'16" West, through a central angle of 67 °53'26 ", an arc length of 154.93 feet, to a point on said northern line (187 PM 33); thence, along said northern line (187 PM 33), South 89 °4 P14" East, 192.39 feet to the True Point of Beginning. g Containing an area of 6,902.8 square feet (0.158 acres) more or less. Together with: A portion of the parcel of land granted by the United States of America to the City of Alameda in the Deed recorded June 25, 1981, document number 81- 106165, in the Alameda County Recorder's office, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the northern property line of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda and the eastern line of Webster Street, as said intersection is shown on Parcel Ma p 5767, filed September 25, 1989, in Book 187 of Parcel Maps, at Page 33, in the Alameda County Recorder's office; said intersection also being the southwest corner of the parcel of land granted by the United States of America to the City of Alameda in the Deed recorded June 25, 1981, document number 81- 106165, in the Alameda County Recorder's office; thence, along said northern line (187 PM 33), South 89'41'14" East, 202.79 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, continuing along said northern line (187 PM 33), South 89°41'14" East, 124.83 feet to the southeast corner of said City of Alameda parcel (Doc. 81- 106165); thence, along the eastern line of said City of Alameda parcel (Doc. 81 -1 06165), North 15 °53'29" West, 22.56 feet; thence, leaving said eastern line (Doc. 81-106165), northwesterly and westerly along a non - tangent curve, concave to the south, with a radius of 131 feet, whose radius bears South 33 °30'46" West, through a central angle of 47°58'33", an arc length of 109.69 feet; thence, westerly along a reverse curve, concave to the north, with a radius of 117.00 feet, whose radius bears North 14 °27'47" West, through a central angle of 08°42'10", an arc length of 17.77 feet; thence, South 06°19'59" East, 36.13 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing an area of 4,671.9 square feet (0.107 acres) more or less. Neptune Park; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B City of Alameda, California October 3, 2007 Page 5of11 Deed of Release WEBSTER STREET P.O.C. N0018'46'E Scale. 1" = 30' PAACE Qf MAP X77677 A' 1 677 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APN 074 -906 -057 T- P.Q.B. Leptien, Cronin, Cooper, Morris & Poore, Inc. 6123 LCC, Inc, Civil Engineering - Land Sur veying - 930 Estudillo Street Mor[inez C !ifornio 94553-1620 (525) 228 -4218 Fax (925) 223 --4638 June 30, 2005 LCC JOB No. 2003.005.00 co Lr) 0) 0) N) ("Ni m CNI PROPOSED LEASE AREA (0.158 AC.) 1 CITY OF ALAMEDA (DOC. 1 981-106165) APN 074 - 906 -005 -6 13. ,`o (R) (r_\,) A oo ,� ..NO45' 5�37,� X959 � J 36.13' (R) EXHIBIT B PLAT MAP Neptune Park; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B City of Alameda, California October 3, 2007 Page 6 of 11 Deed of Release J CE 0 0 z 0 W 0 0 0 0 CN 0 0 Scale: 1" = 30' PARCEL MAP 57767 -_Xcr 1 97 3,(4 Qf HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA APN 074 -906-057 WEBSTER STREET P.O.C. T.P.O. B. CONSTITUTION Neptune Park; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & 13 City of Alameda, California 0 r) 0 t) f) S8941 ' 14 "E N00'18'46 "E o C I O F A M E D A (DOC. 1981-106165) APN 074 -906-005-6 !s12"E 05�537W �.l 36.3 R=117.00' ,�-��W L= 17.77 �r7 d=08'42'10" oo PROPOSED LEASE AREA (0-107 AC_) fi o 0 1,23. 96 1-05 53 WAY EXHIBIT B PLAT MAP October 3, 2007 Leptien, Cronin, Cooper, Morris & Poore, Inc. dba LCC, Inc. Civ1 Enginccrir - Land 5urvcrng 930 [studillo Street Martinet, Coliforn +a 94553-1620 (925) 228 -4218 Fox (925) 228 -4638 June 30, 2005 LCC JOB No. 2003.005.00 Page 7 of 11 Deed of Release V1 S CL trl 0 0 0 CE 0 0 D: \DRAWINGS\ 2003.005 ALAMEDA J SCHEDULE 2 Exchange Property 2 All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California described as follows: A portion of that certain parcel of land described within a deed recorded June 25, 1981 under Recorders Series number 1981 - 106165, Alameda County Records, further described as follows: Beginning at a point that bears North 00° 18'44" East 232.35 feet along the West line of said parcel (1981 - 106165) from the southwest comer of said parcel (1981 - 106165); thence from said Point of Beginning along the West line of said parcel (1981 - 106165) North 0098'44" East 476.84 feet to the North corner of said parcel (1981 - 106165); thence South 30 °58'02" East 22.26 feet along the northeast line of said parcel (1981 - 106165); thence South 00°18'44" West 37.51 feet; thence South 89 °41 '57" East 7.06 feet; thence South 00°18144" West 3435 feet thence North 89 °41 '57" West 7.06 feet; thence South 00°18'44" West 324.99 feet; thence South 11 °04'29" West 61.86 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing an area of 5,292 square feet, more or less. Neptune Park; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B City of Alameda, California October 3, 2007 Page 8 of 11 Deed of Release 0 w 0 , BETHLEHEM AVE. 212,264 SfX11:644.4rVi 3:73t' .14,:MTED STAT OP AME:PiCA 1 979 P55576 i t 1 , 1 i 1 ,---- IA," ' ,,,,— ......,----- _ -4 (V i ' lko"Lr 1 1 0 It i e't,i711 C** 1: : • ALAMEDA MY OF ALAMEDA 1901-1-06165 UNE WU Si! 1:11.12,0"Vil COP *IR' c)ai 0616 5 1 tiOL11,4a ALT7140-2ry 0 T1,4f: Vre o, AIAMEDA Neptune Park; 9-GR-CA-672 A & B City of Alameda, California October 3, 2007 Page 9 of 11 Deed of Release SCHEDULE 3 Replacement Property Those parcels of land in the City of Alameda, County, state of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: All that "PARCEL 1" in the deed from Paulette R. Wood to East Bay Municipal Utility District, recorded March 29, 1983, Series NN 83- 050399, described as follows: "All that portion of Lot 5 in Section 19, Township 2 South, Range 3 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as said lots are shown on the "Map No. 2 of Salt Marsh and Tide Lands, situated in the County of Alameda, State of California," filed in the office of the Department of Finance, State Lands Commission, formerly the Office of the Surveyor General of the State of California, which lies northerly of the southern line of said Lot 5, easterly of the most eastern line of that parcel of land described as Parcel 3 in the Deed to Betty Banke, recorded November 13,1956, Series No. AL/118905, Book 8204 OR, Image 259, westerly of the Eastern line of that certain 9 foot wide right of way granted to the City of Alameda, dated September 15,1929, and recorded in Book 2236 OR, page 104, and southerly of that certain course designated as North 47 °59'40" West, 31.70 feet in the Deed to Paul Wood, et ux., recorded June 4,1956, Series No. AL/58521, Book 8047, official records, page 327, Alameda County Records, and the direct northwesterly extension thereof. Excepting therefrom the northwesterly 2.5 feet measured at right angles to the northwesterly line of said Parcel. The southeasterly line of said 2.5 foot strip of land running parallel with the northwesterly line and being extended or shortened to terminate in the northeasterly and southwesterly lines of said parcel described above." Together with a 15 -foot wide strip of land, the southeasterly line of said strip being described as follows: Commencing at the most westerly corner of the parcel described in the Directors Deed to Paul Wood, recorded January 31,1983, Series N2 83 -0 16606, also being a point on the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; thence along the northwesterly line of said Wood parcel, North 42°16'11" East, 54.59 feet to the most northerly corner of said Wood parcel and the end of the described line. The northwesterly line of said strip shall be lengthened or shortened to terminate in the northwesterly extension of the northeasterly line of said Wood parcel on the north and in the northwesterly extension of the northeast line of said Parcel 1 on the south. PARCEL 2: All that "PARCEL 2" in the deed from Paulette R. Wood to East Bay Municipal Utility District, recorded March 29, 1983, Series N2 83- 050399, described as follows: "Commencing at a point on the southeastern line of Market Street, being the southern terminus of that course described as North 9 °3 6'3 6" East 111.I8 feet in the certain Quitclaim Deed to State of California, recorded December 6, 1950 in Book 6303 OR, page 91; thence South 4 °30'51" West 51.77 feet to the southwestern line of that certain parcel of land conveyed to the State of California by Deed recorded January 4,1952 in Book 6626 OR, page 369; thence along said southwestern line North 47 °59'40" West 31.70 feet to said southeastern line of Market Street; thence along said southeastern line North 42°16'11" East 41.07 feet to the point of commencement." Neptune Park; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B Page 10 of 11 City of Alameda, California October 3, 2007 Deed of Release _ Dr#:.4.11147,1 I, ,z54,1,41' nazi, 4.15.4-CGSiklfr C;RoN1 41,34 7 CV1, LfrPM:. Ni1T 4-1'1,t17. :11 fr in,,'.'t.,,,,, .4 ,i''' fr/ . b , *.P ' / / ' 10` 4? .. 441eclr, , 4;4 1 1. 4: ri * i 40 t44 ..........,,,: SURPLUS PR() • • 9.44 Neptune Park; 9-GR-CA-672 A & B City of Alameda, California 41.4 C404--CNT 11:4 CO: r,,IF MAW; 2214., (1;1 104:9'k5-29, CA4e1TUME:4.) CITY 7,C04 -75%! S-2r.A-04, l'AT S.4;Y ONC1,44 UTLITY ttzrz'ari e t„ , 10,4A r ypIRIT R. 1'4 Cid 4 October 3, 2007 Page 11 of 11 Deed of Release SCHEDULE 4 Form of Declaration of Restrictions Neptune Park; 9- GR- CA-672 A & B City of Alameda, California October 3, 2007 Page l2of11 Deed of Release Exhibit B Recording requested by: When recorded mail to: SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE EBMUD Waterfront Replacement Parcel Alameda, California 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS This Declaration of Restrictions is made by and between the City of Alameda, ( "Grantor "), and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting by and through the Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ( "Grantee "), pursuant to the Federal Property e and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (63 Stat. 377), as amended (the "Act "), and regulations and orders promulgated thereunder. Recitals: A. Grantor is the owner of 5,190 square feet of real property known as the East Bay Municipal Utility tY District Waterfront Property and located at Lot 5 in Section 19, Township 2 South, Range 3 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as more fully described on Exhibit A (the "Replacement Property "). B. This Declaration of Restrictions is made in consideration of the Deed of Release dated of even date herewith between Grantee and Grantor relative to 16,866.7 square feet of real property, more or less, located in Neptune Park in Alameda, California, and more fully described on Exhibits B and C. C. Grantor has agreed to impose on the Replacement Property, for the benefit of Grantee and its successors and assigns, restrictive covenants to ensure that the Replacement Property will be permanently used solely for park and recreational purposes. Agreement: NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of one dollar, the mutual agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor does hereby declare, covenant, and agree, for itself and its successors and assigns, that the said Replacement Property shall hereafter and perpetually be held and conveyed subject to the following conditions and restrictions, to-wit: 1. The Replacement Property shall be used and maintained exclusively for public park and recreational purposes in perpetuity as set forth in the program of utilization and plan contained in Grantor's application submitted to Grantee by Grantor on June 15, 2006 (the "Program of Utilization "), which program and plan may be amended from time to time at the written request of either the Grantor or East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Alameda, California ; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B Exhibit B Agenda Item #3 -A Joint CC HABOC Mtg 11 -06 -07 10/03/07 Declaration of Restrictions Grantee, with the written concurrence of the other party, and such amendments will be added to and become a part of the original application. 2 The Grantor shall, within 6 months of the date of this Declaration of Restrictions, erect and maintain a permanent sign or marker near the point of principal access to the Replacement Property indicating that the Replacement Property is a park or recreation area and has been acquired in substitution for ro ert P P y acquired from the Federal Government through the Federal Lands to Parks Program of the U.S. Department of the Interior, for use by the general public. 3. The Replacement Property shall not be sold, leased, assigned or otherwise disposed of except to another eligible governmental agency that the Secretary of the Interior approves in writing. Any such g y disposition shall assure the continued use and maintenance of the Replacement Property for P ublic park or public recreational purposes subject to the same terms and conditions in this Declaration of Restrictions. Any mortgage, lien, or any other encumbrance not wholly subordinate to the interest of the Grantee in this Declaration of Restrictions shall constitute an impermissible disposal. However, this provision shall not preclude the Grantor, its successors and assigns from using revenue or other bonds related to the use of the Replacement Property to the extent that such bonds shall not in any way restrict, encumber, or constitute a lien on the Replacement Property. Furthermore, this provision shall not preclude the Grantor from providing related recreation facilities and services compatible with the approved application though concession agreements, permits, and licenses entered into with third parties, provided prior concurrence to such agreements is obtained in writing from the National Park Service. 4. Funds generated on the Replacement Property may not be expended for non-recreational ur oses. p p Until the Replacement Property has been fully developed in accordance with the Program of Utilization, all revenues generated on the Replacement Property must be used for the development, operation, and maintenance of the Replacement Property. After the Replacement Property has been fully developed in accordance with the Program of Utilization, revenue generated by the Replacement Property may be expended on other recreation properties operated by Grantor. 5. From the date of this Declaration of Restrictions, the Grantor, its successors and assigns, shall submit biennial reports to the Secretary of the Interior, setting forth the use made of the Replacement Property during the preceding two -year period, and other pertinent data establishing its continuous use for the purposes set forth above, for ten consecutive reports or as further determined by the Secretary of the Interior. 6. Grantor further covenants and agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, that: (1) any use, operation, program or activity on or related to the Replacement Property will be conducted in compliance with all Federal laws and regulations relating to nondiscrimination, including but not limited to the following laws and regulations as may be amended from time to time: (a) the regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior at 43 CFR Part 17, (b) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (c) Title III of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, (d) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and (e) the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968; (2) this covenant shall be subject in all respects to the provisions of said laws and regulations; (3) the Grantor, its successors and assigns, will promptly take and continue to take such action as may be necessary to effectuate this covenant; (4) the United States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement of this covenant; (5) the Grantor, its successors and assigns, will (a) obtain from each other person (any legal entity) who, through contractual or other arrangements with the Grantor, its successors or assigns, is authorized to provide services or benefits on or in connection with the Replacement Property, a written agreement pursuant to which such other person shall, with respect to the services or benefits which he is authorized to provide, undertake for himself the same obligations as those imposed upon the Grantor, its successors and assigns, by this covenant, and (b) furnish a copy of East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Page 2 of 12 Alameda, California ; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B 10/03/07 Declaration of Restrictions such agreement to the Secretary of the Interior or his successor or assign; (6) this covenant shall run with the land hereby conveyed, and shall in any event, without regard to technical classification or designation, legal or otherwise, be binding to the fullest extent permitted by law and equity for the benefit of, and in favor of the Grantee and enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor, its successors and assigns; and (7) the Grantee shall have a right of access to, and entrance upon, the Replacement Property in order to determine compliance with the terms of this conveyance. 7. The Grantor, its successors and assigns, shall indemnify, defend, protect, save and hold harmless the Grantee, its employees, officers, attorneys, agents, and representatives from and against any and all debts, duties, obligations, liabilities, law suits, claims, demands, causes of action, damages, losses, costs, and expenses (including without limitation attorneys' fees and expenses, consultant fees and expenses, expert fees and expenses, and court costs) arising out of any claim for personal injury or property damage (including death, illness, or loss of or damage to real or personal property or economic loss) that relates to the Grantor's failure to comply with the terms of this Declaration of Restrictions or from the use or occupancy of the Replacement Property by the Grantor, its successors, assigns, transferees, or agents. 8. In the event that there is a breach by the Grantor, its, successors or assigns, of any of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, and agreements set forth herein, whether caused by the legal or other inability of the Grantor, its , successors or assigns, to perform said covenants, conditions, restrictions or agreements, the Grantee will give written notice, with a reasonable time stated therein, of such breach together with the actions required by Grantee in order to cure said breach. In the event Grantee, its successors or assigns, fails to cure such breach within the designated time frame set forth in the written notice, Grantor, for itself, its successors and assigns, covenants and agrees that Grantee shall be entitled to the following alternative remedies: a. Grantor, or its successors and assigns, shall deliver to Grantee its warranty deed to the Replacement Property and shall allow Grantee the immediate right to reenter and take possession of the Replacement Property. Final Acceptance of such deed shall at the sole option of the Grantee. b. In the event Grantor, its successors and assigns, fails to comply with the remedy provided in Section 8(a) above, Grantor, for itself and its successors and assigns covenants and agrees that Grantee shall have the right to prosecute and complete a Quiet Title and Ejectment action in a federal court of competent jurisdiction against Grantor, its successors and assigns and any other party -in interest to the Replacement Property. By executing this Agreement, Grantee, for itself and its successors and assigns, hereby confesses judgment to Grantee to enable Grantee to complete such judicial proceedings.. In addition, Grantor, for itself and its successors and assigns, agree to pay Grantee all costs associated with such judicial proceedings incurred by Grantee in acquiring title and possession of the Replacement Property. c. Until Grantee acquires and accepts title and possession to the Replacement Property at its sole option and in accordance with the terms of Section 8(a) or 8(b) above, Grantor, for itself and its successors and assigns, covenants and agrees to be fully responsible to provide protection to and maintenance of said property at all times until such time as the title is actually accepted by the Grantee, including the period of any notice of intent to exercise Grantee's rights. Such protection and maintenance shall, at a minimum, conform to the standards prescribed by the General Services Administration in its regulations 41 CFR 102- 75.690 as such may be amended. 9. The failure of the Grantee to require in any one or more instances complete performance of any of the conditions or covenants shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of such future East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Page 3 of 12 Alameda, California ; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B 10/03/07 Declaration of Restrictions performance, but obligation of the Grantor, its successors and assigns, with respect to such future performance shall continue in full force and effect. 10. The National Park Service and any representative it may so delegate shall have the right of entry upon the Replacement Property at all reasonable times to conduct inspections of the Replacement Property P y for the purposes of evaluating the Grantor's compliance with the terms and conditions of this Declaration of Restrictions. 1 1 . The covenants, conditions, and restrictions set forth herein are intended to be covenants running with the land in accordance with all applicable law and shall burden and run with the Replacement Property and every part thereof or interest therein, and shall be binding on Grantor, its successors, assigns, and every successor in interest to all or any part of the property, and shall benefit Grantee and Grantee's successors and assigns. All restrictions and conditions contained herein are for the sole benefit of the United States of America and may be modified or abrogated by the Secretary of the Interior, or his successor in function, as provided by the Act. East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Page 4 of 12 Alameda, California ; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B 10/03/07 Declaration of Restrictions IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has caused these presents to be executed in its name and on its behalf on this the day of , 2007. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Acting by and through the Secretary of the Interior By Jonathan B. Jarvis Regional Director, Pacific West Region National Park Service CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA On before me, DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER — E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the sane in his /her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE (SEAL) East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Page 5 of 12 Alameda, California ; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B 10 /03/07 Declaration of Restrictions The foregoing conveyance is hereby accepted and the undersigned agrees, by this acceptance, to assume and be bound by all the obligations, conditions, covenants and agreements therein contained. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF City of Alameda, California By Date CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ) On before me, DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER — E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared, personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his /her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.. WITNESS my hand and official seal. NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE (SEAL) East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Page 6 of 12 Alameda, California ; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B 1 0/03/07 Declaration of Restrictions Exhibit A Replacement Property Those parcels of land in the City of Alameda, County, State of California, described as follows: PARCEL 1: All that "PARCEL 1" in the deed from Paulette R. Wood to East Bay Municipal Utility District, recorded March 29, 1983, Series N9. 83- 050399, described as follows: "All that portion of Lot 5 in Section 19, Township 2 South, Range 3 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, as said lots are shown on the "Map No. 2 of Salt Marsh and Tide Lands, situated in the County of Alameda, State of California," filed in the office of the Department of Finance, State Lands Commission, formerly the Office of the Surveyor General of the State of California, which lies northerly of the southern line of said Lot 5, easterly of the most eastern line of that parcel of land described as Parcel 3 in the Deed to Betty Banke, recorded November 13,1956, Series No. AL/118905, Book 8204 OR, Image 259, westerly of the Eastern line of that certain 9 foot wide right of way granted to the Ci ty of Alameda, dated September 15,1929, and recorded in Book 2236 OR, page 104, and southerly of that certain course designated as North 47 °59'40" West, 31.70 feet in the Deed to Paul Wood, et ux., recorded June 4,1956, Series No. AL/58521, Book 8047, official records, page 327, Alameda County Records, and the direct northwesterly extension thereof. Excepting therefrom the northwesterly 2.5 feet measured at right angles to the northwesterly line of said Parcel. The southeasterly line of said 2.5 foot strip of land running parallel with the northwesterly line and being extended or shortened to terminate in the northeasterly and southwesterly lines of said p arcel described above." Together with a 15 -foot wide strip of land, the southeasterly line of said strip being described as follows: Commencing at the most westerly corner of the parcel described in the Directors Deed to Paul Wood, recorded January 31,1983, Series N2 83- 016606, also being a point on the northeasterly line of said Parcel 1; thence along the northwesterly line of said Wood parcel, North 42°16'11" East, 54.59 feet to the most northerly corner of said Wood parcel and the end of the described line. The northwesterly line of said strip shall be lengthened or shortened to terminate in the northwesterly extension of the northeasterly line of said Wood parcel on the north and in the northwesterly extension of the northeast line of said Parcel 1 on the south. PARCEL 2: All that "PARCEL 2" in the deed from Paulette R. Wood to East Bay Municipal Utility District, recorded March 29, 1983, Series N2 83- 050399, described as follows: "Commencing at a point on the southeastern line of Market Street, being the southern terminus of that course described as North 9 °36'36" East 111.I8 feet in the certain Quitclaim Deed to State of California, recorded December 6, 1950 in Book 6303 OR, page 91; thence South 4°30'51" West 51.77 feet to the southwestern line of that certain parcel of land conveyed to the State of California by Deed recorded January 4,1952 in Book 6626 OR, page 369; thence along said southwestern line North 47 °59'40" West 31.70 feet to said southeastern line of Market Street; thence along said southeastern line North 42°16'11" East 41.07 feet to the point of commencement." East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Page 7 of 12 Alameda, California ; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B 10/03/07 Declaration of Restrictions .14 14. •. 4 ..4c- 1,,,t C ;fir 4) t ,, lu a, ,.i a y 'r 3-21 "¢srf�+ •r ��'wwieez"" -fir j :�,� t�t }r��, ^+k$$ •+r •fa& 'n{k f'L- �y''`''e •'r fcky'i trksk i,� ',�% - 'K'S„A 4 4 '4.� 'd/�' # SO 4 6 `L.rPo 'YrS �v .� 7 V 4 - t›.3'r r �,. iae.,n,,,,,w..,.,,,..,,«w _--___ �- �k,,: � ,!c.u�iccsssusccuwa't••••....., '' - rydi•< ±+1fq rn �.xhn'A'!�'h.�.NtiN hC:' .. �- ii„ r,. •sa;.YK• !�[ <bryI LN C .: AIL -•� � Jr'+ F t 'ae c��'�Ry{�� ,�� iy4 tR •��¢ a dr'wi�x. n�a4,Y�� LINFAIA aWa •[rrewWF�ewkV�if s <�w.wW r. VI6Nirf MAP MOy �yk�er .r $ 1y 144 444,*)1 i';`)P1 U1 PR 1 -ate, L :dn Cldf d i 0,54 CASNENT Y Al.„5a 223 x 29, <Y IA,. AraF, -; d f f ?. ' i#' SR'' fyy��.. ail# � d6[ fi•°•�x'?ti.- �4�,kr�c� ,�s� it i ;° ' IA1.140114 rrY rtimit *� r East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Alameda, California ; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B r •V[ 5 #�5;� ;�; u. «S:N1N??.!�: �,rr. [s�.c2.5.i{� {vJ�:fi.4� ,�'4K1Sl�il .4KVN.H 'ar RMR �' 2�'.aW'!;l�eL?; Y 1.,4[fLF h ( +I/• i FXNIRIT F� Page 8of12 10/03/07 Declaration of Restrictions Exhibit B Exchange Property 1 All that real property situate in the State of California, County of Alameda, City of Alameda. described as follows: A portion of the parcel of land granted by the United States of America to the City of Alameda in the Deed recorded June 25, 1981, document number 81- 106165, in the Alameda County Recorder's office, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the northern property line of the Housing Authority of the Ci ty of Alameda and the eastern line of Webster Street, as said intersection is shown on Parcel Map 5767, filed September 25, 1989, in Book 187 of Parcel Maps, at Page 33, in the Alameda County Recorder's office; said intersection also being the southwest corner of the parcel of land granted by the United States of America to the City of Alameda in the Deed recorded June 25, 1981, document number 81- 106165, in the Alameda County Recorder's office; thence, along said northern line (187 PM 33), South 89°41'14" East, 202.79 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, leaving said northern line (187 PM 33), North 06°19'59" West, 36.13 feet; thence, westerly along a non- tangent curve concave to the north, with a radius of 117.00 feet, whose radius bears North 05 °45'37" West;, through a central angle of 23 °47'53 ", an arc length of 48.60 feet; thence, westerly and southwesterly along a reverse curve, concave to the south, with a radius of 130.75 feet, whose radius bears South 18°02'16" West, through a central angle of 67 °53'26 ", an are length of 154.93 feet, to a point on said northern line (187 PM 33); thence, alon g said northern line (187 PM 33), South 89°41'14" East, 192.39 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing an area of 6902.8 square feet (0.158 acres) more or less. Together with: A portion of the parcel of land granted by the United States of America to the City of Alameda in the Deed recorded June 25, 1981, document number 81- 106165, in the Alameda County Recorder's office, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the northern property line of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda and the eastern line of Webster Street, as said intersection is shown on Parcel Map 5767, filed September 25, 1989, in Book 187 of Parcel Maps, at Page 33, in the Alameda County Recorder's office; said intersection also being the southwest corner of the parcel of land granted by the United States of America to the City of Alameda in the Deed recorded June 25, 1981, document number 81- 106165, in the Alameda County Recorder's office; thence, along said northern line (187 PM 33), South 89°41'14" East, 202.79 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence, continuing along said northern line (187 PM 33), ) South 89 °41'14" East, 124.83 feet to the southeast corner of said City of Alameda parcel (Doc. 81- 106165); thence, along the eastern line of said City of Alameda parcel (Doc. 81- 106165), North 15 °53'29" West, 22.56 feet; thence, leaving said eastern line (Doc. 81- 106165), northwesterly and westerly along a non - tangent curve, concave to the south, with a radius of 131 feet, whose radius bears South 33°30'46" West, through a central angle of 47°58'33", an arc length of 1 09.69 feet; thence, westerly along a reverse curve, concave to the north, with a radius of 1 17.00 feet, whose radius bears North 14 °27'47" West, through a central angle of 08°42'10", an arc length of 17.77 feet; thence, South 06°19'59" East, 36.13 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Containing an area of 4671.9 square feet (0.107 acres) more or less. East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Page 9 of 12 Alameda, California ; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B 1 0/03/07 Declaration of Restrictions r • k61,,ISING AUTHORITY or roe cry, of :AJ4m1 13 AP4 074 -1V641:67 BST•R SrRFT 4.1 • „ ""-•• ••- ttitcylf;t, AREA (0, •A 1 1' , F.. .0 tklt.;;',e;\ '4‘ Th 1 East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Alameda, California ; 9-GR-CA-672 A & B Page 10 of 12 10/03/07 Declaration ofRestrictions WEBSTER STREET P. 0.C. Scale: 1" = 30' Qf MAP 5767 _Er 1 T.P.O.8. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OFALAMEDA APN 074 -906-057 co ST\TUTtON 589•41'14 "E NOD'S 8'46 "E 0) r- cNi CITY OF ALAMEDA (DOC. 1981-106165) A P N 074 -906-005-6 506'191519"E ND5'45'37"W r� l� 1 (R) 13 3 � 427147"4 00 PROPOSED LEASE AREA (0.107 AC.) Ir> r -4 � j W V Li(3°( �� D Gv 0 / 4 WAY EXHIBIT B PLAT MAP R= 117.00' L= 17.77' A =08'42'10" Leptien, Cronin, Cooper, Morris & Poore, Inc_ dba LCC, Inc. CrviI Eng rnr..cri ng - Land 5urvcyin9 930 Estijd llo Street Martinez, California 94553 - " 620 (925) 228 -4218 pox (925j 228 -4E38 June 30, 2005 LCC JOB No. 2003.005.00 East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Alameda, California ; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & 13 Page 11 of 12 10/03/07 Declaration of Restrictions u? 0 0 i 2 U i!7 0 0 0 2 a 0 0 Z i. 0 Exhibit C Exchange Property 2 All that real property situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California described as follows: A portion of that certain parcel of land described within a deed recorded June 25, 1981 under Recorders Series number 1981 - 106165, Alameda County Records, further described as follows: Beginning at a point that bears North 00° 18'44" East 232.35 feet along the West line of said parcel (1981 - 106165) from the southwest comer of said parcel (1981 - 106165); thence from said Point of Beginning along the West line of said parcel (1981 - 106165) North 00018144t1 East 476.84 feet to the North corner of said parcel ( 1981 - 106165); thence South 30°58'02" East 22.26 feet along the northeast line of said parcel (1981 - 106165); thence South 00°18'44" West 37.51 feet; thence South 89 °41 '57" East 7.06 feet; thence South 00°18'44" West 34.55 feet thence North 89 °41 '57" West 7.06 feet; thence South 00 °18'44" West 324.99 feet; thence South 11 °04'29" West 61.86 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing an area of 5,292 square feet, more or less. East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Page 12 of 12 Alameda, California ; 9 -GR -CA -672 A & B 10/03/07 Declaration of Restrictions tin TAW WARM 04;71i 4, rr' 0 N w 1- 0 (4) h BETHLEHEM AVE. 22.2.V *:it',10•1*.4'44'01 .• :41,2 L3 OF MAL:RICA 1979-1 gstws crTY or ALAMLVA CT? OF &ANEW. igei-106165 -v.-11)4'29*W 61.86' S4W, COPNER 1981-106165 HousiNG AUTiloRITY DP Tfit: CM or ALAMEDA LAXDA.A..1.k4r,INC, f...s4M.:V14:41:02'Mr • (1.10Uf t.41,24 fi rAx: East Bay Municipal Utility District Replacement Property Page 13 of 12 Alameda, California ; 9-GR-CA-672 A & B 10/03/07 Declaration of Restrictions Exhibit C LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, entered into this 1 St day of November, 2007, by and between the City of Alameda ( "City "), a municipal corporation and Housing Authority, a political subdivision of the state of California ( "Authority," or "Licensee"), is made with reference to the following: RECITALS: A. The City of Alameda owns approximately 3.08 acres of property, referred to as the "Neptune Park," which is located between Webster Street and Constitution Avenue. The Neptune Park parcel is adjacent to property owned and used by the Authority as affordable residential housing for senior citizens, known as Independence Plaza. elderly. B. City is supportive of making parking available close to the residences of the C. The Authority desires to enter into a license agreement for the use of park property at Neptune Park for parking for its residents. In order to implement the Authority's intent, it is necessary for the City to license an 11,575 sq/ft portion of the City -owned Neptune park property, more particularly described in Exhibit A ("the » � Property) which would become the area for parking. NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by and between the undersigned parties as follows: 1. TERM: The term of this License shall be 12 months, commencing on the date executed by the parties. The license, which is revocable, shall be renewed automatically for successive 12 month terms, unless otherwise revoked by the City of Alameda. 2. LICENSE FEE: The license fee is waived. 3. USE OF PREMISES: Licensee may use the property for parking for residents of the adjacent Independence Plaza residents. No other use is permitted without p rior written consent of the City of Alameda. 4. NUISANCE: Licensee shall not maintain, commit, or permit the maintenance or commission of any nuisance in connection with the performance of services under this License. 5. HOLD HARMLESS: Licensee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Alameda, its Councils, Boards and Commissions, officers and y em p to ees from and against any and all loss, damages, liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees, regardless of the merits or outcome of any claim or suits in any manner connected to Licensee's use of the P remises or Licensee's negligent performance of services or work conducted or performed p ursuant to this License, except if and to extent caused by the sole, gross negligence, acts or Exhibit C Agenda Item #3 -A Joint CC HABOC Mtg 11 -06 -07 omissions of the City of Alameda, their Councils, Boards and Commissions, officers and employees. 6. INSURANCE: Licensee's Insurance. On or before the commencement of the term of this License, Licensee shall provide evidence of insurance or self - insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with Licensee's operation and use of the premises. Licenseee shall maintain the following types of insurance with limits no less than the following as set forth below: Commercial General Liability Coverage: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. The policy shall be endorsed to p rovide Fire Legal Liability or Damage to Rented Premises coverage, as well as for Products and Completed Operations. Automobile Liability Coverage: Coverage for owned, hired, leased and rented vehicles, with limits of not less than $1,000,000 for combined bodily injury and ro ert Y damage, on a per occurrence basis. p p Workers' Compensation Coverage: As required by law, with Employer's Liability coverage with limits of not less than $1,000,000. .7. ADDITIONAL INSURED: The City of Alameda, Alameda City Council, its Council, Boards, Commissions, Officers, Employees and Agents, shall be named as an additional insured under all insurance coverages, required by this License, except p automotive liability. 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. 8. PROHIBITION AGAINST TRANSFERS: Licensee shall not assign, sublease, hypothecate, or transfer this License or any interest therein directly or indirectly, by operation of law or otherwise. 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. 9. SECURITY DEPOSIT: The Security Deposit is waived. 10. TERMINATION: This License may be terminated for no cause upon 30 days prior written notice. Upon termination, the Premises must be restored to park use at Licensee's sole expense, including restoration of any prior - existing landscaping. 11. NONDISCRIMINATION: Consistent with the City of Alameda's policy that harassment and discrimination are unacceptable conduct, Licensee agrees that harassment or discrimination directed toward a job applicant, a City employee, Licensee, contractor, employee, client or a citizen by Licensee or Licensee'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. Licensee agrees that any and all violations of this provision shall constitute a material breach of this License. 12. MAINTENANCE: Licensee may alter the site of the Premises in order to permit its use as a arkin P g area for residents of Independence Plaza. Licensee is responsible for all maintenance and repair of the Premises at its sole cost. 13. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY Residents of Independence Plaza are not an intended third party beneficiary of this License, and shall have no independent rights of continued use of the Premises for parking purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Alameda and Licensee have respectively signed and sealed this License as of the day and year first above written. LICENSEE: HOUSING AUTHORITY, a political subdivision of the State of California By Michael T. Pucci Executive Director of Housing Authority LICENSOR: CITY OF ALAMEDA, a charter city and municipal corporation By Debra Kurita City Manager RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL: Michael T. Pucci Executive Director of Housing Authority Approved as to form: Teresa L. Highs General Counsel Housing Authority Approved as to form: onna Mooney Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Alameda UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING TUESDAY- - OCTOBER 16, 2007- -7:25 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Vice Mayor /Commissioner Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers /Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (07- CIC) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project. The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation and provided a handout on parking information. Chair Johnson requested that the parking information be posted on the website; inquired whether money is available in the budget. The Redevelopment Manager responded $75,000 is left in the garage contingency because of additional signage and security camera allocations; stated staff recommends waiting until the project is closer to completion before additional money is allocated; the theater budget has a balance of approximately $170,000. Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the garage's northern elevation will be revisited. The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the northern elevation and theater restoration funding can be discussed once the project is near completion. Chair Johnson inquired whether the blade sign was added back. The Redevelopment Manager responded the blade sign and marquee were added back; stated a strip is available for the northern elevation landscaping. Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the estimate for the northern elevation art. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission October 16, 2007 1 The Redevelopment Manager responded the estimate depends on the extent of the art; stated banner options range from $20,000 to $50,000. Chair Johnson stated that the contingency might be needed for something else between now and completion; art can be installed at any time. Commissioner deHaan inquired when the grand opening is anticipated, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded March. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember /Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember /Commissioner Tam 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- CC / *07- CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission meeting and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission meeting held on October 2, 2007. Approved. AGENDA ITEMS (07- CC/07- CIC) Public Hearing to consider approval of a first addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed -use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, first amendment to the Development Agreement, and first amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project to modify the Public Waterfront Promenade; Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed -Use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing Execution of a First Amendment to a Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation) for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC); Adoption of Resolution Approving an Addendum to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed -Use Development Project Authorizing the Executive Director to Amend the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and 2 Community Improvement Commission October 16, 2007 Corporation) for the Sale and Development of Certain Real Property at the FISC; Introduction of Ordinance Approving a First Amendment to Development Agreement DA -06 -003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development Corporation. Continued to November 6, 2007. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor /Chair Johnson adjourned. the Special Joint Meeting at 7:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission October 16, 2007 3 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Debra Kurita Executive Director Date: November 6, 2007 Re: Approve a Contract with Ampco System Parking, Inc. in the Amount of $1 24,682 for the Management and Operation of the Civic Center Parking Structure BACKGROUND The City of Alameda's City Council and Community Improvement Commission (CIC) approved the Parking Management and Operations Plan ( "Plan ") for the new Civic Center Parking Structure on August 7, 2007. The parking structure is expected to be open by early 2008. As part of the Plan, the City recently issued a Maintenance and Operations Request for Proposals (RFP) for a private parking management company to assist with the operation and maintenance of the parking structure. The Operator's scope of work will consist of providing general management, maintenance /janitorial, revenue collection, and permit management services. Other local jurisdictions, such as Berkeley, San Francisco, San Jose, and Walnut Creek, have contracted for similar types of services for their public parking facilities. DISCUSSION The City issued the Maintenance and Operation RFP on July 9, 2007, by posting it on the City's website, mailing it directly to eight prominent parking companies and interested organizations, and placing advertising notices in local newspapers. Selection Process. The City received nine proposals, which were reviewed by a selection committee with representatives from the Public Works, Finance, and Development Services Departments. The selection committee determined that two of the proposals were incomplete and non - responsive to the RFP. The remaining proposals ranged in annual costs between $75,000 and $166,000 and estimated staffing levels for supervisory and janitorial services from 28 to over 100 hours per week. The selection committee, based on a scoring criteria that considered the proposer's capabilities, experience, proposed budget, and local preference, decided to interview four firms. cc /cic Agenda Item #2 -B 11 -06 -07 Honorable Chair and November 6, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 6 The committee selected Ampco System Parking ( "Ampco "), a well- qualified company that provided a clearly defined, realistic, and comprehensive proposal with a sound mix of supervisor and janitorial staffing hours for a reasonable price of $124,682, including a ten percent contingency. (See Attachment 1 for a summary of the proposed staffing plan.). Ampco is one of the nation's largest operators of parking facilities, including the parking facilities at Bay Street in Emeryville. (Ampco is a subsidiary of ABM Industries, Inc., a New York Stock Exchange listed company.) Also noteworthy, Ampco is currently managing the new municipal garages serving downtown movie theaters for the cities of Redwood City and Salinas. Ampco's contracts for these facilities include similar maintenance duties and parking revenue collection services. Representatives from Salinas and Redwood City were very positive about Ampco's past and current performance. Proposed Scope of Services. Ampco will perform the tasks summarized below and detailed in the proposed contract, which is on file with the City Clerk. 1. Initial and Annual Assessments Preceding the opening of the garage, Ampco will review the construction contractor - supplied operations and procedures manual and make recommendations to the City as to any changes to the parking operations contract necessitated by the scope outlined in the manual. Ampco will also meet with the City on a monthly and annual basis to review operations, recommend any required changes in operating methods to improve service and increase usage, and review an annual report and budget. 2. Janitorial Services. Ampco will subcontract with ABM Janitorial Services, an affiliate company, to provide a fully trained janitorial employee to the parking structure from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. each day, seven days per week, to assure that it is clean and presentable each morning before patrons start arriving.1 (See attached Proposed Staffing Plan.) This level of staffing will accomplish the following on a daily basis or as otherwise specified: • Use a blower to remove litter and debris from corners and behind wheelstops; • Sweep garage with a power sweeper; • Sweep stairwells and parking entrances and exits; • Dust parking equipment; • Clean all vehicular and pedestrian entry /exit areas; • Provide daily litter pickup; • Clean all cobwebs from the garage, quarterly or as needed; • Wash and clean all garage graphics, quarterly or as needed; • Clean elevator lobbies and revenue control equipment areas; 1 The janitorial services are budgeted for a total of 36 hours per week with a proposed schedule of eight hours on Mondays and Tuesdays and four hours for Wednesday through Sunday. Honorable Chair and November 6, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 6 • Sweep to disperse and facilitate evaporation of any pooled water; • Put down and remove oil -dry; • Steam clean garage quarterly; • Spot steam clean garage as necessary; • Remove all trash and debris from trash containers and deposit in City - provided dumpsters /trash receptacles; and • Report any hazardous conditions noted and any lights that are not working. The janitorial service will replace burn -out lights depending upon type and location. 3. Sweeping. ABM Janitorial will keep a riding sweeper on-site to run as needed to keep the facility clean at all times. Some sweeping will be performed on a daily basis, as described above. 4. Steam Cleaning. ABM Janitorial will steam clean the garage quarterly, as well as perform spot -steam cleaning as needed. This schedule is similar to the one Ampco uses to manage and maintain Redwood City's new parking facilities. 5. Lighting and Other Routine Maintenance. Ampco will provide routine maintenance services including, but not limited to: • Check and clean light fixtures, emergency lights, and bulbs, and replace within 24 hours; • Replace lamps within 24 hours; • Remove graffiti on parking structure's interior and exterior walls within 24 hours; • Inspect quarterly and test annually the fire sprinkler system; and. • Perform interior touch up painting, annually; 6. Equipment Maintenance and Repair. Ampco will provide routine preventative maintenance of the pay -by -space machines. 7. Public Education. Ampco will work closely with City staff to develop an interim staffing and public education plan for the initial months of garage operation. This will include providing "Customer Service Ambassadors" to greet patrons as they enter the garage, advise them to remember their parking stall number, and then shepherd patrons through the process of using the pay -by -space machines. 8. Revenue Collection. Ampco will assign a supervisor to collect revenues from the pay - by -space machines each day of paid operation and will concurrently download all credit card /debit card and other revenue information. Funds collected will be taken to 2 The supervisor will be on site two hours a day, six days a week, with an additional eight hours per week budgeted to respond to needs and to perform off -site administration and banking duties. Honorable Chair and November 6, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 6 Ampco's nearby, secure off -site counting facility and then transported to the designated bank on a daily basis. The supervisor will also re -stock receipt paper and coins in the machines on a daily basis, or as necessary to ensure uninterrupted use by patrons. 9. Financial Reports. Ampco will provide all financial reports requested by the City, detailing basic revenue collection information, broken down on a daily basis, and showing all types of revenue (cash, credit, debit, etc.) that will reconcile to the bank's daily deposit reports. 10. Validation and Monthly Permit Programs. Ampco will work with City staff to refine the validation program, which will initially be used by the movie theater. The program may expand to local merchants after parking patterns and practices have stabilized. Ampco will also administer the parking permit program for the parking structure, including maintaining waiting lists and contacting persons on the list as vacancies occur, to help ensure that the program is successful. Ampco currently manages more than 10,000 monthly parking permit accounts in the East Bay alone. Contract Administration. Once the facility has been completed, the Public Works Department will be responsible for the facility management, including: • Processing contract invoices; • Reviewing and approving annual parking reports and other reports prepared by the parking management company; • 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. The approved budget includes a 0.25 full -time equivalent (FTE) Parking Garage Manager position in the Public Works Department to oversee the parking management company contract. Contract Term and Budget. This contract will begin in December 2007, one month before the anticipated opening of the parking structure in January 2008, and will be in effect for an initial two -year period, with three additional two -year options, for a total of eight years. Next Steps. The City launched the public education campaign for the parking structure at Park Street's Classic Car Show on October 13, 2007. The City's website now has a dedicated page devoted to educating the public regarding parking - related matters. It is located at www.ci.alameda.ca.us/parkinq. Honorable Chair and November 6, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 5 of 6 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The operating and debt service repayment budget for the Civic Center Parking Structure approved by the City Council and CIC on August 7, 2007, is provided in Attachment 2, Tables 1 and 2. The proposed contract with Ampco for $124,582, including a ten percent contingency, is within the CIC's approved budget amount of $150,000 for a parking management company contract (see Attachment 2, Table 2). It is recommended that the remaining $25,000 unencumbered budget amount be maintained as an additional contingency for the first year of operation since the Civic Center Parking Structure represents the City's first opportunity to operate and manage a parking garage facility. 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 Approve a contract with Ampco System Parking in the amount of $124,682 for the management and operation of the Civic Center Parking Structure. RespectFu submitted, a- . Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Development Division v ,L._ v1,-,5A.L.... By: Eric Fonstein Economic Development Coordinator DK /LAL /DES /EF:ry Honorable Chair and November 6, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 6 of 6 Matthew T. Naclerio - lie -Ann o y er Public Works Director hief Financial Officer Attachments 1. Ampco Proposed Staffing Plan 2. Proposed Parking Structure Budget, Tables 1 and 2 0 0 N 0 L 0 V] CD cy) L c U .? -0 U v 0 E L co 0_ Q 0 4— � o E <0 TIME OF DAY a 0. o. M a M cy' v a. N L] 1 :v a 0) r co CL T ?, 0 0. N C O (0 N a CD ° 0 T N C T T c 0 cn c 0) 2 am C) [I] 1 r co 0 coo CCI CO CO c0 1 In J7 days per week janitorial service vJ a) yti C 0 c .v c cu c�v 0a ° z Q 0 0) .y 0) V -Q co 0 0 CO m z 0 D7 Dom., CU cb 0 ° ° 0 0)) Q4 ° c cts z o v e • N`b z '5 • ❑ C Q E v`° 0 `° Q co 0) a a] co a v -b 0) fl E c CD y.- 0) ° ❑ Cb b a () 0 • I v n' ro E 0 CD Ca n c c o ° v .� a Q 0 ,c m •�' b ccic lc aE L z ❑ v Q Attachment 1 to Q.�' Agenda Item #2 -B 11 -06.07 0 N 0 N a N CO 0 0 .� 0 N d REVENUES 0) 0 0 0 (.0 69 �° N- 0 o T 0 N cv co co c: 0 0 co r- r N- ti r N co Ca. G9 0 °d}- 00 00 CO 69 0) 0 0 (n CD o a o '- a a N 0 � r (O lU) (NO 6f} H`} G4 ' RI RI 0 a d' 0 co CO 0 0 0 0 CO sir cv a a r a o a cv a s (o r- r 7- LO tO ta 69 49 I, a 0 0 cv 0 0 a 0 0 cv GO 0 0 (n G o a 0 a o a c r a 0 cv Cr° - r M 69- RI RI r 00 OD CO cv o L r N C�7 0 0 (n a s a a 0 CD 0 cv sg 0 a a a 0 0 r a 0 a 0 N c r` 0 C7 0 o NI- (A- t (A. N N 69 ta- 0 (n 0 0 r a a a a 0 ‘7._ a s CO a o a a LO 0 0 (v (n 0 a co r-- ea r cv- ((0 0 69 GO- ta 0 N- 69 0) co Ga- Previous Year Fund Balance BEDI Funds(') a a 0 a a a a a 69 G 69- GM- a) a) co {0 E J 0 o) C C a) co . cv C m J , 0 v c o W a a) L 0 a 0 Ce U 2? C N L CD c}n a) E' _U •a z U EL U el- Historic Theater Retail Parking Revenues Cineplex Parking Validation Transferred Parking Meter Revenue Funds Occupancy and Permit Income r N 0 CO n 0 ti N cD CO u� r Os (1, f• 0) f• ti 1` M TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES LO m CO aX 'f 69 CNI co co N 1, 40 a CO CD CO 0 o CT (i7 r 00 0 0 ti © it - to to r 0 N CD 0 0 r 0 r o CO 40 CD t` (.D N r CO (0 0 N- ee M See Table 2 Operations and Maintenance Costs(4) HUD Section 108 Repayment 0) (NI CO TOTAL EXPENDITURES NET BALANCE ao 0 0 N t G) c -a w ] [a3 a) Q x co yN+ iJJ co 2 2 _. i 43 CO C a a) co V N O i- 2 E c w c rn (1] c ) ay c c a) O a] 'C ta D E oS `c. .g. 0 O cNj N D O L _c o m E. 2 a a) a m rn >, ° � '5 0) Q Q `} 2 U W Q m E c ° v i 0 cv 7 2 --q-g - O Q E : 4 - . ) E U g ca U a -O c m E -.E• m . v E E 0) al (7,T,' ) 3 w N 0 O U O N = v .O ''' c 0) o 09 o w : > _ H E a 5 a) -cp 0 •N a) N c L. a) N fn ay c E as , O= c 5 El U 4] m` v E o ❑ a E o E D 7 U LO I . flu o v ° Z cIC 0 co O O C ❑ - Attachment 2 to E. E,--_, i LE y Y Agenda Item #2 -fig 11-06-07 0) c =v W L co 0) To v N LL 0) � V L co o cp � a Q) ca L 0i 0 01 .V a � � C2 m La c (0 E i E °' co c 3 o c r _ ca co i-C< r 0 N N CD N 0) r N N CD N N N E 0) REVENUES CO 69 CO CO o 00 CO c,, , o CO CO 0 o T- (.6 rn r 0 a o o LO� °N' CO 0 CO CO CD 0 Co 0 r CD '4- a) 00 CO o a N c6 v a - o N o a) 0) r ' - r to to C 4 CO ea E, E9 E9 6Fr 69. 0 m anba N- o LO u, n CO CO N. o 6 Lo r o _o o C'I CO CO 0 r 64 C\J CO LO C\J 69- ea. bg Eft Ef} bg CO 69- CO r CO CO CO 6g CO C 0 0- 05 0 0 0 r ti Co r r u07 r v-i E9 (09. E9 0 0 o CO N- 00 0 CC 1 LO o o co CD o 0 o co o LO to rn ,- co - o GS 6 } � ta 6° 0 0 00 o0o 0 0 0 CD o r (6 (.6 0 CD 0 0 L!7 Ct In 0) r CO r 0) 0) N- 6° o o °C 9- CO h 0 0 CO 0 o 0 CO LO o 0 11) t� a g° rn co to co 69 6 ' us. 00 00 o0o 7- 00 0o N N- 0) 0) o 0) o Lc-) Do to Eft 69- 69. te 69- Previous Year Fund Balance BEDI Funds(1) N 0 a C N C v m J o 7 CI) S - N c [Cf o Q. 7 L 0 o} o TD d ~ X CO CZ . U 4] C Q] 0 a) (/5 c v _U o z U EL U a. Historic Theater Retail Income Parking Revenues Cineplex Parking Validation co C N M C Q CU Q o C CD co o re 0- C6 EL co N 0 o. so m C0 U C La in co a) 0 N co 0) 0 4 0 N wk Cr M Ili 0) 64 CO 0 0 (MD r r 0 ce c0 r M Lei r Ea CD NI- N el r Eri- 0 ti in N. TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES CO CO 0 CO_ 00) o eft 69 cr) co a) (0 CO 0) E 0) c(6 V 0) CO LO E9 CAD N (0 t-= co o CO N- co 01 0 0 01 CO 6{4 609- CO C\I n CO (0 CO C\I LO e9 69 Operations and Maintenance Costs(4) HUD Section 108 Repayment r 4 r 1` r 0 00 r fa r 401 N CO 1, in h csi N Tr 0) CO 40 fa r 0) co co r N ' 40 In 0) 0 N w h Fr) () co bg ccoo 0 0 r 0 co in b, co r ti 0) CI ., we i r 4 CO TOTAL EXPENDITURES NET BALANCE .- 0 .0 w o ° l4 ❑ c' m - E a) W a 0 w< 2 v E t2 m Q N O ? w C -a d ,1 E 2 j ) ❑ a) o❑ ❑ c m U "7 m ]- a C � c ❑ C i C l o ❑ T) It g d. N o O 6 z; -6 o N v i3, ❑ � n ° m a 0 ( 8 13 a w g. >_ -, = 0) O fl3 N TD N L a) ` cu C C V F ' C v r a) • In C [ri E p a) N ❑ >' E v E Jig 8 6 = g v 0 0- N G 7 oN ci , m m 0p 0] -,!). 2 (1) & 0 0 r cv E v ui c c W Cu H L � v L7 cr. ❑ ,„ 6. CLI co Gi a .� C] 2 C_ ti E L- E d H ❑ to �c < ti co 0 N N N N N N 0 0 REVENUES r r o a co a a s .1- ,4- CO 0 6g ~ oo N- 0 0 CO �t v) CA o a) 0 o co r N '- r r r 03 g C' +�} 6 69. Ni- ta E/ 6 6g 0 E4 • CO 069. N- 0) °a 00 C N u7 cV CO CO a o co �i C Li o 16 0 o cv C3] 0 N r r r 0 CD a N r r r 64 69- 6+4 03 64 69. 6+4 N 01 (79-- N o co CO 01 0 0 r 00 N- r o CV o o L6 LL) 0) N r r r 117 (0 0 r r r- r T- 03 03 U3 03 69 63 Q4 CO o 0 4 6 0 0 (0 0c000100 Cs C) N CO (00 0 ` O N 0 0 o a7 r co o ai a o o a) r r o r In f` 63 c93 0 CD 03 N N co CO CO co 0 0 0 C] r r- r 614 0J co 6+g 63 6+4 6g b4 69 03 6 - 0) Ea- I` 0) a a 't r co N co N- 0 a o - o cv o_ o c\1 Q7 r r r dg N C) 69- 69- 69- 03 04 03 03 Previous Year Fund Balance BEDI Funds(1) N a a) C C m J N D C CU L C o a 0 .c O rn O H TD ce .0 Ox) C cts N 0 CD CO C U 0 'ET 0 a. - o_ Historic Theater Retail Income Parking Revenues Cineplex Parking Validation 0 CO N V, ti a N N CO N I. r ti 0) 6 a) M 0 N d4 TOTAL REVENUES EXPENDITURES N 07 0 0) r CO- 6g CO N 01 N- 09- tn- (0 r N ((3 N- 09. 6Fr C o co- r ti co N- 69. 6+4 Operations and Maintenance Costs(4) HUD Section 108 Repayment N 0) N CO CO 0 r N r r — M ti a; r r - r u CO N MI 0* r 0 r TOTAL EXPENDITURES NET BALANCE D o o _ 0 ro 2 E fi cm 6 a a Q 2 co 0 m 0 N a, .5 i 0 c N (u C w C E U U_ aci a 5 E c 0 m Q - ❑ - N N 7 Q] E d] 01 E L ° ci c o- c c 8 y E as w ea .o_ co E o. rs- N N ` N c E N o N 0) .— m m E 0 in >, E v°_ ❑ ) c L °v m v v rli TD 03 ❑ N C 69 (3 ❑ E E E. v cn co ti a 0 L 0 0) P2P2 C N 0 ca y a) N 0) ui a) as L (.9 a) c L 6- a. 0t c a) 0 0 0 t ..+ 0 1 a c 0 0. x W 0 E li -I = CD 2 .-F_ ya 0 •- 0 `m a) 06 To #; c ca a= S 4; N as i-. W Q N 2 0 z 0 co Q [1) L a To c c Q >+ 0 2 E 2 0.25 FTE PW Supervisor inc. salary and benefits I` © N C3) :311 CD 0) s 1- ti ere Eft te c a o o a a o a co 0 (Doc. a cvi o o 05 L C., Lo e C\I ea. r El, 04 o QctICco Li" amLO ao N- LO CO RI o N N (r) N 64 a 0 r MI N r a) N to 2 part -time enforcement officers N- T- •,- CD 0 kfk oo N N ti Co 07 r CO 1,-: N-- a 1 69- 401 N 4» if) 0) - a Cei CO En- OW m v U > 4.1 0 a) a) 0? -I-e' L E U) CI) a) C M w a) CO a) 'a a) 2 cu co co 0) a) m E 0 08 C C E C P. to t 2 0 E— a E °- 0 o CD cn �+ E W+ •- C C as 'L " cli 0 03 C] o 0.0- � DCOQCJO ,2 W �V) 0 w 0 N TOTAL GARAGE EXPENDITURES (2) to N L c a) a x a) o a) c c0 T.) 0 (0 0 �E o L r 0 0 0 c v 0) c CQ U 00 0 ui N dg CO -0 c al a) 2 a) cu r v-. 0) 0 c co c a) .@ E c ca c 0 2 L a a) 12 L 0 0 x E 0 a) to D c (I) c IF_ c cu CL 0 E 0 r L a . @ � E 8 N 0 0 0 w co N 0 0 ca 0 co c Q 4-) r 0 N L ctl Q. E 0 0] L a) V) 0L) t 5c a) 0. x a) 0 a) co E N 0) s_ > 0 CON- (1) r o V- T a) a 0) p CL Q a 0 0 0 U3 2 L �.r 0.. N E N 0) co relevant parking structures in other jurisdictions on a per -space basis. CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Debra Kurita Executive Director Date: November 6, 2007 Re: Approve Lease with Alameda Wine Company for 2315 Central Avenue in the Historic Alameda Theater BACKGROUND In July 2006, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (CIC) acquired the Historic Alameda Theater, a 1930s movie palace containing a 484 -seat single - screen auditorium and approximately 2,550 square feet of leasable retail space. The CIC entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Alameda Entertainment Associates (AEA) to lease and operate the Alameda Theater in conjunction with the development of a seven- screen Cineplex. The two retail spaces in the Alameda Theater were not part of the DDA terms with AEA, and the CIC is responsible for leasing the spaces. In April 2007, the CIC issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for retailers interested in leasing the two retail spaces: 2315 Central Avenue, with approximately 700 square feet, and 2319 Central Avenue, with approximately 1,850 square feet. The RFQ included the leasing parameters reviewed and accepted by the Economic Development Commission in February 2007, which included a preference for a restaurant or food/beverage related use for the retail spaces. Alameda Wine Company was selected as the finalist for 2315 Central Avenue. DISCUSSION The RFQ for retailers was released on April 12, 2007. In conjunction with Main Street Property Services, a retail recruitment consulting firm, CIC staff mailed and emailed the RFQ to a number of restaurants, food/beverage retailers, and brokers in Alameda and throughout the region and actively pursued successful restaurants considered compatible with Park Street and a theater use. Five Statements of Qualification (SOQs) were received for 2315 Central Avenue. Each SOQ was reviewed and graded, and the two highest ranked retailers were asked to submit additional information, including a Letter of Intent (LOl), by June 13, 2007. Of the two finalists, Alameda Wine Company submitted a LOI, and the other decided the space was too small for their needs. Alameda Wine Company, LLC, proposes to use 2315 Central Avenue as a combination wine bar and retail store, with a menu that includes wines, microbrewed beers, nonalcoholic beverages, wine - friendly small plates, and desserts. The Alameda Wine CC /CIC Agenda Item #2 -C 11-06-07 Honorable Chair and November 6, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 3 Company offers a unique, upscale addition to the Park Street Business District, compatible with a theater and entertainment district. In addition the use combines with other late evening Park Street tenants to offer opportunities for Theater patrons and shoppers to extend their day in the business district. The design will include quality finishes in keeping with the Art Deco style of the theater. The proposed lease with the Alameda Wine Company includes terms standard to restaurant retail leases and contains several provisions to ensure that both operating parameters and rental income will meet CIC objectives. The lease includes a base rent of $3.00 per square foot, with three percent annual increases during the initial term of five years. In addition, the CIC will receive percentage rent of ten percent once gross sales surpass a certain threshold. The lease provides for two five -year options with the rent reset to fair market rent at the beginning of each option term. The lease also requires that the Alameda Wine Company serve food, and remain open seven days per week from at least 11:00 am to 10:00 pm, with very minimal closures for holidays. A copy of the lease is on file at the City Clerk's office. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The CIC will receive approximately $133,800 in rental income from the first five -year term of the lease with Alameda Wine Company, plus any percentage rent. Rent will be reset to market rent if the tenant exercises its option to extend in Year Six. Lease proceeds will be used for operating and debt service payments for the new Civic Center Parking Structure. Revenue from this lease is consistent with the operating and debt service repayment budget approved by the CIC and City Council on August 7, 2007. The CIC will deliver the retail space to the tenant in a condition somewhat below a "cold shell." The space will include certain furniture, fixtures and equipment totaling $30,000, which will be paid for from the Historic Alameda Theater contingency budget as a tenant improvement credit. This allocation is within the current contingency budget for the project. There is no impact on the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 — Action B1.0 — Renovate /restore Alameda Theater. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City of Alameda completed CEQA review of the Historic Alameda Theater project and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on May 3, 2005. This review is final and conclusive, and was upheld by the Alameda County Superior Court on June 30, 2006. RECOMMENDATION Approve Lease with Alameda Wine Company for 2315 Central Avenue in the Historic Alameda Theater. Honorable Chair and November 6, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 3 Respectful! submitted, Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Development Division By: Rachel Silver Development Manager, Housing DKILALIDES /RS:ry CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Debra Kurita Executive Director Date: November 6, 2007 Re: Approve Lease with BurgerMeister Management, Inc. for 2319 Central Avenue in the Historic Alameda Theater BACKGROUND In July 2006, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (CIC) acquired the Historic Alameda Theater, a 1930s movie palace containing a 484 -seat single- screen auditorium and approximately 2,550 square feet of leasable retail space. The CIC entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with Alameda Entertainment Associates (AEA) to lease and operate the Alameda Theater in conjunction with the development of a seven - screen Cineplex. The two retail spaces in the Alameda Theater were not part of the DDA terms with AEA, and the CIC is responsible for leasing the spaces. In February 2007, the Economic Development Commission accepted leasing parameters that included a preference for a restaurant or food /beverage- related use for the retail spaces. BurgerMeister Management, Inc. proposes to enter into a lease with the CIC in order to open a family- oriented, sit -down, gourmet hamburger restaurant at 2319 Central Avenue. DISCUSSION BurgerMeister Management, Inc. proposes to open the fifth location of its award-winning gourmet hamburger restaurant at 2319 Central Avenue in the Historic Alameda Theater. BurgerMeister currently operates at three San Francisco locations and in the Westlake Shopping Center in Daly City. Its hamburgers are made with all - natural Niman Ranch beef, and it also serves chicken, turkey, and veggie burgers, soups, salads, hot dogs, and sides such as fries and onion rings, as well as shakes and ice cream for dessert (Attachment 1, sample menu). BurgerMeister will make substantial investment in providing attractive, high - quality tenant improvements for the Alameda Theater space. The proposed lease with BurgerMeister includes terms standard to restaurant retail leases and contains several provisions to ensure that both operating parameters and rental income will meet CIC objectives. The lease includes a base rent of $3.25 per square foot, with three percent annual increases during the initial term of ten years. In addition, the CIC will receive a 6% percentage rent once gross sales surpass a certain threshold. The lease provides for two five -year options with the rent reset to fair market CC/CIC Agenda Item #2 -D 11-06-07 Honorable Chair and November 6, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 3 rent at the beginning of each option term. The lease also requires that BurgerMeister remain open seven days per week from at least 1 1:00 am to 10:00 pm Sunday through Thursday and until 11:00 pm on Friday and Saturday. BurgerMeister will request a use permit to stay open as late as midnight on weeknights and to 2:00 am on weekends. There will be very minimal closures for holidays. A copy of the lease is on file at the City Clerk's office. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The CIC will receive approximately $827,'100 in rental income from the first ten -year term of the lease with BurgerMeister, plus any percentage rent. Rent will be reset to market rent if the tenant exercises its option to extend in Year 11. Lease proceeds will be used for operating and debt service payments for the new Civic Center Parking Structure. Revenue from this lease is consistent with the operating and debt service repayment budget approved by the CIC and City Council on August 7, 2007. The CIC will deliver the retail space to the tenant in a "cold shell" condition. The space will include certain furniture, fixtures and equipment totaling $75,000 to $'100,000, to equal one-fifth of total tenant improvement costs, which will be paid for from the Historic Alameda Theater budget contingency as a tenant improvement credit. The tenant estimates that the total cost of improvements will be between $375,000 and $500,000. This allocation is within the current contingency budget for the project. There is no impact on the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 — Action B1.0 — Renovate /restore Alameda Theater. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City of Alameda completed CEQA review of the Historic Alameda Theater project and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration on May 3, 2005. This review is final and conclusive, and was upheld by the Alameda County Superior Court on June 30, 2006. RECOMMENDATION Approve Lease with BurgerMeister Management, Inc. for 2319 Central Avenue in the Historic Alameda Theater. Respec { u i� ubmitted, Leslie A. Little Development Services Director Honorable Chair and November 6, 2007 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 3 By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Development Division ,,„_e#,./,,I By: Rachel Silver Development Manager, Housing DKILALIDES /RS:ry Attachments 1. BurgerMeister Sample Menu LY�i • "'rr'f: w i� _ _. iss- rr�:,, y Y r� % i e% s . ''`L 7 ��..�� : r r"sJ: "��/a J.r_ :••M1, � ! f+• -yi' J• . fir' - � ar {• �' " -77 - �� 7'•,'.: f: •.+ �� f _.yr,.ar 1r .:Gx. �i:..+- 1N:.. -T^R• f Yb. -fi. '!.• -a• z .r v' x ... �+,n •r•� ".� fir. }� +; �•.� L - �•: .��•,c�� ^rJ• -f �- �L' ?�:x��. big. v5� •:T..Y.,L:::]S.a'F"�•1+.: -r�. G`FU�.:?F.- i.....e.. r. ...- .- ...�.. �..- `i+i.� �• -�a�•• ..�.. -..� .. ...- ._...��...��. � .�...� ��...... .ter•.. ti:,;:x -, Awards & Recognition THE FOOD NETWORK Top Three Nominee for Better Burger 2007 BEST OF CITY SEARCH www.citysearcl-i .cone 2006 VOTED 5 STARS hi "LILA PICKS "TES As a Baby Friendly Restaurant The Lill Guide, SF Bay Arca 2006 www.lilaguide.com BE;T OUR TER ?; r l V\i c:1:1 2007, ;'(fit)(; BEST BURGERS Best of SF 2006, Editors Ciloicc -SI' Wcckly 200(F BEST HAMBURGER and FRIES Best U1- Hi, Bay 2006 S l Pay Guardian. 20( }6 7th BEST BURGER Tilt' 10 lies( of I'.lrc'_11x,.11111i BEST BURGER Best of Food Issue San Francisco Northsidc 2006 BEST BURGER Best of SF 2005, Reader's Poll -SF Weekly. 2005 BEST BURGER Best of Food Issue San Francisco Northsidc 2005 BEST OF YAHOO! :';1,, VOTE[:: B ES t OF_ YELP v ww.vctp.co11; 20('', SAN FRANCISCO'S BEST RESTAURANT for FIAM13URGERS SAN FRANCISC :C }'`, BEST 20t)1 Tip. 1 -.x a n d 111 c:1 200,1 SAN FRANCISCO CITY'S BEST BURGERS Ail C :Iry' : Best' 2004 -A01. C: i ry g l t id c 2(00,1 BEST EXPANSION hcv LOCAL BURGER JOINT BurgerMeister is proud to serve Niman Ranch Beef! Niivali Ranch produces the finest tasting meat in the world by adhering to a strict code of husbandry principles. Livestock are humanely treated, fed the purest natural feeds, never given growth hormones or stab- therapeutic antibiotics, and raised on land that is cared for as a sustainable resource. All of us at BurgerMeister are dedicated to providing our guests with the best quality burgers & the highest standards of service. Your Comments and Suggestions are Always Welcomel Email me direct ® Isaac @burgernieistersf.com • • 7 a, LLLSiJ cu,ra, bLLLL Welcome to BurgerMeister. Paul Mogannam and his family at BurgerMeister are proud to serve beef which is not tainted by chemicals and filler. This San Francisco family owned and operated business uses only the finL'st quality natural beef provided by the famous Niman Ranch located in Maria County in Northern California. 86 Carl Street (415) 566 -1 274 Sall F ran ci co, CA 99117 Monday- Sunday: 11:00 AM - 10:00 PM Now Serving; Brunch! (l larn -2prn) 138 Church Street (415) 4 37 -2874 San Francisco, CA 94114 Monday - Sunday: 11 :00 AM - 11:00 PM 759 Columbus @ Filbert (415) 296 -9907 San Francisco, CA 94133 Monday - Sunday: 11:00 AM - 11:00 PM Now Serving Brunch! (llam -2pm) 507 Westlake Center (6S0) 755 --1941 Daly City, CA 94015 (Final us 011 the Main Drag between Verizon and Strings) Monday - Sunday: 11:00 AM - 11:00 PM www.burgermeistersf.com CC/C1C Attachment to ,.. r.. :::51512M7:41. Agenda item #2 -D #a �i7 ti 11r '• r. 11-06-07 • ME STERBUR GERS All of Our Patties are 1/2 lb Niman Ranch Beef, Raised Naturally and With Care. All Orders. Below Server/ w/ Lettuce., limit:toes. Onions. Picklac and Choice of: French cl r Frie.s. CoLesinw. or Spring Salad A ILv f.rppr'rrrlre ro: Roasted Garlic: Fries, Chili Fries. (anion Rings /ur 1.85. ,Sell.~ orre(J Curly Pries, Roasted Garlic Curly Fries. ies. Chili Curly 1• ries for Hambu rger (1'2 lh. ]vincur Ranch Beef Cheesebu rger (Choice of Cheddar, Jack, 8.75 MEISTER SPECIALTIES 9.45 Pepper Jack, Bleu, Swiss, a'• White American) Double Cheesebu rger...1 1.95 (GL'iNT 1 1/ 1i'' 1)OUhle Cheddar ( 'house) Bacon Cheeseburger ....9.95 (.1I/ 1 rrlrrrrll • :I/)1)Ir'1i•r)r1r1.S1Nr11 ►rerl li( ?('1)11 ti• ('Irrerlrlrrl•[ 'Irrer' -ti r'1 Avocado Cheeseburger 9.95 (1..? . 11'1 cad rt' ('header,- ('Jrr'e.tr'r Mushroom & Onion Burger 9.85 (S(,utc'cc(I r1- /ushrrlrinr.ti S. beer/ Onions) Tile M eisi.er Burger 12.85 ( /,1 ►rr-+�1lrirrs; l irrr ycer• with .Ivor :talc,, lirrr'rtrr. ,11rr.s /rr7)rlrrr. (Minns oral vow. Ounce (1/ (71c►cese Pepper .lock. Blceu..Svi'l.s,s, r[ 1.1'lrrh' 1!7u'/1c :1url Chili Burger 9.85 (!'llill C:rJlr ('urn(' '/1/'.1•.11' (L. (i ►nrr ari rl liricer Rir7i cr- r,ir'r►`ri►lci11 J1•r►Jllr ►l II lr►1,- 1ItOw( /;►•r'rr':r r 1, H !rr►lr' lT lIr'r ?r lilrrr► Garden Burger. 7.45 r 7111 • ( I r't•c'Irr►'1(111 l `1111 t ,51'11 r 1 r' rill (1 1I70)1c' 11•1rlerrt /8111) Bocca Burger 11 c'i~'rrrr 1'rr!!�' .envier/ nit r1 11 •l roll' I f 'hem lira, r Philly Cheese Steak 9.85 (N(I7u•a1 l inr lnrr r Round Meal eal 1lritlr Sauteed , %117 r.sh r(1r)n r,S• c1' Oniony. Red Peppers ci C_'lrcese! Phil ly Chicken & Cheese...9.85 Ill Natural Free R(rr7ge. Chicken lir&casr With ,Su1.rt(r.•[:l ►1lrr.tlrrr,rlrrr.s (t� f)rrion.s. Red Peppers ct. ('lrcecesri Grilled Chicken Brea st . , ...8.75 r. I1/ \ (111(1(11 l• lirr)r�r' . /Il('J+r•nl l;r•rrrr.:r .1 /111,,urlr.rl 1; 11' (;rrr'lIr rt l.c'1lrrn .lrrlc-r'. ,Sr'rVc'(l 1)11 rr 11 'huh' II'llrut I1?I?11 Strips & Chips .8.95 (sir ,Scerl.w»7cerl Strips ,S'cen'rear 11itlr !' rice.~ 11111/ ,511111• Fish Sandwich 9.15 (1s(,trerter.lPollock Fish Served ►+ 1 • nerlc :lr Fries) Fish & Chips ........9.15 11Srrrrcen J Pollock Fish ,Sren r'rl 11' 1'.r10.c r1lnrl,Slrr1i'1 R1I1r[ll(� V \'II1�1- _.- 11.1):'. •. [3.?^ rr 'rr ►lrr r ►,1 1►rnrr•i? rlr ! ?Jr , 4 5.65 I;lr•rJ [ lrr'1'.�r llnc'lsllrl►+ 1 L.1- r RR.IS Ilt� r� '► lI1uI Ifs? I 6.95 ( 111 \ rr?1rr•r1I. I /) /flr'I' fun','i111111,1'ri 1,r1r7)11 11.11 /? 1.011111',' r11r,1 r►1r11r11,, 1101i1 10111+ 7.45 Grilled 1-lam & Cheese...7.45 �. I f3 /)11'1ir1r1ei+5171(1 /ir'.r/ NUM, !Scel1'cer 1 run (1 Ron i Portobello Burger ......7.85 ((;1. I 11'1 1'r,l•rr rlrcalrr [ i 1•illcer:l it, 1'c ►r/ceC :1101r ,Srrn'cetl with iinmcelrrrrrlc Roasted uastced li ecI !' c' /met. 11 'am. Served on rr Whole Wheal Brim TROPICAL BURGERS Pineapple Burger 9.45 (upped 11,..; Four Slices o f Grilk'd Pineapple Served W llnrr1enrudc' Tropical Salsa) Mango Burger 9.75 (Topped with Mang() Slices Sauteed in Garlic. & Cilantro, Sensed 1+ri11r Honienuadce 7 ropical Salsa) z.� I-1 otdug 7.35 ((i /.• 1 •\ l 1 2 /l).. 1 /1 li1.c'I•/ Ir)rcl(i.. on 1ir)I11 Chilidog 8.15 /GLINT 1 2 11), Ail i)L't' /11r11 (it ),,Irl/)/)c►r/ w- ('bill ( ( 'aria.. ()rrirnr.5. rt. ( 'Jrtees(' served oil (1 Roll) Hotlink 6.75 (Spicy Il otlink Sen,ed rrr rr Sesame Roll) * Our Fr'ing Oil Contains Zero 7 rain~ -Fai and is completely N oar- IIvdrr),ter_natced SIDE ORDERS French Fries 2.95 Roasted Garlic Fries 3.75 Chili Fries 4.25 Onion Rings (Beer Ilatierzd)5.45 Seasoned Curly Fries .3.15 Roasted Garlic Curly Fries 3.95 Chili Curly Fries.. .3.95 Coleslaw Mil udre Fresh! In11r 11 ..3.55 Pineapple ( l +r)r11-Cir- llkrc7Slic.'e.0.1.75 Mango 1.95 (Sauteed w. C'atrium) EXTRAS - - Cheese 0.95 Grilled Onions 0.95 Sauteed Mushroom 1.45 Bacon, 2 Slices 1.75 (.4/1 Natural A pplewood Smoked) Avocado 1.75 SALADS 41: S�7JP Spring Nlix 6.45 (,Spr -ing A Ir.r it" 70171010re.V. ( %11111115', rt' 1t•I1!5 /r1•rlr117r.S) Meister Salad 8.75 (Spring A In- ti 701rrrr(1c.S, f Jrrir)rr5. .I /?? d?rrlrlrrr.\ rt'. ('holr :r' of 1'.!V( 1(rrlr1'c ( 'lrir'l;r ►rr /111'11.5-[ 1 rr1•kc't'I)rrr•y,'!: ,11►•rl1111111rl_1r','- 1;►1r :r:r1l,r1f.,r•1• r ►r• 11rin0r1,11.1,,, . Clam Chowder-..... ....5.45 Chili 5.45 .7+,? sY.al (,1r'?1'r'r1 111 ti 1i1i'rlrl1;r11i1, ?.Sr'r�'r'r1 rrr ►? lirr'rrr11;(11i"1 hipped (11)rr11r,, MEIS i EI. I:IDS Our Kid Patties are 1 /A IEt. Nirnari Ranch Beef .1/1 A irl ', ,Sf)r'r•rrrlV •Sr'r1'r'rl 1s•-. 1•r•r■!nr•i• /•rrr'... ► rl ?f'.irrrl i 11 . F17!1? ' .Srliat! .ti Ir.'. MILKSHAKES Featuring .. Iii'urd Idrirririlr� ICE CREAM SAN FRANCISCO Vanilla Chocolate Strawberry Pumpkin (Seasonal) Eggnog (Seasonal) Shakes '/6 a :.a. 5.25 Malts (1 t) r)::..) 5.45 Root Beer Floats 5.25 (.,f)prrlrlr rr;: lcr)rr.vrr.r1 +,nr fir• 1.1.11 ";. Llriir I•rrre.s. union kings 1.85. icwasorrrr/ 1..11/11 'aril(' L.Nr /7' 1•rie: :. Chili curly 1•rie.v jar 51,(1(1 Hamburger 5.75 Cheeseburger 6.59 Grilled Cheese 5.45 welled Cheddar on a Sesame Roll) Kid's Hotdog 5.45 Kid's Strips & Chips 5.4 5 (Three Seasoned Chicken Strip.sj FOUNTAIN DRINKS (1' rev ... .. _ .. x.15 Pepsi 1 Diet Pepsi Pin': Lemonade Mug Root Beer Raspberry Ice Tea Mountain Dew Dr. Pepper Sierra Mist Ice Tea BEEP. ON TAP (im port% . i irro.v) t/ (Jr'f•i' ' , r)1' ' 1 1'111 .� ►r'','!!; + • MI Wrr. (.S r•r'i'rrl in all 11.3 • ( '(11(1 (ti,) .... 4.3:s Stella Artois Sierra Nevada Anchor Steam I-le eweizen Fat Tire P rohibition WINE Cabernet Sauvignon Chardonnay Meriot UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - - OCTOBER 16, 2007 --- - - 6:50 p . m . Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson -- 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (07- ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54953.9) ; Name of Case: Mikiten v. City of Alameda, et al. Following the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a brief on the status of this litigation. (07- ) Mayor Johnson stated that Council met in Closed Session on October 9, 2007 with its City Attorney to discuss the status of the Harbor Bay Isle Association (HBIA) v. City of Alameda lawsuit and a potential settlement of the lawsuit; the Council approved a settlement of the lawsuit; a copy of the written settlement agreement is on file in the City Clerk's office; the settlement agreement resolves this litigation; the settlement provides that the maximum number of residential units that HBIA may have the potential to develop is 3,200 per the 1989 Development Agreement; the settlement also provides that the proposed Village 6 project constitutes a minor amendment of the 1989 Development Agreement and that, therefore, no impact fees or exactions beyond those in place in 1989 will be applicable to the Village 6 project, pursuant to the 1989 Development Agreement; because the 1989 Development Agreement preceded the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, the proposed Village 6 project is not required to develop affordable housing on the site; HBIA will make a voluntary contribution of $1 million to the City's low and moderate income housing fund, and make a $500,000 contribution to a fund for the maintenance of Harbor Bay Parkway; this settlement agreement does not approve the Village 6 project and it does not commit the Council to any future legislative action; the proposed Village 6 project must sill go through the normal public review process, including review of an Environmental Impact Report, consideration of a General Plan amendment and rezoning from commercial to residential use. Special Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2007 Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7 :15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2007 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - OCTOBER 16- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular city Council Meeting at 8:43 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 None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Approving the Prioritized List [paragraph no. 07- ] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Matarrese 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 and Regular City Council Meetings held on October 2, 2007 and the Special City Council Meeting held on October 9, 2007. Approved. ( *07- ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,517,098.14. ( *07- ) Recommendation to accept the work of Pacific Trenchless, Inc., for the Cyclic Sewer Repair Project, No. P.W. 0 5 - 0 3 -11. Accepted. ( *07- ) Recommendation to approve an agreement with the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency for signal timing on Constitution Way to Lincoln Avenue, increase appropriations and appropriate grant funds of $100,000 in Transportation Fund for Clean Air Funding. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2007 1 ( *07-- ) Resolution No. 14148, "Approving the Development Plan and Time Schedule for the Sewer System Management Plan as Adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board." Adopted. (07- ) Resolution No. 14149, "Approving the Prioritized List of Projects for Consideration in the 2008 Countywide Transportation Plan." Adopted. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the prioritized list includes bike and pedestrian projects. The City Engineer responded bike projects are included in the City's Bike Plan; stated a certain amount of money is allocated to each of the planning areas and is applied to bike projects; the Cross Alameda Trail Project is included in the Countywide Bike Plan. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Plan has a list of prioritized projects. The City Engineer responded projects are prioritized through the Congestion Management Agency (CMA); stated Alameda has approximately 12% of the high priority projects and has less than 3% of the total East Bay Area projects. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council would be approving the City's list of priorities tonight. The City Engineer responded Council would be approving the projects that would go on the Countywide Transportation Plan, not the Bike Plan. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Cross Estuary Project is included on the [County's] list. The City Engineer responded in the negative; stated the Bike Plan will be coming to Council in the next year or so; Council will have the opportunity to look at projects within the City Bike Plan; a list will be forwarded to the County once the City's Bike Plan is prioritized. Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *07- ) Resolution No. 14150, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 October 16, 2007 from Versatile Information Products of Riverside, California Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter for Puma Software Management System." Adopted. ( *07- ) Introduction of ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing and Amending Various Sections of Article I (Parking Lots) and Article II (On Street Parking Meter Zones) of Chapter XII (Designated Parking) and Adding a Definition Section (Section 12 -0) Applicable to All Articles to Provide for the Regulation of Public Parking Surface Lots and Parking Structures Administered by the City of Alameda. Introduced. ( *07- ) Ordinance No. 2973, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Revising Various Sections of Chapter II (Administration), Chapter VIII (Traffic, Motor Vehicles and Alternative Transportation Modes), and Chapter XII (Designated Parking) to Modify the Transportation Commission's Purpose and Authority." Finally passed. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (07- ) Public Hearing regarding financing for Shinsei Gardens Apartments under the requirements of the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; (07- A) Resolution No. 14151, "Approving, Authorizing and Directing the Execution of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority." Adopted; and (07- B) Resolution No. 14152, "Approving the Issuance of Tax - Exempt Bonds by the California Municipal Financing Authority for a Limited Partnership to be Established by Resources for Community Development or an Affiliate Thereof, with Respect to a Multi- Family Apartment Project." Adopted. The Development Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired what would happen in the case of default. The Development Manager responded Resources for Community Development (RCD) and tax credit sponsors would be responsible. Mayor Johnson inquired what would happen to the housing units. The Development Manager responded that the financing documents would give rights to various funding sources; stated typically, the City puts itself in a position to step in and resolve issues. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2007 3 Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would have the opportunity to approve a new operator, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Operation Dignity would be entitled to operate the project from year 15 to 59. The Development Manager responded in the affirmative; stated Operation Dignity's role in year one through 15 would be limited because of tax credit funding that the City would pursue; the project would become Operation Dignity's responsibility in year 15. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would approve a new operator if something happened to Operation Dignity. The Development Manager responded the long -term lease would allow the City to approve a new operator. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what would happen if RCD and/or the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) did not have the wherewithal to repay the bonds and whether the City's reputation or credit rating would be affected. The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated the motivation would be to ensure that there was a successful operator with available resources. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the City wants to be involved in and make sure that the housing project has resources; however,she does not want to see the City become financially responsible or have its credit rating or reputation flawed if the project goes belly up in three years. The Development Manager stated numerous financing sources would be concerned that the project would continue to operate successfully; opportunities would be available to review the books and not be surprised. John Stoecker, CMFA Financial Advisor, stated CMFA's name would be on the bond, not the City's; RCD would be responsible for repayment, not the City. Vice Mayor Tam inquired how CMFA's bonds are guaranteed; further inquired who backs the funding sources. Mr. Stoecker responded the bond is a private activity bond; stated the repayment is solely from RCD; CMFA does not give the funds; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 October 16, 2007 funds are given from a private investor; City Group is the lender for the bonds; there is multi layer financing through tax credit and soft money; qualified institutional buyers are lending the funds for the bonds. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the documents clearly state that the City's contribution is $4 million. Mr. Stoecker responded the documents are not complete; stated standard documentation states that the bonds are payable solely by RCD; there is no State, County, or City obligation. Mayor Johnson inquired who would be managing the construction. Mr. Stoecker responded RCD; stated RCD is a very well respected firm. Mayor Johnson inquired whether RCD's projects have been on time and on or under budget. The Development Manager responded RCD was selected by the City in 2002 to develop the 52 -unit and 10-unit Bayport project; stated both projects were completed on time and on budget. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed project would be design - build, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated that the City needs to be clear that someone else would have to find the money if there is a shortfall at the end. The Development Manager stated that RCD understands the City's funding limits; all financing documents are separate. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would not fund operation, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated it is important that the City has the ability to make sure that anyone considered to operate the project has adequate funding and management skills if there is a change in management or operation. Councilrnember Gilmore inquired whether the City's remedy would be to give consent to a new construction entity and operator with adequate financing if RCD did not have enough funds to pay the bond obligation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2007 5 The Development Manager responded the decision is not solely the City's; stated the City would have to go to the major f inancers ; all parties would be motivated to find an operator. Mayor Johnson stated it is important to clearly state that the City cannot be looked to for additional money. The Development Manager stated additional language could be added to the Owner Participation Agreement that further clarifies the City's obligation to the project. Mayor Johnson stated the agreement needs to state that the City's contribution is $4 million, period. Councilmember deHaan stated that staff should consult with the City Attorney and come back with a locked, tight agreement; questioned whether timing was a concern. The Development Manager stated that the City's $4 million commitment is made in a very clear resolution and is on the books; staff is looking for authorization to use CMFA to release the bonds; RCD needs to submit an application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee by November 5. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the commitment to the project started with the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) adopting a resolution committing up to $4 million to the project; the City is first in line to have the $4 million reduced if RCD is successful in bundling other money; RCD will be going to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board; an application has been submitted to the County for Home Funds; the schedule is ambitious. Mayor Johnson inquired when Council would have the opportunity to review operation Dignity's management requirements. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded some of the management requirements are exhibits to the settlement agreement approved last year; stated a lot of protections are included; the Owner Participation Agreement would reiterate the City's maximum $4 million commitment and stipulate that the City's commitment decreases first if other funding sources are identified. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he feels the two resolutions are fine; additional City protection could be in the third WHEREAS of the resolution approving the Joint Powers Agreement; a qualifying statement could be added to say that allocation of an amount not to exceed $4 million is the qualifier for the City's participation in the 39 -unit project. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2007 6 Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated that she does not have a problem with the financing stream; all entities need to be aware that the City's commitment is $4 million, the City will not be on the hook for any overruns, and that the City's funds are the first returned if RCD finds additional funds. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the approved resolution includes said language; the language can be introduced in the Owner Participation Agreement when said agreement comes back to Council. Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have the City Attorney advise on the matter. The City Attorney stated that there would be no possibility that the City would have any residual liability to pay back the bonds; the bonds are privately issued bonds; the City would not be the borrower or the issuer. Mayor Johnson inquired what is the project's total budget. The Development Manager responded the total construction cost is approximately $16 million; $25 million touches the project over the course of the financing because of the construction and permanent financing flow. Mayor Johnson inquired whether $16 million is for construction, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether $16 million is a comfortable amount, to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolutions with Councilmember Matarrese's proposed language regarding the $4 million cap. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam amended the motion with direction that 1) explicit language be added to the agreement that stipulates the City would not be responsible for repayment of the principal and prepayment premium as noted in Section 4 and 2) language be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 October 16, 2007 added to the resolution regarding the $4 million cap related to the issuance of the tax exempt bond as part of the Joint Powers Agreement. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the added language would boot strap the two resolutions sufficiently. Councilmember Gilmore amended the motion to include that future documents prominently indicate that the $4 million be returned first. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote -5. (07- ) Resolution No. 14153, "Encouraging the Oakland City Council to Revoke the Union Pacific Railroad Permit for the Fruitvale/Glascock Spur." Adopted. The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson thanked staff for working on the issue and keeping Council informed. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he attended a meeting hosted by Oakland Council President De la Fuente at the Fruitvale Transit Village; fifty or sixty people attended; a lot of questions are unanswered; serious problems in getting on and off the Island could result from running trains across the spur; contacting federal Representative Pete Stark and senators would be worthwhile to have them understand the City's predicament. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Union Pacific Railroad has been in communications with the City of Oakland. The Deputy City Manager responded the City of Oakland tried to contact the Railroad; stated that she does not know whether the City of Oakland has been successful. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is supportive of the resolution; the resolution should be communicated to the Union Pacific Railroad. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Kernighan's office is involved. The Deputy city Manager responded in the negative; stated the issue does not affect Councilmember Kernighan's district; President De La Fuente's staff advised her that Councilmember's are respectful of issues going on in individual districts and thought that Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 October 16, 2007 Councilmembers would be supportive of Council President De La Fuente's efforts. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City could contact another agency regarding environmental review rather than piggybacking on Oakland's coattails since railroads are governed by federal law. The City Engineer responded the Surface Transportation Board (STB) handles environmental reviews; the question is whether a change on a spur line is under STP's jurisdiction anymore. Councilmember Gilmore stated coordinating with Oakland is good but she does not like the idea of leaving the City's fate in another city's hands. Councilmember Matarrese stated Council requested that the City Attorney's office review the issue initially; requested a report on the matter. The City Attorney stated she would provide a report in Closed Session. Councilmember deHaan stated that he is happy the City of Alameda is working with the City of Oakland; the City has not been as active as it should have been on some other projects. Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (07- ) Dave Needle, Fernside Home Owners Association /CLASS Board Member; submitted handout; stated that he is disappointed in Council's actions regarding the Harbor Bay Isle Association settlement agreement; Council was fully aware of the significant community interest in the development; Council pushed through a quick, barely legally noticeable settlement meeting. (07- ) David Howard, Alameda; provided handout; stated KitchenDemocracy.org announced its expansion into Alameda with a forum on the question of whether development plans for Alameda Point should be decided exclusively by Alameda residents and politicians; residents and politicians are invited to learn about and provide feedback on the controversial issue by going to www.kitchendemocracy.org; Kitchen Democracy is intended to augment Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 October 16, 2007 the traditional ways that residents and elected officials interact; Oakland, Berkeley, and Kensington residents and elected officials have used Kitchen Democracy as one of many ways to openly discuss community issues; Alameda Point development is a huge issue; the decision process is especially controversial because of the potential impact on the region. Mayor Johnson inquired whether elected officials are writing regarding the matter. Mr. Howard responded in the affirmative; stated the purpose of the forum is to allow elected officials to post an issue and solicit feedback. Mayor Johnson inquired whether elected officials solicit feedback but do not engage in the conversation; further inquired whether anyone has looked into Brown Act issues. Mr. Howard responded that he would. ask Kitchen Democracy about Brown Act issues. Mayor Johnson stated there could be Brown Act violations if more than one Councilmember participates in the discussion. (07- ) The following speakers discussed the animal shelter: Kathy Marks, Alameda; Mary Sutter, Alameda; Jim Gotelli, Alameda; Daniel Mosso, Alameda; Kate Beck, Alameda; Judy Brock, Berkeley; Donny Chu, Alameda; Howard Goldberg, Berkeley; Christa Nicholas, Alameda (provided handout) . The Police Chief provided a brief report on the matter. Councilmembers requested certain information and suggested the matter be placed on a future agenda for discussion. (07- ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed care giving. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (07- ) Consideration of the Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Civil Service Board, Golf Commission, and Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Mayor Johnson nominated Peter Horikoshi for appointment to the Civil Service Board and Jeff Wood for appointment to the Golf Commission and continued the nomination to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2007 10 Mayor Johnson stated that Lee Perez has been the representative and has indicated that he would like to continue; a representative from the Planning Board has missed a couple of meetings. Councilmember Matarrese stated whoever gets appointed to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee needs to report back to Council. The Assistant City Manager stated the Planning Board selected a member to serve; said member is charged to report back to the Planning Board regarding activities of the committee. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff could be tasked to provide a summary, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the development of Alameda Point depends on the understanding of the settlement with Chinatown. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 16, 2007 11 November 1, 2007 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: This is to certify that the claims listed on the check register and shown below have been approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers 20301 9 - 203623 EFT 429 EFT 430 EFT 431 EFT 432 Void Checks: 127990 140923 148986 149881 149986 150675 154542 1 59989 20 1579 201879 202277 202693 202699 202712 203039 203041 GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Council Warrants 11/06/07 Amount $3,355,023.84 $25,632.34 $16,240.80 $113,285.08 $201,381.71 ($60.71) ($35.00) ($500.00) • ($839.92) ($285.00) ($496.47) ($105.30) ($300.00) ($1,621.85) ($782.00) ($175.00) ($782.00) ($730.32) ($785.32) ($3,029.64) ($63.89) $3,700,971.35 BILLS #4 -B 11/6/2007 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: November 6, 2007 Re: Approve Amendment No. 5 to the Alameda County Emergency Dispatch Consortium Mutual Aid Agreement to Assign the Rights and Obligations of the Regents of the University of California to Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC BACKGROUND on January 16, 2002, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California ( "LLNL "), the County of Alameda, and the City of Alameda (the "Parties ") entered into a Consortium Agreement ( "Agreement ") to establish, fund, and operate the Consolidated Dispatch Center for Consortium Members at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ( "Center"). The members of the consortium are the City of Alameda, City of Fremont, City of Union City, Alameda County Fire Department, Camp Parks Fire Department, and the Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency. The recently remodeled Center provides fire and emergency medical dispatch services and support communication services to members of the Consortium. The Center also functions as the Alameda County Office of Emergency Services mutual aid coordinator, coordinating resources of all fire departments in times of disaster or major emergency. DISCUSSION Until September 30, 2007, the University of California Regents had both administered and operated the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory on behalf of the Department of Energy (DOE). Following a bidding process, the DOE awarded the new contract to the Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC ( "LLNS "), an entity not affiliated with the University of California; that contract became effective October 1, 2007. The purpose of Amendment 5 is to assign the rights and obligations of the Regents of the University of California under the Agreement to LLNS. Article XVII of the Agreement, as amended in Amendment 2, allows the assignment of this Agreement to City Council Agenda Item #4 -C 11 -06 -07 Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 LLNS with the following provision: "This Consortium Agreement or any interest therein will not be assigned or transferred by the Parties, except the University of California may transfer to the U.S. Department of Energy, or its designee, with notice of such transfer to the Parties. Upon transfer, the University will not have any further responsibilities under this Agreement." With the transition to the LLNS, it is estimated that cumulative overtime costs for the Parties will increase by approximately $202,000 annually. These additional costs are due to private sector Fair Labor Standards Act regulations. The City of Alameda's share is $10,700 for this fiscal year. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT Fire/EMS dispatch costs will increase by $10,700 per year. This cost increase will be appropriated from the existing Alameda Fire Department budget. This will not impact the City's General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action will not affect the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATON Approve Amendment 5 to the Alameda County Emergency Dispatch Consortium Mutual Aid Agreement to assign the rights and obligations of the Regents of the University of California under the Agreement to Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. Respectfully submitted, David Kapler Fire Chief • „co 49, By: Michael J. Fi6her Division Chief CR:adl Attachment: 1. Amendment 5 to the Alameda County Emergency Dispatch Consortium Mutual Aid Agreement Amendment 5 to the Alameda County Emergency Dispatch Consortium Mutual Aid Agreement On January 16, 2002, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, University of California ("LLNL"), the County of Alameda, and the City of Alameda (the "Parties") entered into a Consortium Agreement ( "Agreement ") to establish, fund and operate the Consolidated Dispatch Center for Consortium Members at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory rY ("Center"). The Center provides fire and emergency medical • dispatch services and support communication services to members of the Consortium. On September 20, 2002, the original members of the above Agreement agreed to accept the Parks RFTA Fire and Emergency Services ("Parks Fire Service") to the Consortium and the Fire Chief of the Parks Fire Service became a member of the Article IV Advisory Board. Because the Parks Fire Service was a Federal entity, it was permitted to be self insured notwithstanding the Article XIV insurance requirements. (Amendment #I) On August 28, 2003, the members agreed to accept the City of Fremont to the Consortium and the Fire Chief of Fremont became a member of the Article IV Advisory Board. (Amendment #2) On October .1, 2003, the members agreed to an allocation plan for the remodel of the Center's dispatch facility. This plan called for the costs associated with the remodel to be allocated to the County of Alameda Fire Department and Emergency Medical Service Authority, City of Alameda Fire Department and Parks Reserve Force Trainin g Area. (Amendment #3) On January 29, 2004, the members agreed to accept the City of Union City to the Consortium and the Fire Chief of Union City became a member of the Article IV Advisory Board. It also established Union City's share of the capital improvement cost for equal membership. (Amendment #4) RECITALS: The purpose of Amendment 5 is to assign the rights and obligations of the Regents of the University of California ("UC") under the Agreement to Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC ("LLNS"). Article XVII of the Agreement, as amended in Amendment 2, allows the assignment of this Agreement to LLNS: "This Consortium Agreement or any interest therein will not be assigned or transferred by the Parties, except the Universi ty of California may transfer to the U.S. Department of Energy, or its designee, with notice of such transfer to the Parties. Upon transfer, the University will not have any further responsibilities under this Agreement." City Council Attachment to Agenda Item #4 -C 11 -06 -07 Confidential Page 1 10/17/2007 NOW, THEREFORE, the agencies, entities, and municipalities who are Parties to this Agreement agree as follows: 1. Operation It is agreed that LLNS will assume responsibility for the administration and operation of the Center as of October 1st, 2007. 2. Transfer of Personnel All existing Center personnel have accepted LLNS offer of employment, effective October 1st, 2007. 3. Transfer of Budary_Responsbilit� LLNS agrees to use its best efforts to operate within the approved Fiscal Year 2008 budget. LLNS will invoice and collect funds from each individual agency in accordance with the Fiscal Year 2008 budget. 4. Continuance of Liability Insurance Coverage Pursuant to Article XIV of the Agreement, the Local and City entities will be required to hold insurance which covers liability to LLNS and the US Government as additional insureds. Pursuant to Article XIV e) (1), the general and umbrella liability policies shall name LLNS as "additional insureds" and shall include a "Waiver of Subrogation." A "Separation of Insureds" Provision shall apply to the Umbrella. 5. LLNL Facility Charges All proportional costs associated with the maintenance of Building 313 and offices in B323 at LLNL, as outlined in Exhibit 1, will be remitted to LLNS and paid 90 days in advance, on a monthly basis. 6. Joint Governance Model It is the intent of the members of the consortium to evaluate and implement a joint governance model within 18 months of the execution of this amendment. 7. Entire greement This Amendment 5 hereby incorporates by reference all terms and conditions set forth in the Consortium Agreement and Amendments 1, 2, 3 and 4 unless specifically modified by this Amendment. All terms and conditions set forth in Confidential Page 2 10/17/2007 the Agreement and Amendments which are not specifically modified by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. Confidential Page 3 10/17/2007 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment 5 to the Agreement. The Regents of the Date University of California Lawrence Livermore Date National Security, LLC County of Alameda Date City of Alameda Alameda County Emergency Medical Services Agency Camp Parks CSTC City of Fremont Date Date Date Date City of Union City Date Confidential Page 4 10/17/2007 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita, City Manager Date: November 6, 2007 Re: Introduce an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Repealing Article 1 (Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes) in its Entirety and Adding a New Article 1 (Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes) to Adopt the 2007 California Building Code, the 2007 California Historical Building Code, the 2007 California Electrical Code, the 2007 California Plumbing Code, the 2007 California Mechanical Code, the 2007 California Energy Code, the 1997 Uniform Housing Code, and the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, and by Amending Chapter XV (Fire Prevention) by Repealing Section 15 -1 in its Entirety and by Adding a New Section 15 -1 to Adopt the 2007 Edition of the California Fire Code. BACKGROUND Every three years, the State of California adopts a new set of technical building and fire regulations known as the California Building Standards Code. Local jurisdictions may establish more restrictive building standards reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. DISCUSSION Building, Fire, and Housing Code: The State of California has adopted the 2007 California Building Standards Code, which is based on the 2006 International Building Code, the 2007 California Historical Building Code, the 2005 National Electrical Code, the 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code, the 2006 Uniform Mechanical Code, and the 2006 International Fire Code. The 2007 California Building Standards Code will become effective throughout California on January 1 g ry , 2008. By locally adopting this code, the City establishes clear legal authority for its Y enforcement and may elect to adopt various appendix chapters and complementary codes dealing with local issues. It also enables the City to adopt various administrative amendments and all technical amendments necessary due to local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4 -D 11 -06 -07 Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 Staff proposes adopting local code amendments, including: • Minimum requirement of Class A roof, • Requirement to install spark arrestor on any chimney at the time of a re- roof, • Standard size and type of fire hose threads, • Requirement to install automatic fire sprinklers in most new buildings, • Property owner responsibility to maintain smoke detectors in all residential sleeping rooms, • Prohibition of metallic pipe, conduit, or duct under concrete floor slabs, • Various Alameda Power and Telecom requirements for service equipment and meters, • Elimination of the occupancy separation requirement between commercial and accessory residential use to provide for Work/Live occupancies, • Requirement that storage areas within or adjacent to residential occupancies be restricted to allow only one light and one electrical outlet in order to discourage the conversion of these areas to habitable space, • Requirement to install excess flow gas shutoff valves in all new construction and whenever a permit is issued to alter a gas line. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT Adoption of a new set of technical and administrative construction codes will have no impact on the City's General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE CROSS REFERENCE All other sections of the Municipal Code dealing with this subject matter have been thoroughly analyzed and found to be compatible with the proposed amendment to the Municipal Code. RECOMMENDATION Introduce the subject ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code to amend Chapter XIll (Building and Housing) by repealing Article 1 (Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes) in its entirety and adding a new Article 1 (Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes) to adopt the 2007 California Building Code, the 2007 California Historical Building Code, the 2007 California Electrical Code, the 2007 California Plumbing Code, the 2007 California Mechanical Code, the 2007 California Energy Code, the 1997 Uniform Housing Code, and the 1997 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, and amend Chapter XV (Fire Prevention) by repealing Section 15 -1 in its entirety and by adding a new Section 15 -1 to adopt the 2007 Edition of the California Fire Code. Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3 Respectfully submitted, woos601� Cathy Woo ibury Planning & Building Director kit,____ By: Gregory J ann Building Official Mike Fisher Fire Marshal GM:eg CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE TO AMEND CHAPTER XIII (BUILDING AND HOUSING) BY REPEALING ARTICLE 1 (UNIFORM CODES RELATING TO BUILDING, HOUSING AND TECHNICAL CODES) IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADDING A NEW ARTICLE 1 (UNIFORM CODES RELATING TO BUILDING, HOUSING AND TECHNICAL CODES) TO ADOPT THE 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, THE 2007 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE, THE 2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, THE 2007 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, THE 2007 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, THE 2007 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, THE 1997 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE, AND THE 1997 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS AND AMEND CHAPTER XV (FIRE PREVENTION) BY REPEALING SECTION 15 -1 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 15 -1 TO ADOPT THE 2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended by repealing Article 1 of Chapter X111 in its entirety. Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended by adding a new Article Ito Chapter X111 of the Alameda Municipal Code which shall read as follows: ARTICLE 1. UNIFORM CODES RELATING TO BUILDING, HOUSING AND TECHNICAL CODES 5.1 ALAMEDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 13 -1.1 Adoption of the Alameda Administrative Code. Except as hereinafter provided, Appendix Chapter 1 ADMINISTRATION of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, published by the California Building Standards Commission, is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein at length, and shall be known as the Alameda Administrative Code. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 2). 13 -1.2 Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the Appendix Chapter 1 ADMINISTRATION of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition. e. Section 1 03.1 of Appendix Chapter 1 ADMINISTRATION of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by substituting the words "a code enforcement agency" for "The Department of Building Safety ". 1 Introduction of Ordinance #4 -D CC 11 -06 -07 f. Section 105.5 of Appendix Chapter 1 ADMINISTRATION of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, is amended to read as follows: Section 105.5 Expiration. Every permit issued shall expire by limitation and become null and void 36 months from the date such permit is issued. Before such work can be recommenced, a new permit shall be first obtained to do so, and the fee therefore shall be based on the work remaining after the last successful required inspection, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for such work. Exception: Permits issued as a result of a violation of Section 105.1 shall expire by limitation and become null and void 12 months from the date such permit is issued. c. Section 108.4 of Appendix Chapter 1 ADMINISTRATION of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, is amended to read as follows: Section 108.4 Work commencing before permit issuance. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be as established by the City Council. The payment of,such investigation fee shall not exempt an applicant from compliance with all other provisions of either this code or the technical codes nor from the penalty prescribed by law. d. Section 110.5 of Appendix Chapter 1 ADMINISTRATION of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, is added to read as follows: Section 110.5 Posting. The certificate of occupancy shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises and shall not be removed except by the building official. e. Section 112.4 of Appendix Chapter 1 ADMINISTRATION of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, is added to read as follows: Section 112.4 Appeals. Any person adversely affected by any written orders, decisions or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of the Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code, Electrical Code and Fire Code or any other Alameda building regulations may appeal to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. Such appeal shall be filed no later than ten (10) days following the date of the written decision by filing with the Planning and Building Department an appeal form specifying the basis of the appeal. 2 f. Section 112.5 of Appendix Chapter 1 ADMINISTRATION of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, is added to read as follows: Section 112.5 Appeal Fee. The fee for filing an appeal shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The appeal fee shall be required to be paid at the time that the appeal application is filed with the Planning and Building Department. Appeal forms shall not be accepted without the appropriate appeal fee. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 2). 13 -1.3 Copy of Alameda Administrative Code with The Planning and Building Department. A copy of the Alameda Administrative Code has been deposited in the Office of the Planning and Building Department of the City and shall be maintained by the Building Official for use and examination by the Public. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 2). 13.2 ALAMEDA BUILDING CODE 13 -2.1 Adoption of California Building Code. Except as hereinafter provided, the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, published by the California Building Standards Commission, including Appendix Chapter 1, (Patio Covers), ChapterJ (Grading), is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein at length, and shall be known as the Alameda Building Code. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 2) 13 -2.2 Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the Uniform Building Code. e. Section 310.4 of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by inserting a new section number 310.4 to read as follows: 310.4 Storage Areas. Storage areas within or adjacent to R occupancies shall be restricted to one electrical receptacle and one electrical light unless otherwise approved by the Building Official. b. Chapter 9 of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, is deleted in its entirety except for Section 901. c. Section 1208.2 of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by inserting a new exception to read as follows: Exception: 7. In qualified historical buildings, as defined in Section 8 -201 of the California Historical Building Code 2007 Edition, occupiable spaces, habitable spaces and corridors shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet. 3 d. Section 1505.1 of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by inserting the following ahead of the first paragraph: Section 1505.1 Fire Classification. Any roof installed on any structure with an occupancy classification of "R" or "U" shall have a fire rating of Class A, which complies with the Section 1505.2 Class A roof assemblies. e. Section 1510.7 is added to the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, to read as follows: Section 1510.7 Spark Arrestor. Spark arrestors in compliance with California Building Code, 2007 Edition, Section 2802 shall be installed on all operational chimneys on any building when the building is re- roofed. 13 -2.2 Findings. Pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, the City Council finds that the modifications of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, contained in subdivisions (a) through (e) of Section 13 -2.1, are reasonably necessary because of certain local climatic, geographical and topographical conditions existing in the City of Alameda which are more specifically described as follows: a. The City of Alameda is an island community with access dependent upon bridges and underwater tubes and, in the event of a disaster, could be completely isolated from outside assistance. b. The City of Alameda is adjacent to several earthquake faults, which make buildings and structures susceptible to structural ruptures and fires. c. The entire municipal water supply for the City of Alameda is transported via three aqueducts, which are vulnerable to earthquake and tidal flooding. d. Alameda is a low -lying island community with soil and groundwater conditions, which are corrosive to metals. e. Alameda has very fine, sandy soil conditions. f. The City of Alameda lies in the path of two (2) airport landing and takeoff zones. (Ord No. 2898 N.S. § 2). 13 -2.3 Copy of California Building Code with Planning and Building Department. A copy of the California Building Code, 2007 Edition, has been deposited in the Office of the Planning and Building Department of the City and shall be maintained by the Building Official for use and examination by the public (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 2). 4 13.3 ALAMEDA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE 13 -3.1 Adoption of California Historical Building Code. The California Historical Building Code, 2007 Edition, published by the California Building Standards Commission, is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein at length, and shall be known as the Alameda Historical Building Code. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 2) 13 -3.3 Copy of California Building Code with Planning and Building Department. A copy of the California Historical Building Code, 2007 Edition, has been deposited in the Office of the Planning and Building Department of the City and shall be maintained by the Building Official for use and examination by the public. 13.4 ALAMEDA ELECTRICAL CODE 13.4.1 Adoption of California Electrical Code. Except as hereinafter provided, the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, published by the National Fire Protection Association, is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein at length, and shall be known as the Alameda Electrical Code. (Ord. No. 2945 N.S. § 2) 13.4.2 Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California Electrical Code. a. Article 230 -8, Insulation of Service Entrance Conductors, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by adding the following: Ends of service conductors, raceways and ducts in underground boxes shall be sealed to prevent entrance of moisture. b. Article 230 -24 (B) Vertical Clearance From Ground, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by adding the following: The service head shall be located on that portion of the building served which is facing the serving line. The service head shall be located at that height which will allow for the proper clearance of the service drop over street, curb, and sidewalk. This will require that the service head for residential occupancies be not less than twelve feet, six inches (12'0 ") above the driveway where the drops may cross a private driveway, and not less than ten feet, six inches (10'6 ") above the ground where persons may walk, other than a public walk, which requires a clearance of sixteen feet (10') above the curb. If the height of the building involved is such that these clearance heights cannot be maintained, then a periscope -type service or some other auxiliary structure shall be resorted to. In the 5 event that a periscope -type service is used, it may be placed on the side of the building served not more than eighteen inches (18 ") back of the wall, which is facing the serving line. c. Article 230.26 Point of Attachment, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended to read as follows: 230.26 Means of Attachment. Unless special permission is granted in advance to do otherwise, the location of the point of service drop support or attachment on a building shall be at that portion of the building facing and nearest to the street, alley, easement, or public way on which is located the utility's pole having facilities for rendering service of the type required to fit the needs of the particular installation involved. The point of attachment shall be the portion of the service conduit adjacent to the service head. The service conduit shall be securely fastened to structure served and space provided for attachment of a service drop strain clamp by the serving utility. The outer or upper end of the overhead service conduit shall not overhang or project horizontally more than eighteen inches (18 ") beyond the last point at which the conduit is supported and fastened. In cases where it is necessary to obtain the required height for support of the service drops by extending the service conduit above the roof of the building, only rigid metallic and intermediate metal conduit shall be used for this purpose and shall not be smaller than one and one - quarter inches (1 114 ") trade size, not to extend more than thirty inches (30 ") beyond the last support for periscope service without brace. If nonferrous metal conduit is used, it shall not be smaller than two inches. d. Article 230.30 Insulation, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by deleting the exceptions and adding the following: Service entrance conductors entering buildings or other structures shall be insulated. Conductors installed in underground raceways shall have XHHW, THW or other suitable insulation as listed in 75C column of Table 310 -16 and subject to Article 110.14(1)(a) of the National Electrical Code. e. Article 230.43 Wiring Methods for 600 Volts, Nominal, or Less, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by deleting items 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 and by adding the following: Except when installed as busways or cablebus, all service entrance conductors in or on buildings shall be installed in rigid metal conduit or intermediate metal conduit. Service entrance conduits installed to 6 supply single and duplex family units shall not be smaller than one and one - quarter inch (1 1/4") trade size. f. Article 230.49, Protection Against Physical Damage--Underground, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by adding the following: Underground service entrance conductors shall be installed in rigid metal conduit or rigid non - metallic conduit sized not smaller than two inches (2 "). On utility poles conduit risers shall be Schedule 80 rigid non - metallic up to a height above grade of eight feet (8'). g. Article 230.70 General, (A) Location, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended to read as follows: The service disconnecting means shall be located at a readily accessible point nearest to the entrance of the service conductors, and in residential property shall be accessible from the exterior, except where a meter room is provided. Such service disconnecting means shall not be installed under show windows, or in the cases of multiple occupancies, in any location not readily accessible to all parties concerned. Service disconnecting means shall not be installed in bathrooms. h. Article 230.71, Maximum Number of Disconnects, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended to read as follows: A separate service disconnecting means shall be provided for each separately metered subdivision of the service conductors. Switches or circuit breakers accessible from the exterior of the building shall be limited to one for each meter; in new construction however, exceptions will be granted in cases involving provisions for the installation of major household appliances, provided that the over current devices are contained within a single panel board assembly approved for the purpose, in which case the number of circuits shall be limited to six (6). More than six (6) disconnects will require a main disconnect. The service disconnecting means shall have provisions for locking each subservice disconnect in the "Off' position with a utility -type seal. i. Article 240.24, Location in or on Premises, (6) Occupancy of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by adding the following: In new installations, not more than two feeder or branch - circuit over current devices shall be installed on the Load side of any meter in any meter cabinet opening to the exterior of a building. For a larger 7 number of over current devices, a distribution center shall be provided at a suitable location within the building. Exceptions to this rule will be granted in cases involving provision for the installation of major household appliances, provided that the over current devices are contained within a single panel board assembly approved for the purpose. In apartment houses and other buildings of multiple occupancy, branch circuit over current devices which are located in an apartment or portion of the building intended to be separately occupied by a tenant will not be considered as being readily accessible if they protect circuits supplying any outlets or equipment not for this exclusive use of this tenant. The over current device may be located in a commonly accessible location, but all circuits supplying individual apartments in multifamily dwellings shall be confined to each individual apartment served. j. Article 250.50 Grounding Electrode System, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by adding the following: The concrete encased electrode described in 250-52(A)(3) shall be installed during the construction of all new buildings as the primary ground and when new foundations are constructed for existing buildings. A ground rod electrode shall be installed at the service entrance location at time of alteration or installation of service to existing buildings as a primary grounding means. k. Article 250.104, Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by adding the following: General. Interior and exterior hot and cold water system shall be bonded to the neutral buss and the interior gas piping. Such connection shall not be located in under - the -floor crawl spaces, except by permission of the Building Official. I. Article 300.3, Conductors, (C) Conductors of Different Systems, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by adding the following: Conductors Supplied by Individual Disconnecting Means in Two or More Occupancy Buildings. Conductors or circuits derived from a sub - service disconnecting means for an occupancy shall not occupy the same wiring enclosure, cable, or raceway with conductors for other occupancies. Exception 1. Emergency circuit wiring. Exception 2. Group - mounted service boards in single enclosures and auxiliary gutters at service switchboard location. 8 m. Article 334.10, Uses Permitted, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by adding the following Nonmetallic- sheathed cable may be used in the hollow spaces of walls and ceilings of wood frame construction and must be concealed by the permanent finish of the building. It is limited to use on circuits not exceeding 300 volts between conductors or 150 volts to ground. n. Article 334.15(c), In Unfinished Basements, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by adding the following: In wood frame construction where the basement has less than (3') three foot vertical clearance and the cable is not exposed to physical damage, the cable shall either be run through bored holes in joists, parallel to joist, or on girders or running boards and shall closely follow the vertical surface of such members. Where cable is exposed to physical damage, a metal-clad system of wiring shall be used in the unfinished area of the building, subject to the requirements of Article 300 of the California Electrical Code. 0. Article 338.10, Uses Permitted as Service- Entrance Conductors, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is deleted. p. Article 358.12, Uses Not Permitted, of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is amended by adding the following: (7) Electrical metallic tubing shall not be used in the ground floor slab or in any location where it would be in contact with the ground. q. Article 394 of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, is deleted. (Ord. No. 2945 N.S. § 2) 13 -4.3 Findings. Subdivisions (a) through (q) of Section 13 -4.2 are based upon the following findings: Pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, the City Council finds that the modifications of the California Electric Code, 2007 Edition, contained in subdivisions (a) through (r) of Section 13 -4.2, are reasonably necessary because of certain local climatic, geographical and topographical conditions existing in the City of Alameda which are more specifically described as follows: a. The City of Alameda is an island community with access dependent upon bridges and underwater tubes and, in the event of a disaster, could be completely isolated from outside assistance. 9 b. The City of Alameda is adjacent to several earthquake faults, which make buildings and structures susceptible to structural ruptures and fires. c. The entire municipal water supply for the City of Alameda is transported via three (3) aqueducts, which are vulnerable to earthquake and tidal flooding. d. Alameda is a low -lying island community with soil and groundwater conditions, which are corrosive to metals. e. Alameda has very fine, sandy soil conditions. f. The' city of Alameda lies in the path of two (2) airport landing and takeoff zones. g. Electrical power in the City of Alameda is provided by Alameda Power and Telecom, a City -owned and operated municipal utility, which has the authority to regulate acceptable materials, arrangement, location and type of service equipment. (Ord. No. 2945 N.S. § 2) 13 -4.4 Copy of California Electrical Code with Planning and Building Department. A copy of the California Electrical Code, 2007 Edition, has been deposited in the Office of the Planning and Building Department of the City and shall be maintained by the Building Official for use and examination by the public. (Ord. No. 2945 N.S. § 2) 13.5 1 3.5.1 ALAMEDA PLUMBING CODE Adoption of California Plumbing Code. Except as hereinafter provided, the California Plumbing Code, 2007 Edition, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, including Appendix Chapters A, B, D through G, land L, is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein at length, and shall be known as the Alameda Plumbing Code. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 3) 13 -5.2 Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California Plumbing Code. a. Section 609.3 of the California Plumbing Code, 2007 Edition, is amended to read as follows: Section 609.3 Water piping shall not be installed in or under a concrete floor slab within a building. b. Section 719.7 of the California Plumbing Code, 2007 Edition, is added to read as follows: Section 719.7 A property line cleanout shall be placed at the junction of the 10 building sewer and the street lateral whenever a new building sewer is installed or when more than fifty percent of any building sewer is replaced or repaired. Such cleanout shall be installed by the use of an approved cast iron double cleanout fitting. A cast iron riser shall also be required to be extended to grade.(Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 3) c. Section 1211.18 of the California Plumbing Code, 2007 Edition is amended to read as follows: Section 1211.18 Earthquake — actuated Gas ShutoffValves. Earthquake - actuated gas shutoff valves, certified by the State Architect as conforming to California Referenced Standard 12 -10 -1, shall be provided on all projects in which a permit is issued for gas piping. 13 -5.3 Findings. Pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, the City Council finds that the modifications of the California Plumbing Code, 2007 Edition, contained in subdivisions (a) through (c) of Section 13 -5.2, are reasonably necessary because of certain local climatic, geographical . and topographical conditions existing in the City of Alameda which are more specifically described as follows: a. The City of Alameda is an island community with access dependent upon bridges and underwater tubes and, in the event of a disaster, could be completely isolated from outside assistance. b. The City of Alameda is adjacent to several earthquake faults, which make buildings and structures susceptible to structural ruptures and fires. c. The entire municipal water supply for the City of Alameda is transported via three (3) aqueducts, which are vulnerable to earthquake and tidal flooding. d. Alameda is a low -lying island community with soil and groundwater conditions, which are corrosive to metals. e. The City of Alameda lies in the path of two (2) airport landing and takeoff zones. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 3) 13 -5.4 g Copy of California Plumbing Code with the Planning and . Building Department. A copy of the California Plumbing Code, 2007 Edition, has been deposited in the Office of the Planning and Building Department of the City and shall be maintained by the Building Official for use and examination by the public. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 3) 11 13 -6 ALAMEDA MECHANICAL CODE. 5 -1.1 Adoption of California Mechanical Code. The California Mechanical Code, 2007 Edition, including Appendix Chapter A, published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein at length, and shall be known as the Alameda Mechanical Code. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. §3) 13 -6.2 Copy of California Mechanical Code with Planning and Building Department. A copy of the California Mechanical Code, 2007 Edition, shall be deposited in the Office of the Planning and Building Department of the City and shall be maintained by the Building Official for use and examination by the public. (Ord. No. 2898 N.S. § 3) 13.7 ALAMEDA HOUSING CODE 13 -7.1 Adoption of Uniform Housing Code. Except as hereinafter provided, the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein at length, and shall be known as the Alameda Housing Code. With respect to residential structures, Health and Safety Code Division 13,1.5, Section 17920.3, et seq., known as the State Housing Law, supersedes the applicability of eth Uniform Housing Code to the degree of any conflict between the State Housing Law and either of the building standards. (Ord. No. 2788 N.S. § 2). 13 -7.2 Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the Uniform Housing Code. e. Section 104 of the Uniform Housing Code, 1997, is deleted in its entirety. f. Section 203 of the Uniform Housing Code, 1997, is deleted in its entirety. g. Section 1101 through Section 1104 of the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition, are deleted in their entirety. h. Sections 1201 through 1204 of the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition, are deleted in their entirety. 1. Sections 1301 through 1305 of the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition, are deleted in their entirety. j. Sections 1501 and 1502 of the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition, are deleted in their entirety. k. Sections 1601 through 1602 of the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition, are deleted in their entirety. (Ord. No. 2788 N.S. § 2). 12 13 -7.3 Copy of Uniform Housing Code with Planning and Building Department. A true copy of the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition, has been deposited in the office of the Planning and Building Department of the City and shall be maintained by the Building Official for use and examination of the public. (Ord. No. 2788 N.S. § 2) 13.8 ALAMEDA CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS 13 -8.1 Adoption of Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Except as hereinafter provided, the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, published by the International Conference of Building Officials is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein at length, and shall be known as the Alameda Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. (Ord. No. 2788 N.S. § 2). 13 -8.2 Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. e. Section 103 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, is deleted in its entirety. f. Section 204 and Section 205 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, are deleted in their entirety. g. Section 401 through Section 404 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, are deleted in their entirety. h. Section 501 through Section 504 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, are deleted in their entirety. 1. Section 601 through Section 605 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, are deleted in their entirety. j. Section 801 and Section 802 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, are deleted in their entirety. k. Section 901 through Section 912 of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, are deleted in their entirety. (Ord. No. 2788 N.S. § 2) 13 13 -8.3 Copy of Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings with Planning and Building Department. A copy of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Edition, has been deposited in the Office of the Planning and Building Department of the City and shall be maintained by the Building Official for use and examination by the Public. (Ord. No. 2788 N.S. § 2). Section 3. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Section 15 -1 through 15 -1.4 (Alameda Fire Code) Chapter IV of the Alameda Municipal Code in their entirety and substituting the following: 15.1 ALAMEDA FIRE CODE 15 -1.1 Adoption of the California Fire Code. Except as hereinafter provided, the California Fire Code, 2007 Edition, including Appendix Chapters 1 and B through D and the Uniform Fire Code Standards published by the International Fire Code Institute, being particularly the 1997 Edition thereof and the whole thereof, is adopted by reference and made a part hereof as if fully herein at length, and shalt be known as the Alameda Fire Code. 5 -1.1 Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the California Fire Code. e. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Appendix Chapter 1, Section 101.1 is amended to read as follows: 101.1 Title. These regulations shall be known as the Alameda Fire Code, hereinafter referred to as "this code." b. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Appendix Chapter 1, Section 102.1 is amended to read as follows: 102.1 Construction and design provisions. The construction and design provisions of this code shall apply to: 1. Structures, facilities and conditions arising after the adoption of this code. 2. Existing structures, facilities and conditions not legally in existence at the time of adoption of this code. 3. Existing structures, facilities and conditions when identified in specific sections of this code. 4. Existing structures, facilities and conditions, which, in the opinion of the fire code official, constitute a distinct hazard to life and property. 14 5. Existing structures to which additions, alterations or repairs are made that involve the addition, removal or replacement of fifty percent (50 %) or greater of the linear length of the walls of the existing building (exterior plus interior) within a one -year period. 6. Existing structures to which additions, alterations or repairs are made that are valued at an amount set forth by resolution, where adopted. c. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Appendix Chapter 1, Section 102.3 is amended to read as follows: 102.3 Change of use or occupancy. No change shall be made in the use or occupancy of any structure that would place the structure in a different division of the same groups or occupancy or in a different group of occupancies, unless such structure is made to comply with the provisions of this code. d. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Appendix Chapter 1, Section 103.5 is added to read as follows: 103.5 Police powers. The fire code official and his or her deputies shall have the powers of police officers in performing their duties under this code. When requested to do so by the fire code official, the chief of police of the jurisdiction is authorized to assign such available police officers as necessary to assist the fire code official in enforcing the provisions of this code. e. California Fire Code, 2007 Edition, Appendix Chapter 1, Section 105.1.1 added to read as follows: 105.1.1 Permit Fees. The fees for permits and inspections shall be established by resolution of the City Council. f. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 308.3.1 is amended to delete exception #1. g. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 316 is added to read as follows: SECTION 316 STORAGE OF IDLE PALLETS 316.1 General. The requirements of this section apply to all pallets, whether wood or plastic. 15 316.2 Storage of idle pallets. Storage of idle pallets shall be regulated as follows: 1. Idle pallets shall be stored outside, except as permitted by Section 316.2(2) of this code. 2. Idle pallets shall be permitted to be stored in a building if the building is sprinklered in accordance with NFPA 13. 3. Idle pallets stored outside shall be stored in accordance with Section 316.3 of this code. 316.3 Physical characteristics of outside storage. 1. Idle pallet stacks shall not exceed fifteen feet (15') in height. 2. Idle pallet stacks shall not cover an area of greater than 400 square feet. 3. Idle pallet stacks shall be arranged to form stable piles. 4. A distance of not less than twenty feet (20') shall separate stacks. 5. Stacks shall be no closer than twenty feet (20') to any property line. 6. Stacks shall be no closer than twenty feet (20' to any other yard storage. 7. Stacks shall be no closer than the distances shown in Table 316.3 to buildings. TABLE 316.3 REQUIRED CLEARANCES BETWEEN OUTSIDE IDLE PALLET STORAGE AND BUILDINGS Wall Construction Masonry with no openings Masonry with wired glass in openings, outside sprinklers, and one-hour doors Masonry with wired or plain glass, outside sprinklers, and 3/ hour doors Wood or metal with outside sprinklers Wood, metal, or Under 50 Pallets No restrictions No restrictions 10 feet 10 feet 20 feet 51-200 Pallets No restrictions 10 feet 20 feet 20 feet 30 feet 16 Over 200 Pallets 15 feet 20 feet 30 feet 30 feet 50 feet other h. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 506.1 is amended to read as follows: 506.1 Where required. Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for life- saving or fire- fighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box or other approved emergency access device to be installed in an approved location. The key box or other approved emergency access device shall be of an approved type and shall contain keys or other information to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. i. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 508.5.2 is amended to read as follows: follows: 508.5.2 Inspection, testing and maintenance. Fire hydrant systems shall be subject to periodic tests as required by the fire code official. Fire hydrant systems shall be maintained in an operative condition at all times and shall be repaired where defective. Additions, repairs, alterations and servicing shall comply with approved standards. When required by the fire code official, hydrants shall be painted in accordance with the most current edition ofNFPA291. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 511 is added to read as 511 PUBLIC - SAFETY RADIO BUILDING AMPLIFICATION SYSTEMS. 511.1 General. Except as otherwise provided, no person shall erect, construct, change the use of or provide an addition of more than 20% to, any building or structure or any part thereof, or cause the same to be done, that fails to support adequate radio coverage of public safety agencies, including but not limited to firefighters and police officers. For purposes of this section, adequate radio coverage shall include all of the following: 1. A minimum signal strength of -95 dBm available in 90% of the area of each floor of the building when transmitted from the closest public safety communications system site; 2. A minimum signal strength of -95 dBm received at the closest public safety communications system site when transmitted from 90% of the area of each floor of 17 the building; 3. The frequency range that must be supported shall be the current band of frequencies used by County communications systems; and 4. A 100% reliability factor. When measuring the performance of a bi- directional amplifier, signal strength measurements are based on one input signal adequate to obtain a maximum continuous operating output level. Exception. This section shall not apply to buildings Tess than 5,000 square feet (455 m2) or buildings classified as Group R -3. 511.2 Amplification system permitted. Buildings and structures that cannot support the required level of radio coverage shall be equipped with either a radiating cable system or an internal multiple antenna system with FCC type accepted bi- directional amplifiers as needed. If any part of the installed system or systems contains an electrically powered component, the system shall be capable of operating on an independent battery and/or generator system for a period of at least 12 hours without external power input. The battery system shall automatically charge in the presence of an external power input. If used, bi- directional amplifiers shall include filters to reduce adjacent frequency interference. These filters shall be tuned to so that they will be 35 db below the communications system frequencies. k. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 901.1.1 is added to read as follows: 901.1.1 Responsibility. The owner of the protected premises shall be responsible for all fire protection systems within the protected premises, whether existing or installed under this code. 1. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 901.4 is amended to read as follows: 901.4 Installation. Fire protection systems shall be maintained in accordance with the original installation standards for that system. All systems shall be extended, altered, or augmented as necessary to maintain and continue protection whenever the building is altered, remodeled or added to. Alterations to the fire protection systems shall be done in accordance with applicable standards. m. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 901.4.5 is added to read as follows: 18 901.4.5 Non - operational equipment. Any fire protection equipment that is no longer in service shall be removed. n. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 903.1 is amended to read as follows: Section 903.1 General. Automatic sprinkler systems required in this Code shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. 0. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 903.2 is amended to read as follows: Section 903.2 Where required. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in the occupancies and locations as set forth in this section. P. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 903.2.1 is amended to read as follows: Section 903.2.1 Occupancies requiring automatic sprinkler systems. An approved automatic sprinkler system shall be installed in all newly constructed occupancies. All occupancy group types or buildings moved into or relocated within the City and shall comply with NFPA Standard 13 and 13-R, and the following: 1. Bathrooms, regardless of size, and all spaces 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 equal to or greater than 25% of the current value of the building. The value shall be based on the International Code Council Building Valuation Data Table. Exception: Existing Group R, Division 3 and Group R, Division 1 occupancies are excluded from this requirement. 7. The minimum hazard classification shall be designed to meet "Ordinary Hazard, Group 2." for NFPA 13 systems. 8. Automatic sprinkler systems may be connected to the domestic water supply main when approved by the fire code official, provided the domestic water supply is of adequate pressure, capacity, and sizing for the 19 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 code official. Exceptions: 1. An automatic sprinkler system need not be installed in detached Group U Occupancies (utility) less than 300 square feet. 2. 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. 3. 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 code official. q. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 903.3.1.3 is amended to read as follows: 903.3.1.3 NFPA 13D sprinkler system. An automatic sprinkler system is required in all newly constructed Group R, Division 3 occupancies, including but not limited to one and two- family dwellings and manufactured homes. The systems shall comply with NFPA Standard 13 -D and the following: 1. All fire sprinkler 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 excess of 150 psi for two -hour duration. 2. Each water system supplying both domestic and fire 20 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 code official. 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. 4. Attached garages, bathrooms, attic spaces regardless of size, and spaces used for the storage of combustible materials. r. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 903.3.1.1.2 is added to read as follows: 903.3.1.1.2 Elevators. Automatic fire sprinklers shall not be installed at the top of passenger elevator hoist ways or in the associated passenger elevator mechanical rooms. 903.3.1.1.2.1 Where automatic fire sprinklers are not installed at the top of passenger elevator hoist ways, heat detectors for the shunt trip mechanism shall not be installed, nor shall smoke detectors for elevator recall be installed. 903.3.1.1.2.2 Where automatic fire sprinklers are not installed in associated elevator mechanical rooms, heat detectors for the shunt trip mechanism shall not be installed. A smoke detector shall be installed for elevator recall. s. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 903.4.1 is amended to read as follows: 903.4.1 Signals. Alarm, supervisory and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall be automatically transmitted to an approved central station, remote supervising station or proprietary supervising station as defined in NFPA 72, or, when approved by the fire code official, shall sound an audible signal at a constantly attended location. The fire alarm system installed to transmit such signals shall be considered a building fire alarm system. t. California Fire Code 2007 Edition Section 903.4.2.1 is added to read as follows: 21 903.4.2.1 Where an automatic fire sprinkler system is installed in a building with more than one tenant or with over 100 sprinkler heads, audible and visible notification appliances shall be installed throughout the building as follows: a. Audible notification appliances shall be installed so as to be audible at 15 dBa above average sound pressure level throughout the building. b. Visible notification appliances shall be installed in all public and common use areas, restrooms and corridors in accordance with the spacing requirements of NFPA 72. c. Visible notification appliances can be eliminated in normally unoccupied portions of buildings where permitted by the fire code official. EXCEPTION: The requirements of this section do not apply to Group R Occupancies. u. California Fire Codg 2007 Edition, Section 903.4.3 is amended to read as follows: 903.4.3 Floor control valves. Approved indicating control valves and water flow switches shall be provided at the point of connection to the riser on each floor in all buildings over one story in height, and shall be individually annunciated as approved by the fire code official. v. California Fire Code 2007 Edition Section 907.1.5 is added to read as follows: 907.1.5 Multiple Fire Alarm Systems. Multiple fire alarm systems within a single protected premises are not permitted, unless specifically authorized by the fire code official. w. California Fire Code 2007 Edition Section 907.2 is amended to read as follows: 907.2 Where required -- new buildings and structures. An approved manual, automatic, or manual and automatic fire alarm system installed in accordance with the provisions of this code and NFPA 72 shall be provided in new buildings and structures in accordance with Section 907.2.1 through 907.2.23 and provide occupant notification in accordance with Section 907.10, unless other requirements are provided by another section of this code. Where automatic sprinkler protection installed in accordance with 22 Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 is provided and connected to the building fire alarm system, automatic heat detection required by this section shall not be required. The automatic fire detectors shall be smoke detectors unless otherwise permitted by the fire code official. Where ambient conditions prohibit installation of automatic smoke detection, other automatic fire detection shall be allowed. x. California Fire Code 2007 Edition Section 907.2.10.1.2 is amended to add an exception to read as follows: Exception: Where a household fire warning system is installed in accordance with Section 907.2.10.5. y. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 907.2.10.2 is amended by adding an exception to read as follows: Exception: Where a household fire warning system is installed in accordance with Section 907.2.10.5. z. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 907.2.10.3 is amended by adding an exception to read as follows: Exception: Where a household fire warning system is installed in accordance with Section 907.2.10.5. aa. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 907.2.10.6 is added to read as follows: 907.2.10.6 Household Fire Warning Systems. An approved household fire warning system shall be permitted to be installed in lieu of the single- or multiple - station smoke alarms required by Section 907.2.10 and the California Building Code. Plans and specifications for the household fire warning system shall be submitted for review and approval prior to installation. Household fire warning systems installed in lieu of single- station smoke alarms required by the International Building Code shall be required to be placarded as permanent building equipment. bb. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 907.9.5 is added to read as follows: 907.9.5 Zone transmittal. Where required by the fire code official, fire alarm signals shall be transmitted by zone to the supervising station and retransmitted by zone to the public fire service communications center. 23 cc. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 907.10.2 is amended by changing the word "occupied" to "occupiable ", to read in part as follows: 90710.2 "...in every occupiable space within a building..." dd. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 907.13 is amended to read as follows: 907.13 Access. Access shall be provided to each fire alarm system component f or periodic inspection, maintenance and testing. ee. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 907.18 is amended to read as follows: 907.18 Completion documents. The following documentation shall be provided at the time of acceptance testing for all fire alarm system installations: 1. A record of completion in accordance with N FPA 72. 2. A contractor's statement verifying that the system has been installed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications, and has been 100% tested in accordance with NFPA 72. 3. A contractor's affidavit of personnel qualifications, indicating that all personnel involved with the installation of the fire alarm system meet the qualification requirements of the fire code official. ff. California Fire Code 2007 Edition, Section 2505.1 is amended to read as follows: 2505.1 Individual piles. Tire storage shall be restricted to individual piles not exceeding 2,500 square feet of continuous area. Piles shall not exceed 25,000 cubic feet in volume or 10 feet in height. 15-1.3 Findings Pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, the City Council finds that the modifications of the California Fire Code, 2007 Edition, contained in subdivision (a) through (ff) of Section 15 -1.2, is reasonably necessary because of certain local climatic, geographical and topographical conditions existing in the City of Alameda which are more specifically described as follows: 24 a. The City of Alameda is an island community with access dependent upon bridges and underwater tubes and, in the event of a disaster, could be completely isolated from outside assistance. b. The City of Alameda is adjacent to several earthquake faults, which make buildings and structures susceptible to structural ruptures and fires. c. The entire municipal water supply for the City of Alameda is transported via three aqueducts which are vulnerable to earthquake and tidal flooding. d. Alameda is a low -lying island community with soil and groundwater conditions which are corrosive to metals. e. The City of Alameda lies in the path of three (2) airport landing and takeoff zones. (Ord. No. 2788 N.S. § 4) 15 -1.4 Copy of California Fire Code With City Clerk. A true copy of the California Fire Code, 2007 Edition, has been deposited in the office of the City Clerk of the City and shall be maintained by the Clerk for use and examination of the public. (Ord. No. 2788 N.S. § 4) Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Alameda herby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section 5., All former ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance hereby adopted, to the extent of such conflict only, are hereby repealed. Section 6. The City Clerk of the City of Alameda is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in the Official Newspaper of the City of Alameda Section 7. This ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions, requirements, orders and matters established and adopted hereby shall take effect and be in full force and effect 30 days after the date of its final passage and adoption. Presiding Officer of the Council 25 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 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 26 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING AND AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF ARTICLE 1 (PARKING LOTS) AND ARTICLE 11 (ON STREET PARKING METER ZONES) OF CHAPTER XII (DESIGNATED PARKING) AND ADDING A DEFINITION SECTION (SECTION 12 -0) APPLICABLE TO ALL ARTICLES TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF PUBLIC PARKING SURFACE LOTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES ADMINISTERED BY THE CITY OF ALAMEDA BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding section 12 -0 (DEFINITIONS) applicable to Chapter 12 in its entirety to read as follows: 12 -0 DEFINITIONS. As used in this Chapter: Operator shall mean and include every individual who shall operate a vehicle as the owner thereof or as the agent, employee or permittee of the owner. Parking meter zones shall mean portions of streets or off - street parking Tots described and established by the City Council pursuant to subsection 12 -12.1. Parking Meter shall mean any coin receptacle, instrument, device, indicator or machine which upon the deposit therein of such coin or paper currency of the United States or other legal form of payment such as credit cards and debit cards, that are legally accepted as a valid form of cash payment in the United States of America and as may be required by this title shows, indicates, registers, displays or permits legal parking for one or more spaces in the parking meter zone wherein or adjacent to which such coin receptacle, instrument, device, indicator or machine is situated. A parking meter as defined herein may or may not be a self - contained timing device; it may be manually adjusted, automatically or manually controlled, or otherwise operated either externally or internally, so as to show, indicate, register, display or permit legal parking upon the deposit of coin or paper currency of the United States of America or other legal form of payment such as credit cards and debit cards, that are legally accepted as a valid form of cash payment in the United States of America and as required by this title. Person shall mean and include any individual, firm, copartnership or corporation. Street shall mean any public street, avenue, road, boulevard, highway or other public place located in the City and established for the use of vehicles. Vehicle shall mean any device in, upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported upon a highway, except a device which is operated upon rails or tracks. Final Passage of Ordinance #4 -E CC 11 -06 -07 Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing and thereafter reserving Section 12 -11 (DEFINITIONS) since it is superseded by Section 12 -0. Section 3. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended with a new title for Section 12-4 which shall be "PUBLIC OFF- STREET PARKING LOTS INCLUDING GARAGE PARKING STRUCTURES" and Alameda Municipal Code Subsections, 12 -4.2, 12 -4.4, 12-4.5, 12 -4.6, and 12 -4.8 of Section 12 -4 are hereby amended to read as follows: 12 -4 PUBLIC OFF- STREET PARKING LOTS INCLUDING GARAGE PARKING STRUCTURES. 12 -4.2 Method of Regulation. The method of regulation and control of parking or standing of vehicles in public off - street parking lots shall be determined by the City Council, and may be by parking meters, attendants or any other appropriate means. 12 -4.4 Parking Meter Charges. When any vehicle shall be parked in any space in a parking meter zone where parking meter is established in accordance with other provisions of this article, the operator of said vehicle, upon so parking, shall, and it shall be unlawful to fail to, deposit immediately one (1) or more five ($.05) cent, ten ($.10) cent, or twenty -five ($.25) cent coins or paper currency of the United States in the parking meter or other legal form of payment such as credit cards and debit cards, that are legally accepted as a valid form of cash payment in the United States of America for the designated space as per the directions imprinted on the parking meter. 12 -4.5 Rates for Use of Public Off - Street Parking Lots. a. The parking meters located on the public off- street parking lots shall be equipped to receive only legal coins or paper currency of the United States of America or other legal form of payment such as credit cards and debit cards, which are legally accepted as a valid form of cash payment in the United States of America. The rates shall be designated by appropriate markings or signs. b. Parking meter rates shall be as established by resolution. c. The rates for use of attendant Tots shall be established per agreement with contractor and approved by City Council. d. Moneys collected from the parking lots shall be placed in the Parking Meter Fund and used accordingly pursuant to subsection 12 -13.4. 12-4.8 Trailers and Other Non - Vehicles and Select Vehicles Prohibited from Off - Street Parking. It shall be unlawful for any person to stop, stand or park any manufactured home (as defined by Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code), mobile home (as defined in Section 18008 of the Health & Safety Code), commercial coach (as defined in Section 18001.8 of the Health & Safety Code), special purpose commercial coach (as defined in Section 18012.4); recreational vehicle (as defined in Section 799.29 of the Civil Code or a truck trailer or trailer frame of any form or size in any public off - street parking lot except for areas designated as Loading Zones within off - street parking lots, and then only as otherwise permitted in Subsection 8 -11.1 of this Code. Section 4. The Alameda Municipal Code Subsections 12 -13.2, 12 -13.3, 12-- 13.7, and 12 -13.9 of Section 12 -13 are hereby amended to read as follows: 12-13.2 Regulations for Parking at Parking Meters. a. Parking meters, when installed, shall be so adjusted to show legal parking upon and after the deposit of only legal coins or paper currency of the United States of America or other legal form of payment such as credit cards and debit cards, which are legally accepted as a valid form of cash payment in the United States of America. Maps detailing the location, time limits and hours of operation for all meters within the City shall be established and maintained by the Public Works Department. b. Parking Within Parking Spaces. Parking spaces on public off- street parking lots shall be designated by lines or other appropriate markings. When parking spaces are so designated, it shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to stop, stand or park the vehicle other than in a regularly designated parking or loading space, across any such line or marking, or in such position that the vehicle shall not be entirely within the area so designated as a parking space. No vehicle shall be parked, stopped, nor shall stand either wholly or partially in any driveway of any public off - street parking lot or in any manner which shall obstruct or interfere with the free movement of vehicles in such driveway or in any manner so as to obstruct or otherwise prevent or interfere with ingress to or egress from any regularly designated parking space. 12 -13.3 Marking of Meter Zones and Parking Therein. a. The Public Works Director shall cause lines or markings to be painted designating the parking space for which the meter is to be used, and each vehicle parked or within a parking space so designated by a number or a letter shall park within said lines or markings. It is unlawful to park any vehicle across any such line or marking, and to park a vehicle in such a position that it shall not be entirely within the space designated by such lines or markings. The Public Works Director shall establish hours of operation, and maximum time limits, and shall cause signage to be placed on each meter which shall indicate days and hours of operation, maximum time limits, and any exception. Such signs on parking meters shall constitute the parking meter zone signs referred to in subsection 12 -16.4. b. Signs. The Public Works Director shall cause an appropriate sign to be affixed to or located on each parking meter within a parking meter zone indicating the hours of operation of such meter and the maximum parking time permitted in the zone. Such signs on parking meters shall constitute the parking meter zone signs referred to in subsection 12 -16.4 of this Code. (Ord. No. 903 N.S.; Ord. No. 1580; Ord. No. 2537 § 50 [17 -365]; Ord. No. 2664 § 2) 12 -13.4 Parking Meter Fund. The Parking Meter Fund is hereby established. Money collected by the City or its contractors from parking meter or off - street parking lot charges as herein set forth shall be placed in the Parking Meter Fund and shall be used only to regulate the use of parking spaces or off - street parking lots; to provide parking facilities and areas, together with maintenance and service thereon; to repay principal and interest on bonds issued for such purposes; and to reimburse the City's General Fund , Internal Service Funds and Capital Improvement Funds for any payment made therefrom, during the same fiscal year, for such purposes. (Ord. No. 2006 N.S.) 12 -13.7 Unlawful to Park After Meter Time has Expired. It shall be unlawful for the operator of any vehicle to permit the vehicle to remain parked in any parking space during any time that the meter is showing a signal or other means of indication indicating that such space is illegally in use other than such time immediately after the original occupancy as is necessary to operate the meter to show legal parking. (Ord. No. 1202 N.S.; Ord. No. 2452 N.S. §1). 12 -13.9 Parallel or Diagonal Parking. When a parking space in any public off- street parking lot is designed as parallel parking space, any vehicle parked or standing in such parking space shall be parked or shall stand so that the foremost part of the vehicle shall be within the marked parking space. Ord. No. 903 N.S.; Ord. No. 2423 N.S. § 2; Ord. No. 2537 §1). Section 5. The Alameda Municipal Code Section 12 -15 is hereby amended to read as follows: 12 -15 VIOLATIONS. 12 -15.1 Records of Violations; Attaching Notice of Violation to Vehicle. It shall be the duty of each police officer to take the number of any meter or the designated number or letter of the parking space for those locations that have a single parking meter for multiple parking spaces designated by a number or a letter at which such vehicle is over parked, as provided in this article, the State vehicle license of such vehicle, the time and date of such over parking, and the make of such vehicle, and issue, in writing, a citation for illegal parking in the same form and subject to the same procedure provided for by the laws of the State of California applicable to the traffic violations within the City. (Ord. No. 903 N.S.) Section 6. The Alameda Municipal Code Subsections 12-16.4 of Section 12-16 is hereby amended to read as follows: 12 -15.4 Parking for More Than Time Permitted In Parking Space. It shall be unlawful for any person to cause, allow, permit or suffer any vehicle registered in his/her name or operated or controlled by him/her to be parked in any parking space within a parking meter zone where a parking meter is established, for more than the time indicated by proper signs placed in such parking meter zones indicating the maximum parking time allowed in such parking space, or any time during which meter is displaying a signal or other form of reporting indicating that the space is illegally in use except during the time necessary to set the said meter to show legal parking, and excepting also during the time from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. Mondays through Saturdays and all day on Sundays and legal holidays. The Civic Center Parking Structure, is excepted from parking payment Mondays through Saturdays and on legal holidays from 5:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. and all day Sundays. When any section of this article exempts holidays from the parking restriction, the holidays exempt shall be the day observed by the City for the following: January 1 Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birthday Lincoln's Birthday Presidents' Day Memorial Day July 4 Labor Day Veteran's Day Thanksgiving Day Day after Thanksgiving December 25 Section 7. 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 City 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 the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of October, 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of October, 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING PETER Y. HORIKOSHI AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY CIVIL SERVICE BOARD BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to the provisions of Article X of the Charter of the City of Alameda, and upon nomination of the Mayor, PETER Y. HORIKOSHI is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Civil Service Board of the City of Alameda for the term commencing on November6, 2007, and expiring on June 30, 2011, and to serve until his successor is appointed and qualified. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 6th day of November, 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 Resolution #5 -A (1) 11 -06 -07 E 0 0 2 co as w 2 0. 0. 4 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING JEFF WOOD AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY GOLF COMMISSION BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Sections 2 -9.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, JEFF WOOD is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Golf Commission of the City of the City of Alameda, for a term commencing November 6, 2007, and expiring on September 30, 2011. 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 6th day of November, 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 Resolution #5 -A (2) 11 -06 -07 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: November 6, 2007 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Adopting Amendment #1 to the FY 2007/08 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications BACKGROUND Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) finance programs and activities that benefit low- and moderate - income persons and help prevent or eliminate slums and blight. In April 2007, the City Council adopted the 2007/08 CDBG Action Plan (Plan). Amendment No. 1 will reallocate funds to public facilities and direct services projects. All citizen participation requirements have been met. DISCUSSION Details of the proposed Amendment No. 1 are included as Attachment A and summarized below. The available one -time funding is generated from unanticipated program income, and the reallocation of FY 2006/07 funds from closed or canceled projects. Following approval of the Amended Action Plan, grant modifications or agreements will be negotiated to fulfill Federal and City requirements. The form of agreements and modifications are the same as those previously approved by the City Council and the City Attorney. Public Facilities Improvements: Several public facility activities benefiting low- and moderate - income Alamedans are proposed, including: $100,000 for the 120 -unit Esperanza Public Housing complex to reconstruct seven trash enclosures; $00,000 in additional funding for the Midway Shelter to repair the remaining dry -rot damage to the dormitory unit; and $220,168 in additional funding to complete Phase 1 activities of the Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement project, increasing the total available funding to $522,854 for this priority project. City Council Public Hearing Agenda item #5 -B 11 -06 -07 Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 Public Services: An additional $19,900 in funding for public services is available. Based on the recommendations of the Social Services Human Relations Board (Attachment B), funding is proposed for the Red Cross and the Child Care Voucher program, which provides direct assistance to working Alamedans. Technical Assistance: $25,000 is proposed to partially fund a technical assistance request from Building Futures with Women and Children (BFWC) to help the organization plan for expansion into supportive housing services. As a result of Federal mandates to develop long -range plans to end chronic homelessness, a focus on supportive housing has emerged as an industry best practice. BFWC is working to keep pace with industry changes, which will likely include a shift in Federal and State funding priorities from emergency shelters to supportive housing. BFWC is a leader within the homeless service community and successfully manages the Midway Shelter and Bessie Coleman Court in Alameda, and two other emergency shelters in San Leandro. The City of San Leandro has committed $50,000; and Supervisor Alice Lai - Bitker has committed $25,000 towards this technical assistance request. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund. Adopting Amendment No. 1 to the FY 2007/08 Action Plan will allocate $425,068 in one -time CDBG funds. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Execution of related agreements and final funding commitments are subject to satisfactory clearance under 24 CFR Part 58. RECOMMENDATION Adopt Amendment No. 1 to the FY 2007/08 Action Plan, and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute all related agreements and/or modifications to implement Amendment No. 1. Respect • submitted, ,slie / A L -. Little Development Services Director D� By:i /7/ e Potter Base Reuse and Community Development Manager Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3 C)--L(.A.4k;r By: Terri Wright Community Development Program Manager DKILALJDPITW:mlf Attachments A. CDBG FY 2007/08 Action Plan Summary B. SSHRB FY 2007/08 Public Services Recommendations CDBG FY 2007 -08 Action Plan Summary Adopted April 17, 2007 Proposed Amendment #1 - November 6, 2007 The activities listed below are funded with FY 2007 -08 Entitlement and Program Income and reallocated CDBG funds from prior years. Program delivery costs support continuing projects that are funded with current and prior year funds. Final funding commitments are subject to satisfactory environmental clearance under 24CFR Part 58. � PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS Activity & Description LOCATION/ ELIGIBILITY OUTCOMES CDBG FUNDING Implementing Agency Alameda Point ADA Curb Cuts Alameda Point 570.201(c) 570.208(a)(1) 03F 40 curb cuts . $115,000 Creation of approximately 40 curb cuts to provide ADA access surrounding the homeless accommodations at Alameda Point. Development Services Department Esperanza Trash Enclosures 3rd & Brush 570.202(a) 57.208(a)(2) 03 7 enclosures $1 00,000 Reconstruction of seven trash enclosures at this 120 -unit public housing complex to allow compliance with revised storm water drain standards. Alameda Housing Authority _ Midway Shelter Repairs Confidential 570.201(c) 570.208(a)(2) 03C 1 modular $60,000 Final phase of repairs for facility serving as 24 -hour emergency shelter for women and children. City Development Services Department Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvements CT 4276 570.201(c) 570.208(a)(1) 03K 1 project $220,168 Install and/or construct public improvements for area bounded by Webster 1 Lincoln 1 Main 1 Appezzato City Development Services Department PUBLIC SERVICES Alameda Continuum of Community Emergency and Social Services (A.C.C.E.S.S) Case management, referrals, and direct services for individuals and families at risk of homelessness. Alameda Red Cross 451 Stardust Pl. 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 03T 1,500 individuals $66,280 Alameda Food Bank Staffing and operating costs to support emergency food programs. Alameda Food Bank 1900 Thau Wy & 650 W. Ranger 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 05 4,000 individuals $19,939 Child Care Vouchers Limited -term vouchers for children of working parents. BANANAS, Inc. Family Violence Prevention Services Enhanced prevention and information, referrals, legal counseling for victims of family violence. ,Family Violence Law Center Community -wide 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 05L Community -wide 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 05G 11 children 21 children 125 individuals $37,624 $14,578 City Council Attachment A to Public Hearing 'Agenda Item #5 -B 1'1 -06 -07 Activity & Description LOCATION/ ELIGIBILITY OUTCOMES CDBG FUNDING Implementing Agency Four Bridges 1912 Central 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 05B 60 individuals $25,557 Support group for mentally and emotionally disabled adults. Bay Area Community Services Housing Counseling Community -wide 570.201(e) 570.208(a }(2) 05K 425 individuals $14,946 Tenant/Landlord counseling, mediation, information and referral. Sentinel Fair Housing Midway Shelter Confidential 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 03T 200 individuals $42,124 Service- enriched, 24 -hour emergency homeless shelter for women and children. Building Futures with Women. and Children West Alameda Teen Club 401 Pacific Ave. Third & Brush 570.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) 05D 150 -200 youth $21,530 Youth recreation and leadership development. F Alameda Boys and Girls Club ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Initiative Community -wide 570.203 570.208(a }(4) 18A 1 -3 businesses $100,000 Develop Economic Development Program to provide CDBG- eligible assistance to commercial property owners and City Development Services Department REHABILITATION Housing Rehabilitation Community -wide 570.202 570.208(a)(3) 14A 1 —2 units $20,000 Financial and technical assistance for rehabilitation of owner- occupied units, including ADA upgrades. City Development Services Department Rental Rehabilitation Community -wide 570.202 570.208(a)(3) 14B 2 - 3 units $30,000 Financial and technical assistance for rehabilitation of renter- occupied units, including ADA upgrades. City Development Services Department Substantial Rehabilitation Community -wide 1 570.202 570.208(a }(3) 14B 1 unit $210,812 Financial and technical assistance to restore and/or create affordable rental units in existing vacant or underutilized structures. City Development Services Department Residential Predevelopment Community -wide 570.202 570.208(a }(3) 14B 2 units $13,210 Financial and technical assistance to determine feasibility and cost associated with improving a property under the Substantial Rehabilitation program. City Development Services Department TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE Non - Profit "Swipe Card" Program Community -wide 570.201(p) 570.208(a }(2) 19C Several Non - Profits $40,000 Technical assistance to create centralized computer intake system allowing for single point of entry for clients participating in CDBG - funded programs. Increase the City Development Services Department Activity & Description, LOCATION/ ELIGIBILITY OUTCOMES CDBG FUNDING Implementing Agency Community -Based Development Organization (CBDO) 677 W. Ranger 570.201(p) 570.208(a }(2) 19C 1 Non- Profit $35,000 Assist Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) to obtain CBDO designation and increase capacity of staff to improve economic development opportunities for APC residents. City Development Services Department Homeless Supportive Housing, Confidential 570.201(p) 570.208(a)(2) 19C r 1 Non - Profit r $25,000 Increase the capacity of Building Futures with Women and Children (Midway Shelter and Bessie Coleman Court operator) to prepare organization for transitioning into Alameda County's Ten -Year Homeless and Special Needs Housing Plan. City Development Services Department • PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Fair Housing Services Community -wide 570.206 21D 24 households $15,000 Fair housing education; housing discrimination counseling and testing. Sentinel Farr Housing Homeless Continuum of Care Community -wide 570.206 21A Community -wide $7,345 Implementation of Homeless Management Information System and development of funding resources for Alameda and other County homeless providers. Alameda County Homeless Continuum of Care Council General Administration 570.206 21A $290,226 Program Delivery Various $580,590 Unprogrammed Funds for cost overruns 22 $102,328 TOTAL FY 2007 -08 ACTION PLAN FUNDING $1,782,189 Total Amendment #1 $425,068 G :CDBGICONSPLANIAnnPlans12007107 Amendments\APSumm Amd #1 F: 33.1(1) CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Cou ncil members From: Cynthia Wasko Acting President, Social Service Human Relations Board Date: March 29, 2007 Re: Recommended FY2007 -08 CDBG Public Service Allocations BACKGROUND At the City Council's request, the Social Service Human Relations Board ( SSHRB) reviews and comments on the Development Service Department's recommendations for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) public services funding. At its January meeting, the SSHRB considered priority needs for public service funding and recommended certain focus areas, including strengthening the social service safety net, empowering economic and social self - sufficiency, improving access to affordable housing, and making sure isolated populations have awareness of and access to services through increased outreach and publicity. DISCUSSION /ANALYSIS At its March meeting, the SSHRB reviewed staffs published funding recommendations. The SSHRB also heard public comments from representatives of funded organizations. FY 07- 08 represents the second year of a two -year funding cycle, and staffs recommendation was consistent with funding plans established last year. Based on the presentations and discussion at these meetings, the SSHRB unanimously supports the staff recommendations. The programs recommended for funding are established and have good track records. We believe that the recommendations reflect the focus areas the Board identified. The proposed funding represents a decrease in operating funds for all programs. We wish more money were available for public services overall. Given the funding constraints, we believe that the recommendations offer a balanced approach to the needs of the community. Staff explained that a percentage of the additional program income received through June 30, 2007 can be used to increase public services funding for FY 07 -08. If additional funding becomes available, the board supports staff's recommendation to restore funding to Banana's, Inc. first. Additional funding may be used to restore the American Red Cross- Alameda Service Center. Increased funding for both agencies would be contingent upon the agency's ability to maximize direct program benefit with the additional funding. City Council Attachment B to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-B 11 -06 -07 Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers RECOMMENDATION March 29, 2007 Page 2 The SSHRB unanimously recommends that City Council approve the CDBG public services funding recommendations as published. Respectfully submitted, Cyn ''' a Wasko, Acting President Soc .I Service Human Relations Board CW:MJ:sb cc: Social Service Human Relations Board G :ISSHRBICOUNCILIRECOMMENIPublic Services Recs 07.doc F:ISSHRB\Council Relations 2007 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: November 6, 2007 Re: Adopt a Resolution to Increase On- Street Parking Meter Rates in Certain Areas of the Park Street Business District from $0.50 per Hour to $1.00 per Hour BACKGROUND The City of Alameda has contracted with Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) to conduct a parking study for the Park Street and West Alameda business districts, addressing various main street parking issues. The full report is in the final review process, and presentations will be scheduled for the Transportation Commission, Planning Board, and Economic Development Commission before final consideration by the City Council in 2008. The WSA report will present numerous recommendations for changing the City's parking policies and regulations, including the creation of a tiered, on- street parking pricing system. Under this new pricing system, on- street parking rates would be increased from the current rate of $0.50 per hour to $1.00 per hour in certain high - demand areas within the core of the Park Street Business District. The raising of on- street rates within certain areas of the Park Street Business District (the District) is an important policy change that is likely to have a positive, direct impact on the efficient and effective use of public parking spaces in the Civic Center Parking Structure and the surrounding Park Street area. An increase in on- street parking rates in the Park Street area will create an incentive for long -term parkers, such as employees and students, to park in the garage where parking will be less expensive ($0.50 per hour) than at the surrounding on- street metered spaces that are considered premium locations for customers. As a result, the most convenient parking spaces will be available for the retail shoppers, who tend to park for shorter periods of time and are crucial to the economic success of Park Street's retail businesses. The implementation of an increase in on- street parking rates will be most effective if it corresponds with the opening of the Civic Center Parking Structure in January 2008. Therefore, staff recommends raising the on- street meter rates from $0.50 per hour to $1.0o per hour within the Park Street area within a few weeks of the parking garage opening. WSA has provided the City with sufficient, interim data and findings to support this recommendation, even though the WSA report has not yet been finalized. City Council Report Re: Agenda item #5 -C 1'1 -06 -07 Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 6 The proposed on- street parking rate increase was presented for comment to the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) Board of Directors on October 30, 2007. Their recommendations will be reported to the City Council on November 6. The City of Alameda last raised its on- street parking meter rates in 1994, when the City increased the price from $0.40 per hour, which was established in 1988, to $0.50 per hour. DISCUSSION Existing Conditions: WSA found that on- street parking in the core areas of the Park Street Business District is completely occupied during the peak parking periods, on weekdays between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. The occupancy rate between Lincoln and Encinal Avenues ranged between 93 to 95 percent. This exceeds what WSA terms "practical capacity," or the occupancy level at which a driver can find on average one empty space per block. At this capacity level, motorists driving down the streets see the occupied parking spaces and perceive a lack of parking in the District. In addition, segments on Oak Street between Central and San Jose Avenues and Santa Clara Avenue between City Hall and Broadway also had occupancy rates between 91 and 100 percent. Tiered Pricing: Pricing, time restriction, and enforcement policies can ensure that as many retail shoppers as possible have the opportunity to park in the most desired spaces, which directly benefits retail businesses. Without effective parking management tools, employees and merchants tend to park all day in the best spaces, depriving retail customers of the most convenient parking spaces. Effective parking management can compel longer -term parkers to park in areas farther away from prime parking zones. Pricing policies can require people to pay more for parking in the most coveted areas, thereby luring long -term parkers away from the retail core with less expensive parking in off - street parking structures or lots and peripheral areas. WSA advised that the high demand in Park Street's core area justifies higher meter prices. Raising the short-term parking pricing will encourage business owners, employees, and other multi -hour users to take advantage of the new parking structure and consequently increase the availability of the most convenient, premium on- street parking. WSA recommends raising the meter price from $0.50 to $1.00 per hour for high demand curbside spaces (Tier 1) and keeping the current price for the remainder of the public on- street metered spaces (Tier 11). On- street parking will continue to be free after 6 p.m. Monday through Saturday and all day Sunday. (See Table 1 for Summary of Proposed Pricing Structure; see Attachment A for Map of Proposed Meter Rates.)' ' Tier 1 includes 202 two -hour meters, 17 one -hour meters, and eight 24 -30 minute meters that will have a rate of $1.00 per hour. Tier II includes 190 two -hour meters, 40 one -hour meters, and 36 24 -30 minute meters that will remain $0.50 per hour. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Table 1: Summary of Proposed Rate Structure November 6, 2007 Page 3of6 ncludes spaces dedicated to monthly parking. ** 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. In WSA's experience and in their review of academic studies, the company found that short -term parkers are less sensitive to the price of parking than to the time it takes to find a vacant space. Therefore, charging the sufficient amount to create curb vacancies can attract customers who would rather pay more for parking than not be able to find it. In other words, WSA considers the demand for short -term parking to be relatively inelastic to price increases. WSA also stated that appropriately priced curbside parking reduces traffic congestion. "Cruising," or continually circling the block to find a vacant curbside space, may contribute up to 30 percent of the traffic congestion in retail business districts with under - priced parking. On- Street Parking Rates in Nearby Jurisdictions: The $1.00 per hour rate is supported as an acceptable amount when compared to other nearby jurisdictions. City staff found that most local jurisdictions currently have on- street parking rates at or above $1.00 per hour. (See Table 11: On- Street Parking Rates in Other Local Jurisdictions.) Number of Spaces Price per Hour. Maximum Time Limit for Parking Tier 1: Core on- street meters 227 $1.00 /hour 2 hours Tier 11: Peripheral on- street meters 266 $0.50 /hour _ 2 hours Civic Center Parking Structure 341* $0.50 /hour 4 hours Monthly parking permits at new structure. 40 $0.50 /hour for a 40 hour weekday equivalent; $80 per month 8 hours ** ncludes spaces dedicated to monthly parking. ** 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. In WSA's experience and in their review of academic studies, the company found that short -term parkers are less sensitive to the price of parking than to the time it takes to find a vacant space. Therefore, charging the sufficient amount to create curb vacancies can attract customers who would rather pay more for parking than not be able to find it. In other words, WSA considers the demand for short -term parking to be relatively inelastic to price increases. WSA also stated that appropriately priced curbside parking reduces traffic congestion. "Cruising," or continually circling the block to find a vacant curbside space, may contribute up to 30 percent of the traffic congestion in retail business districts with under - priced parking. On- Street Parking Rates in Nearby Jurisdictions: The $1.00 per hour rate is supported as an acceptable amount when compared to other nearby jurisdictions. City staff found that most local jurisdictions currently have on- street parking rates at or above $1.00 per hour. (See Table 11: On- Street Parking Rates in Other Local Jurisdictions.) Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 6 Table 11: On-Street Parking Rates in Other Local Jurisdictions City On- street Parking Berkeley $1.00/hr.* Oakland $1.25/hr. San Leandro $0.75 /hr. Lafayette $1.00 /h r. Walnut Creek $1.00 /hr. (downtown area) *Berkeley is considering raising their on- street rates to $1.50 within the next two to three months. Use of Funds: WSA recommended that the funds from any incremental increase to on- street parking meter fees (as measured against revenues of June 30, 2007; revenues from the parking structure will be excluded) should be dedicated to a separate parking meter revenue account to be used for the following, in priority order: increased maintenance and servicing associated with the new parking rates; future parking monitoring to evaluate the program and recommend changes to the rate structure; future off - street parking facilities; and providing street enhancements in the District. Street enhancements may include the City's contribution to future streetscape projects, street furniture and other amenities, and acquisition and maintenance of future off - street parking sites. Revenue will not be used for the new Civic Center Parking Structure. The dedication of funds to a main street business district from an increase in parking rates within that district has been implemented in other local jurisdictions and is becoming a more common practice throughout the state. Creating a dedicated account in the Parking Meter Fund for these uses will require amending the Alameda Municipal Code. Section 12 -13.4 currently specifies that meter funds will be drawn on "to regulate the use of parking spaces or off - street parking Tots; to provide parking facilities and areas, together with maintenance and services thereon; to repay principal and interest on bonds issued for such purposes; and to reimburse the City's General Fund, Internal Services Funds and Capital Improvement Funds." Next Steps: • With City Council approval, changing the rates for the 227 recommended meters in the core area of the Park Street Business District will take six to eight weeks for ordering and delivery of necessary parts. The change in rates will need to be concurrent with the installation of the modified meter heads. • City staff will prepare an outreach program that includes circulating a news release, posting information on the City's new parking information web page (www.ci.alameda.ca.usiparking), contacting local businesses and business associations, and soliciting articles in the Alameda Sun, the Alameda Journal, Alameda Magazine, and other local publications and business association newsletters. Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 5 of 6 • The City anticipates that WSA's final report will be presented to the Transportation Commission, Planning Board, and Economic Development Commission before final consideration by the City Council after January 1, 2008. • City staff will bring changes to the Alameda Municipal Code Section 12 -13.4 before the City Council for consideration and approval to create a dedicated account within the Parking Meter Fund for Park Street District parking improvements. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The cost to implement the changes will be approximately $10,000 to modify the existing parking meter heads. The cost will be paid from the Parking Meter Fund. WSA estimates that the existing parking revenue from the proposed 227 Tier 1 meters is $212,932. With the change in parking meter rates, WSA calculates that the revenue from these meters may increase by $1 80,992 annually, for an annual total of $393,924. WSA projects the annual total for both Tier 1 and Tier 11 meters in the District to be $643,439 (see Attachment B for WSA's revenue estimates). Pending approval of the Council, the incremental additional revenue of approximately $180,992 would be recorded in a dedicated account of the Parking Meter Fund. These monies will be used solely on parking and street improvements within the Park Street Business District with City Council approval. City staff will work with PSBA to develop a list of priorities for the use of funds, which will be presented to the City Council for its consideration and approval. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Economic Development Strategic Plan, Strategy #5 (Internal and External Traffic) specifies, "...the development and implementation of a parking management plan for Downtown." RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution to increase on- street parking meter rates in certain areas of the Park Street Business District from $0.50 per hour to $1.00 per hour. Respec ly submitte Leslie A. Little Development Services Director Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 6 of 6 By: Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business De,j'opment Division (fLiti_ By: Eric Fonstein Economic Development Coordinator DK/LAL /DES /EF:ry CONCUR: a- hew `+T`. Naclerio 11 elle -Ann :Dyer Public Works Director Chief Financial Officer Attachments: A. Map of Proposed Tiered Pricing B. WSA's Revenue Estimates CITY OF ALAMEDA PARKING STUDY LEGEND 1111111111 2 Hour Meter $1/hr. 2 Hour Meter $.5 /hr. ■■•■m 2 Hour No Meter mum 24 -30 Minute Meter $1 /hr. ••• 24 -30 Minute Meter $.5 /hr. 1 Hour Meter $1 /hr. 1 Hour Meter $.5 /hr NORTH ' NOTTO .SCALE ENGINEERS 111111111111111111111 PLANNERS sminfir ECONOMISTS r . WilburSmith A S S O C I A T E S PARK STREET 1 City Council Attachment A to Report Re: Agenda Item #5 -C 11 -06 -07 Attachment B: WSA Revenue Projection r Cry co _ u7 67 •� o +� 07 C) C ,W C CCj 2 69-c° L O o Q c,... a D u7 a_ C u'] v ci .� o y °� oY co L ca w 8 ° w C c ."5N r CO N o — u7C Cr? E+� U Q3 i N N. = o N C0 p3 _ = Eft 6►�} } .c E. 0 > CD Al .� TO a (4 u7 N N- '� 0� G CO .#' [6 Q 1■ M -1- j C N CV d' up E; EA- Ea .c1) -t cc 0 c„ ui g; o. 2 CL .y C) Q WC C w ,_ > 0 ° c c Q a) � o CC o �,.�.� c o N of 1 o a con CO u� CU al a. o .c .c co N- C1) 117 a) a) o Q_ o as °a � 0 o 0_ o -3 cu co a) o 73 E c -a cv o E 13 N -o U -o U) N ." .0 .0 a) !a 4 N c c7) f12 C 2 c ~ j cp .a ._ 0 .c ED. -0 -0 ,.... ›, - c,) o a) CA 2 ti a) o a) ca 2 2 = a = a L E a City Council a) 2 co o i— 2 Lo co fi r Attachment B to z , v r'- Report Re: Agenda Item #5 -C 11-06-07 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. INCREASING ON- STREET PARKING METER RATES IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE PARK STREET BUSINESS DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code and the California Government Code provide that the City Council may set fees for reasonable cost of providing various services by resolution; and a, WHEREAS, parking meter rates were last increased in 1994 and are 8 currently fifty cents ($.50) an hour for on street parking meters, as well as fifty a cents ($.50) an hour for parking in the City's lots; and z. Apprc WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an increase from fifty cents ($.50) an hour to one dollar ($1.00) an hour in certain areas of the Park Street business district is a reasonable cost for providing the service and providing for appropriate vehicular circulation to promote commerce. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda, that the following rate be established for parking meter fees: One dollar ($1.00) per hour for the areas more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, generally known as the Park Street business district. Parking meter rates in other locations shall remain unchanged. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees and /or penalties established by Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 which are inconsistent with the fee and/or penalty established by this Resolution are hereby repealed. Resolution #5.-C 11 -00 -0 ■ EXHIBIT A CITY OF ALAMEDA PARKING STUDY LEGEND 2 Hour Meter $1/hr. ® 2 Hour Meter $.5/hr. �■■� 2 Hour No Meter mmiffs 24 -30 Minute Meter $1/hr. ■■mu 24 -30 Minute Meter $.5 /hr. 1 Hour Meter $1/hr. 1 Hour Meter $.5 /hr o • J, I NORTH NOT TO SCALE 1 . r : -._1 ` r / / t:-7I "--... ` �� / i a''4 A: '. ID C ! r.' ,,,ci' '', f,...:(N. • a I IN■ IJ / ....„,,,,7 a , ►` 444 '!- /(.., ■ • , ,.. .,.. ft! 3 : '''' ‘e::).'`. 1 ■ INN, NN + - 4 i� / .1 <i't'sN/ / i 44 , tti/ fr f 7■ ■ ■ 14 �.■ fi 44+ ti 4b / : tiT 4 Q �. 44A `..�. !; 6 6 + _ �� v 'ti ri ■. 41 4 3 ±�� `` ��(1 A'��' °� l ._ `• rrI J6 _ tiP C:.0 � f� N f �j • �`3 • _ � '�% �, i 2 3 IJJ fr�� ';: `,/ i ■ l` • r � g is pi( N„. - f 9 . ' . r %-,. �ti 1]�. `i 3 '� .-�12 7 , I�� JI�JfJJJ� fi ' ,�. ,�� -. I , / {4fr r1 a %I -�, Jar i ,,, •, ,,, / ; / #��41/'%) /! f 7/rJ! 1 NP 4 !f j4 `Y 4 °�• ! n' /,�. J R • • /�. 4`4•r� ; �ia!, I s 1�� ~��1 ��!-4f l fr��% 7J�� 4 �rlll +,�� 1 �' `~` -`' ` ▪ 444 + !?�°�%lIJJ1+� �* Ir JII 6 �.Jff„`. f~•ti� Ir? 5 /„‘, �~ 1 4 1 �� _� S) JI , � r 7 + i i e`d /74,-;-',,, . ,., c., 17 "IP 7 ''"N,!.4; / ,...„,P63 .,, , .) `,..,., . -9,/, ,0,,, 471; ., . „ / / 5 Iffi% ',..,e- ''' 4: -% / / 1 ' i 414 2 1 �l i+ ,� C S 7 ' , N�3 :/ / '-'7C1/2''''' f�,re _r 4 f • r r ! r /J�' ♦4 + 1 Z. �. �. 4 a / r .� / / f t 4444 • Ir ` f f f �. r . r r f , i i Y! r' 1t, t11 tI1 ■►11 • ENGINEERS PLANNERS ECONOMISTS WM Mr • WilburSmith A S S O C I A T E S •�. Figure 2 -3 PARK STREET DISTRICT ON- STREET METER SPACES 100578/BASE - 09/12/07 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 6th day of November, 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: November 6, 2007 Re: Adopt a Resolution to Increase Civil Penalties for Parking Violations BACKGROUND The current civil penalties for parking violations were adopted in July of 1998. A survey of neighboring jurisdictions conducted in October 2007, revealed that civil penalties in the City of Alameda are lower than those of neighboring jurisdictions. Approval of the recommended increases will bring civil penalties in Alameda on par with those of neighboring jurisdictions, help increase turnover of parking spaces in downtown and neighborhood shopping areas, and increase revenue to the City's General Fund to support parking enforcement. DISCUSSION The City of Alameda contracted with Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) to conduct a parking study for the Park Street and West Alameda business districts that will address various main - street parking issues. The WSA parking study and its conclusions are described in more detail in the staff report regarding on- street parking meter rates, which is also on the November 6, 2007, agenda. Pricing, time restriction, and enforcement parking policies are all identified in the study as effective management tools to ensure turnover of premium retail parking spaces, thereby directly benefiting retail businesses. To help establish effective parking citation rates, staff reviewed parking penalties to determine if the City of Alameda's rates are comparable to those of neighboring jurisdictions (see Attachment 1). The City of Alameda's penalties for the twenty -three most commonly issued citations were compared to those of five neighboring cities: San Leandro, Hayward, Oakland, Berkeley, and Walnut Creek. Across the board, penalties in Alameda were lower than elsewhere, and 27% to 66% below the survey average. Approval of the recommended increases, which are shown in Attachment 2, will bring penalties in Alameda inline and within the range of the survey average. The proposed increases will allow for more effective enforcement of downtown parking and will likely have a positive, direct impact on the efficient and effective use of public parking spaces in the Civic Center Parking Structure and the surrounding Park Street area. City Council Agenda item #5 -D 11-06-07 Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT For fiscal year 2006 -07, parking penalties provided $333,748 in revenue to the General Fund. The proposed increases will result in increased revenue to the General Fund, of an amount not yet determined. MUNICIPAL CODE/POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Municipal Code Chapter IV, Offenses and Public Safety, Chapter VI, Businesses, Occupations, and Industries, Chapter VIII, Traffic and Motor Vehicles and Alternative Transportation Mode, and Chapter XXII, Designated Parking, establish violations covered by the proposed fine increase. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution to increase civil penalties. Respectfully submitted, Walter Tibbet Chief of Police 6, - - 7 ----.; , a 2„ - - - \ (22., By: David Boersma Police Lieutenant DK/WT /FL Attachment: 1. Civil Penalty Comparison Chart 2. City of Alameda Proposed Parking Civil Penalty Schedule City Council Attachment 1 to Agenda Item #5 -D 11 -05 -07 PROPOSED 8 C� 888 Cr) CQr3 8 (Q r] 88 Cr) ) CO 8 rr] 8 CO 888888 Cr) ri CO C O A tri () tri Cr) 8 tri (f ..8 C) 8 () 35.OD 8 () 8 8 t17 250.001 AVERAGE R . (Nr) NN . CNr] g 8 (4 Ng . Cry Ci7 ifl . CS 7 q . Cr) ~ . M 37.00 35.80 32.00 1 8 . CNr3 8 . (r? OD88�Cri . A88.7-to . . . . ones 267.20 MEDIAN' 8 Cr) t 888 N Cr) Q CO ] 8 co p 8 Cr) Q 8 (f) 8 M • 8 (fir] p 8 C'ry SS M 8 C2) 88 L[] 00.0E _ 00' 8 8 V' 88 LO N. N Walnut Creek 25.00 tri N 00.SZ LC] N a tO N to N 0 to N Q 0 N p N d Q [v 25.00 25.00 D LC7 C4 25.00 L() N t o ['I L(] LO &C) CN v (0 N (0 N 31.00 275.00 Hayward 35.00 888 C~ 'I (Y) Cr) c 18 Ctif Q CD v C~ r3 8888 � t� M C 7 33.00 v M 8 Cr) 88 M LO 35.00 .. 2 0 r 52.00 261.00 Berkeley 0 r oao _7 M C57 00 CQr] C�r7 8 0 (0 a (0 51.00 44.00 51.00 36.00 36.00 0 (0 °9 Q 51.00 co EtY c ? t0 C ti N -p C CD 0 ) a NNr Cr] 32.00 0 ] q ] eIu °°°°v [� Q ] Q ( Q 3 0 f] 35.00 0 M 0 0 122.00 cc aju 250.00 250.00 1* MEDIAN - average of two median numbers used if even number of jurisdictions' information available San Leandro 31.00 88 N (D [,1 26.00 8 n N 8g r Cr) r V' 8 Q .4- 2 8 Q 36.00 31.00 31.00 !r i r 8 ir 7 82 r 7 `r e- 8 r CU C 41.00 88 tr L[ C g .0 Alameda 0011, e~-- 17.00 C] .~r 8 r r 0 N 0 N Q N 2Z00 Q 0 N CN�I 22.00 22.00 0 CV v N 0 N 0 0 CV N 24.00 34.00 103.00 Parking Citation Civil Penalties - Jursidictional Compa AMC 1 12 -13.3 V c�7 8 -7.3 12-4.7 12 -16.2 rC1i N r Ci Q 8 Cti1 N 0 0 CVC- 22502A CVC -22514 ~rr ab oD co CO 12 -2.1 r r NrtOCD C5 C6 f1� ti C6 OS [4-25.2 COCrJ ti GO do ic G Parking out of marked spaces Posted no parking sign (construction zone) Parking time limit/restricted time Overtime parking City lot Overtime parking in meter zone (expired meter) Parking meter violation (meter zone time limit) Major repairs/displayed for sale_ Improper parking (crosswalk, blocking driveway, on sidewalk, etc.) More than 18" from curb/wrong side of street Unattended within 15' of fire hydrant Parked on private property Parking in loading zone yellow Parking prohibited all times Parking official vehicle space No parking City employee lot City Hall parking lot (overtime City Hall lot) No parking specffied hours street sweeping Overnight park commercial vehicle Parking for sale or demonstration Oversized vehicle 3-hr parking limit I Parking prohibited front & side yard 72 hour limit Parked in handicap zone r Cs1 (r7 (0 CD !` [b D7 Q r r r �1i CO r r V' r- 10 r CD r N. r 00 r 47 N p r r N ��y �m} CV N City Council Attachment 1 to Agenda Item #5 -D 11 -05 -07 City of Alameda Proposed Parking Fine Schedule Proposed Current Section Violation Fine Fine Alameda Municipal Code 12 -13.3 8 -7.4 8 -7.3 12-4.7 12 -16.2 12 -16.4 6-52.1 8 -7.7 8 -11.1 8 -7.1 8 -8.4 12 -2.4 12 -1.5 8 -7.2 Parking out of marked spaces Posted no parking sign (temporary prohibition) Parking time limit/restricted time Overtime parking City lot Overtime parking in meter zone (expired meter) Parking meter violation (meter zone time limit) Major repairs /displayed for sale Parked on private property Parking in designated loading zone Parking prohibited all times Parking official vehicle space No parking City employee lot City Hall parking lot (overtime City Hall lot) No parking specified hours street sweeping 8-7.10 Overnight park commercial vehicle 8 -7.9 Heavy commercial vehicle 3-hr parking limit 4 -25.2 Parking prohibited front & side yard 8-7.8 72 hour limit 8 -8.3 Parked in disabled zone California Vehicle Code CVC -22500 Improper parking (crosswalk, blocking driveway, on sidewalk, etc.) CVC- 22502A More than 18" from curb/wrong side of street CVC -22514 Unattended within 15' of fire hydrant 30.00 17.00 30.00 17.00 30.00 17.00 30.00 17.00 30.00 17.00 30.00 17.00 32.00 19.00 35.00 22.00 35.00 22.00 35.00 22.00 35.00 22.00 35.00 22.00 35.00 22.00 35.00 22.00 35.00 22.00 35.00 22.00 40.00 24.00 50.00 34.00 250.00 103.00 33.00 20.00 33.00 20.00 33.00 20.00 City Council Attachment 2 to Agenda Item #5-D 11-06-07 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. INCREASING CIVIL PENALTIES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE WHEREAS, the California Vehicle Code Section 40203.5(a) provides that the governing body of the jurisdiction where the notice of violation is issued may establish a schedule of parking penalties for parking violations and late payment penalties; and WHEREAS, VEHICLE code section 40203.5(b) requires that parking penalties shall be collected as civil penalties; and WHEREAS, Alameda Municipal Code section 1 -7 (Administrative Citations) establishes the rules and procedures for imposing fines for violations of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Alameda Municipal Code section 8 -12 (Rules of Procedure Governing the Contest of Parking Citations and Equipment Violations) establishes the rules and procedures for contesting parking penalties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda, that civil penalties for parking violations and late payment penalties are increased as set forth in the attached Exhibit A. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all fees and/or penalties established by Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 which are inconsistent with the fee and/or penalty established by this Resolution are hereby repealed. Resolution #5 -D 11 -06 -07 Exhibit A City of Alameda Proposed Parking Fine Schedule Proposed Current Section Violation Fine Fine Alameda Municipal Code 12 -13.3 Parking out of marked spaces 30.00 17.00 8 -7.4 Posted no parking sign (temporary prohibition) 30.00 17.00 8 -7.3 Parking time limit/restricted time 30.00 17.00 12 -4.7 Overtime parking City lot 30.00 17.00 12 -16.2 Overtime parking in meter zone (expired meter) 30.00 17.00 12 -16.4 Parking meter violation (meter zone time limit) 30.00 17.00 6 -52.1 Major repairs /displayed for sale 32.00 19.00 8 -7.7 Parked on private property 35.00 22.00 8 -11.1 Parking in designated loading zone 35.00 22.00 8 -7.1 Parking prohibited all times 35.00 22.00 8 -8.4 Parking official vehicle space 35.00 22.00 12 -2.4 No parking City employee lot 35.00 22.00 12 -1.5 City Hall parking lot (overtime City Hall lot) 35.00 22.00 8 -7.2 No parking specified hours street sweeping 35.00 22.00 8 -7.10 Overnight park commercial vehicle 35.00 22.00 8 -7.9 Heavy commercial vehicle 3 -hr parking limit 35.00 22.00 4 -25.2 Parking prohibited front & side yard 40.00 24.00 8 -7.8 72 hour limit 50.00 34.00 8 -8.3 Parked in disabled zone 250.00 103.40 California Vehicle Code CVC -22500 Improper parking (crosswalk, blocking driveway, on sidewalk, etc.) 33.00 20.00 CVC- 22502A More than 18" from curb /wrong side of street 33.00 20.00 CVC -22514 Unattended within 15' of fire hydrant 33.00 20.00 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: November 6, 2007 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of Planning Board Resolution PB -07 -31 Approving the First Addendum to the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the revised Waterfront Promenade Development Plan, and the second amendment to the Site -wide Master Landscape Plan. BACKGROUND On December 5, 2006, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project, a Supplement to the 2000 Catellus Mixed -Use Development Project EIR (SEIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State Clearinghouse #2006012091). In December 2006 and January 2007, the Alameda City Council also unanimously approved a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Development Agreement Amendment, and two new Development Agreements for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project. The Master Plan and new Development Agreements provide the basic entitlements for the project and provide guidelines and standards for the review and approval of each phase of the development. On May 29, 2007, the Planning Board began to implement the Master Plan by approving a Waterfront Promenade Development Plan (the Waterfront Development Plan) and an amendment to the Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan (as amended, the Landscape Plan) for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project. Following the approval of these initial design plans, Catellus commissioned an extensive structural and geotechnical evaluation of the wharf and underlying soil. The studies found that the underlying soils and waterfront embankments under the wharf are subject to failure in the event of a significant seismic event. In addition, due to long -term wear and tear and lack of maintenance, the wharf columns in and adjacent to the high tide line lack structural strength and cannot be depended on to withstand the vertical loads that the current building code requires without significant structural upgrades. Due the significant increase in project costs created by the need to seismically reinforce the entire Alameda Landing embankment underneath the wharf and structurally City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -E 1'1 -06 -07 Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 8 upgrade the majority of the 7,116 piles, Catellus determined that it would need to develop a revised Waterfront Development Plan. The revised plan addresses the new findings and reduces the estimated $30 to $35 million in additional costs to perform all of the embankment improvements under the wharf and structurally upgrade and repair the piers that would be necessary to implement the approved Waterfront Development Plan. Therefore, in August, Catellus proposed revisions to the Waterfront Development Plan (the Waterfront Plan Amendment) and the Landscape Plan (the Landscape Plan Amendment) that: • Meet all of the requirements of the approved Bayport/Alameda Landing Project Master Plan. • Provide similar, equivalent, or better public benefits and public spaces to the Waterfront Development Plan approved in May. • Maintain the financial feasibility of the Alameda Landing Project. • Maintain the proposed Clif Bar headquarters project in its current location. • Address the structural, geotechnical, and financial constraints that must be overcome to provide public waterfront access in this area of the city, which historically has been off- limits to the public. The proposed revisions required an addendum to the SE1R (the Addendum), amendments to the Waterfront Development Plan and Landscape Plan, and some technical amendments to the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project). On September 24, 2007, the Planning Board adopted Resolution PB -07 -31 approving the Addendum, the Waterfront Plan Amendment, and the Landscape Plan Amendment, and recommending that the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project). On October 4, 2007, Todd A. Williams of the law firm Morgan Miller Blair, on behalf of Ms. Kathy Wagner, 2227 Mariner Square Loop, filed an appeal (the Appeal) of the Planning Board's September 24th approval of the Addendum, the Waterfront Plan Amendment and the Landscape Plan Amendment. The appeal (Attachment 1) is focused on the Planning Board's adoption of the Addendum (Attachment 2). The following section of this report addresses the issues raised by the appeal. The Planning Board staff report (Attachment 3) describes the Addendum, the Waterfront Plan Amendment, and the Landscape Plan Amendment in detail. DISCUSSION The appeal challenges the City's decision to adopt the Addendum, the Waterfront Plan Amendment, and the Landscape Plan Amendment and contends that the City should have prepared a second supplemental EIR or subsequent EIR. The appeal lacks merit for the reasons set forth below. CEQA Guidelines and Requirements Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 8 As noted above, the City certified the SEIR for the Alameda Landing Project in December 2006. Once an EIR has been certified for a project, CEQA limits the circumstances under which a subsequent or supplemental EIR is required because in- depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long since expired, and circumstance may not have changed enough to justify repeating a substantial portion of the process. Instead, CEQA allows for lead agencies to consider subsequent discretionary approvals for a project based upon the preparation of a document referred to as an addendum. The CEQA Guidelines establish that a lead agency must prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR when changes or additions to the EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions in the CEQA Guidelines triggering preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. When circumstances change in a relatively minor fashion or do not cause any significant impacts other than those already contemplated by the EIR, CEQA does not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Once an EIR has been certified for a project, the CEQA Guidelines provide that no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR ... due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR ... due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) 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 previous EIR was certified as complete ..., shows any of the following: (A) the project will have significant effect(s) not discussed in the previous EIR; (B) previously examined significant effects will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; (C) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible are now feasible and would reduce the significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the measures or alternatives; or Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 8 (D) mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) The Addendum Upon receipt of Catellus' applications for the Waterfront Plan Amendment and Landscape Plan Amendment, staff completed a review of the proposed changes to the project and assessed the presence of changed circumstances or new information against the original project description and analysis included in the SEIR. The SEIR anticipated, analyzed the impacts of, and identified feasible mitigation for, significant demolition work site -wide and both demolition and construction at and around the wharf area. As detailed in the addendum, the proposed changes to the project include additional wharf demolition work, increased shoreline access that may require some dredging and removal of rip rap, and an enlarged floating dock. Although these specific activities are new, staffs analysis determined that the environmental impacts of these new activities are within the scope of the impacts identified in the SEIR, and that the existing SEIR mitigation measures are adequate to mitigate these impacts, with some minor adjustments. As such, staff concluded that the proposed project changes would not result in any new or significantly more severe environmental impacts than the original project described in the 2006 SEIR. In addition, staff did not identify any "new information" or changed circumstances that would result in new or more severe environmental impacts or new feasible mitigation measures that would not be implemented. Staff therefore concluded that the addendum would be appropriate to document these findings, clarify and improve the description of the proposed work on the wharf, and make any necessary or appropriate clarifications or changes to the SEIR mitigation measures. Based upon the preliminary evaluation, staff prepared the addendum, which includes a description of the proposed work and concludes the following: • Biological Impacts: Based on a technical report from WRA, Environmental Consultants, the addendum concludes that, with the implementation of the SEIR mitigation measures and avoidance measures proposed as part of the project, the project changes will not result in any new or substantially more severe biological impacts than identified in the SEIR. The addendum recommends minor revisions to one of the SEIR mitigation measures to clarify the applicability of the measure to all in -water work and affected special status species. ■ Construction Impacts: The addendum concludes that, with implementation of SEIR mitigation measures regarding construction period transportation, air quality, public utilities and water quality mitigation measures, the project changes will not result in any new or substantially more severe construction period impacts than identified in the SEIR. Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 5 of 8 ■ Geology and Seismic Safety Based on an analysis by Treadwell & Rollo, the addendum concludes that, with implementation of the SEIR mitigation measures regarding seismic safety and geology, the project changes will not result in any new or substantially more severe geological or seismic safety impacts than identified in the SEIR. The Addendum recommends revisions to one of the SEIR mitigation measures to clarify the timing of the required geotechnical study with respect to the wharf demolition. The addendum concludes: • There are no substantial changes in the project or the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that require major revisions to the SEIR due to the involvement of new or substantially more severe significant impacts. • There is no new information of substantial importance that could not have been known at the time the SEIR was certified that shows that the project will have new or substantially more severe significant impacts, or that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible are feasible, or that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the SE1 R are feasible, but the project proponent declines to adopt them. ■ As a result, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 and Public Resources Code Section 21166 do not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. The Appeal When evaluating a lead agency's decision to prepare an addendum, rather than a subsequent or supplemental EIR, courts employ the deferential "substantial evidence" standard of review. Pursuant to this standard of review, the lead agency's determination to prepare an addendum will be upheld if substantial evidence in the administrative record demonstrates that the criteria triggering the need for a subsequent or supplemental E1R (discussed above) do not exist, even if other evidence in the record would support a different determination. The appeal questions the conclusions of the addendum, but fails to demonstrate in any way that these conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. New Information: The appeal first questions the conclusion of the addendum that there are claims that there is no "new information" that would require a subsequent or supplemental E1R. As noted above, new information triggers a subsequent or supplemental EIR only if the information was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, and shows new or substantially more severe impacts or new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that will not be implemented. The appeal fails to demonstrate either. Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 6 of 8 First, the appeal concedes that the "new information [regarding the wharf and soil condition] plainly could and should have been known before the SEIR was certified." As such, the new information falls outside of the scope of information that triggers a subsequent EIR. According to CEQA, in -depth review has already occurred, and the time for challenging the sufficiency of the SEIR has expired. Second, the appeal fails to demonstrate a lack of substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the addendum that there is no new information that shows that the project will have new or substantially more severe significant impacts, or feasible mitigation measures or alternatives that will not be adopted. Simply questioning the substantial evidence contained in the addendum is insufficient to demonstrate that there is not substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the addendum. Project Changes: The appeal next questions the conclusion of the addendum that the project changes will not result in new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. Again, the appeal questions the conclusions of the addendum but fails to demonstrate in any way that these conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence. The appeal raises a number of questions related to impacts caused by demolition and construction activities at the wharf. The SEIR anticipated that every building on the site would be demolished and that work would be necessary to modify the wharf for public access to the water and for a water shuttle landing. The 2006 Master Plan includes descriptions and drawings of major modifications to the wharf to accommodate the water shuttle landing and to provide a grand staircase down to the water's edge. Given the expectation of waterfront demolition and construction, as summarized in the addendum, the SEIR includes extensive mitigation measures regarding construction traffic, construction noise (including pile driving), construction air quality impacts, construction water quality impacts, construction impacts to biological resources, and demolition material recycling and reuse. In addition, the EIR recognizes and requires that all of the water related construction meet all of the permit requirements of a number of regional agencies that oversee and permit this type of work to ensure that the environment is protected. For example, the project will undergo review and approval by Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC), the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The record includes substantial evidence to support the conclusion of the addendum that the project changes will not result in new or substantially more severe construction period impacts. The questions raised in the appeal fail to demonstrate a lack of substantial evidence to support these conclusions, or even any substantial evidence to the contrary. Revisions to the Mitigation Measures: The appeal incorrectly suggests that because the project changes require revisions to mitigation measures, there must be new impacts. In fact, the opposite is true: the project changes would result in the same impacts already described in the SEIR, and Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 7 of 8 would be mitigated by the same mitigation measures already identified in the SEIR. The addendum simply identifies minor revisions to the previously approved mitigation measures to clarify their application to the project changes. CEQA allows a lead agency to revise and even to replace a mitigation measure through the addendum process. In this case, the Planning Board approved a revision to certain mitigations to reflect the current understanding of the scope and nature of the work that will be done and that was not known in 2006. The revisions were not necessary to address any new or more severe impacts that would result from the revised plan. No new or more severe impacts were identified. Consistency with Project Objectives: The appeal alleges that the addendum may conflict with the project objectives stated in the SE1 R, questioning how the project changes affect views and access, public art, open space, and other amenities. The project changes are consistent with the Alameda Landing Master Plan and the objectives of the SEIR. The proposed project protects and enhances views of the estuary; it provides improved public access to the water's edge; it provides for a better water shuttle landing; it does not alter the public art requirements for the project; and it satisfies the minimum open space requirements of the Master Plan. Conclusions: As noted above, when evaluating a lead agency's decision to prepare an addendum, courts employ the deferential "substantial evidence" standard of review. The lead agency's determination to prepare an addendum will be upheld if substantial evidence in the administrative record demonstrates that the criteria triggering the need for a subsequent or supplemental E1R (discussed above) do not exist, even if other evidence in the record would support a different determination. In making this assessment, the court's review is limited to the incremental effect of the new action, and does not extend to the impacts of the earlier project. The addendum is supported by substantial evidence, including reports from qualified engineers and biologists. The appeal merely questions the conclusions of the qualified experts in the field, and does not include any contrary evidence, let alone demonstrate that there is not substantial evidence to support the addendum. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT The proposed action to uphold the Planning Board resolution will not impact the City's General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 8 of 8 The Alameda Landing Project was approved and is being implemented pursuant to Section 30 -4.20 MX, Mixed -Use Planned Development District of the City of Alameda Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed actions implement the proposed project and will not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than identified in the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 and 15163 no further environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION Uphold Planning Board Resolution PB- 07-31 approving the First Addendum to the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, the revised Waterfront Promenade Development Plan, and the second amendment to the Site -wide Master Landscape Plan. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Wovflbury Planning and Building Director "be—, By: Andrew Thomas Planning Services Manager AT: at Attachment(s): 1. Kathy Wagner Appeal Letter 2. First Addendum 3. September 24t ", Planning Board Staff Report (without attachments) ,MorganMillergair a yaw coaeoRanary VIA HAND DELIVERY Planning & Building Department City of Alameda, City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Rm. 190 Alameda, CA 94501 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 -4544 925.937.3600 925.943.1106 FAX www.mmblaw.com October 4, 2007 TODD A. WILLIAMS (925) 979 -3352 twilliams@mmblaw.com Re: Notice of Appeal Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (DPO7-0002) Planning Board Public Hearing September 24, 2007 Agenda item No. 9 -B Our File No. 10505 -007 Dear Planning & Building Department: Pursuant to Section 30 -25.1 of the City of Alameda Municipal Code, Kathy Wagner hereby files a notice of appeal and appeal to the City Council of the Planning Board's September 24, 2007 resolution approving (1) the First Addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Supplemental Project EIR, (2) a revised Waterfront Promenade Development Plan, and (3) a second amendment to the Site -wide Master Landscape Plan. Ms. Wagner bases her appeal on all of the grounds raised in her letter submitted to the Planning Board on September 21, 2007. A copy of that letter is attached hereto, and is incorporated into Ms. Wagner's appeal by this reference. As more fully explained in the attached letter, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the City should prepare a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report -- not an addendum -- to address new information of substantial importance and to address new or substantially more severe impacts resulting from changes to the project. The First Addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development EIR (a supplement to the 2000 Catellus Mixed Use Development Project EIR) erroneously claims that there is no new information of substantial importance that could not have been known at the time the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development EIR ( "SEIR ") was certified, and improperly concludes that the project, with its proposed changes, will not have any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts. The attached letter identifies new information of City Council Attachment 1 to MMB:10505- 007:829121.1 Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -E 11 -06 -07 Planning & Building Department October 4, 2007 Page 2 substantial importance that could, and should, have been known prior to SEIR certification, as well as the new or substantially more severe impacts resulting from the project changes. The letter also points out that the addendum containing project changes impermissibly conflicts with the project objectives stated in the SEIR. Before project approval, these changes must be analyzed in a subsequent or supplemental EIR allowing interested parties to review and comment on the changes. Enclosed with this Notice of Appeal letter, is a check for $100 for the appeal fee as required by the Municipal Code. Very truly yours, MORGAN MILLER BLAIR TODD A. WILLIAMS TAW:taw Enclosures cc: Ms. Kathy Wagner, Mariner Square Athletic, Inc. Michael Greene, Esq. (Attorney for Catellus) MMB :10505 -007: 829121.1 Ms. Kathy Wagner Mariner Square Athletic, Inc. 2227 Mariner Square Loop Spotlight On The Square, Inc. dba Bayside Pavilion 2203 Mariner Square Loop Alameda, CA 94501 September 21, 2007 Planning Division City of Alameda, City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Rm. 190 Alameda, CA 94501 Re: Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Planning Board Public Hearing September 24, 2007 Agenda item No. 9 -A Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Board: This letter is written to address my concerns regarding the application of Catellus Development Group, to substantially revise the design of the proposed waterfront promenade and open space proposed as part of the Alameda Landing Waterfront Promenade. The project changes proposed by the applicant would result in a number of significant impacts and are more appropriately addressed in a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report, not an addendum. The September 18, 2007 draft addendum erroneously claims that there is no new information of substantial importance that could not have been known at the time the supplemental environmental impact report was certified that shows that the project will have new or substantially more severe significant impacts. However, the addendum's description of the proposed project changes admits that Catellus engaged certain consultants only after the SEIR was certified, and the work those consultants performed revealed that the wharf is seismically deficient, chloride has intruded to the piles causing deterioration of the rebar in the piles, and soil stabilization measures are required. As a result of the consultants' work, Catellus now estimates that the structural upgrades of more than 7,000 piers below the wharf and soil stabilization activities will cost some $35 million. This new information plainly could and should have been known before the SEIR was certified. It is inconceivable that Catellus would not have taken reasonable steps to obtain such critical information that Catellus claims impairs the financial feasibility of the project. The draft addendum appears to avoid identifying or addressing the extent of the environmental impacts of the proposed project changes. For example, Catellus states that it needs to demolish 100 feet of wharf from the northern edge of certain piles, which will require nearly 300,000 square feet of wharf removal, soil reinforcement, and rebuilding or retrofitting roughly 3,000 existing piles. The addendum wholly fails to explain what proportion the proposed wharf removal is of the total existing wharf area, and it gives scant attention to the environmental impacts this substantial project change will entail. Is 300,000 square feet of wharf removal a small or a large proportion of the total existing wharf? What is the size of the wharf presently? The addendum mentions that wharf sections will be removed by crane, but it does not explain how those sections will be cut off so that they can be removed? What techniques will be used to demolish and cut up the wharf? How long will the demolition take to complete? How much additional construction traffic will the demolition process generate? It appears that these construction activities (which were neither contemplated nor analyzed in the SEIR) will have significant impacts (including impacts on marine Iife in the sensitive Oakland estuary area) that need to be addressed in a more extensive document. The draft addendum admits that the proposed project changes will generate tremendous noise, but then fails to identify and analyze the potential environmental effects of that noise and the pile installation by which it will be created. In particular, the draft addendum states that acoustic vibrations generated by pile installation will reach the eardrum rupturing level of 150 decibels, which is equivalent to the sound one would hear if standing less than 100 feet from a jet engine. What pile installation techniques does Catellus proposed to use? What noise volume would this activity generate without the stated mitigation techniques? How will the projected noise affect nearby residents, students, and senior citizens? How would pile installation generating noise to the tune of 150 decibels not rise to the level of a significant environmental impact? What impacts will the acoustic vibrations generated by the proposed pile installation have on marine Iife, and what impacts will sediment generated from the pile installation have on water quality? What environmental impacts will result from the greenhouse gas emissions the proposed project changes will generate? The draft addendum acknowledges that certain mitigation measures must be revised to address the changes in the project and the addendum sets forth those revised measures. Mitigation measures are only required if an impact results. since the project changes require revisions to the mitigation measures, these revision are necessary to mitigate a significant impact. These are all impacts that were not analyzed in the previous EIR. An addendum cannot be used if project changes result in are impact that wasn't analyzed in a previous EIR. The draft addendum may also conflict with the project objectives stated in the SEIR, which include protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views and public access to the waterfront, encouraging waterfront usage, and by providing a waterfront promenade, public art, open space, and other amenities. Related to that project objective, the proposed project changes include a 150% increase in the size of the floating dock (4,000 sf to 10,000 sf). How will the proposed wharf demolition and enlargement of the floating dock affect views and access to the waterfront? Will they have any affect on public art, open space, and other amenities? Will they require q re increased construction traffic? Will an enlarged floating dock and other project .. g p j changes generate additional traffic once the project is complete? In short, the proposed project changes are not rnerely technical changes, they These g � are substantial than g hese changes must be analyzed in an environmental review document and interested parties need to be able to review and comment on these changes. This process will then allow decision - makers to make an informed decision. . Sincerely, Ar- fer Kathy VII a Mariner Square Athletic, Inc. cc: Andrew Thomas, Planning Manager DRAFT September 18, 2007 September 2007 FIRST ADDENDUM TO ALAMEDA LANDING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR (SCH # 2006012091) (A Supplement to the 2000 Catellus Mixed Use Development Project EIR) 1. Background and Description of Project Changes As analyzed in the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project EIR (SCH #2006012091) (A Supplement to the 2000 Catellus Mixed Use Development Project EIR) (the "SEIR "), certified by the Alameda City Council on December 5, 2006, the Alameda Landing Project (the "Project ") is a mixed use development consisting of approximately 400,000 square feet of waterfront office space, 50,000 square feet of waterfront retail, a 250,000-square-foot retail center, a 20,000- square -foot health club, 300 residential units (including 75 affordable units), and an approximately eight -acre waterfront open space referred to as the "Waterfront Promenade." The Project site includes a wharf structure (the "Wharf') containing approximately 302,000 square feet of surface area. The Project analyzed in the SEIR anticipated that the wharf would support retail and office buildings, as well as the Waterfront Promenade. Since certification of the SEIR, the Project applicant engaged Moffat & Nichol, an industry leading marine structural engineer, to conduct an analysis of the wharf and report on any refurbishment that would be required to support the Project. In its "Alameda Landing wharf -- Condition Assessment Report" dated September 18, 2007, Moffat & Nichol concluded that the Wharf is deficient from a seismic standpoint. Furthermore, after conducting destructive testing on the Wharf, Moffat & Nichol discovered that, within the "splash zone" (low tide to mean high water), there has been significant chloride intrusion to the piles, causing moderate to severe deterioration of the rebar in the piles. The Project applicant also commissioned Treadwell & Rollo to study the sub - surface soil condition underneath the Wharf. This study revealed that soil stabilization measures would be required, in addition to those corrective measures suggested by Moffatt & Nichol. The Project applicant estimates that the combined cost of these soil stabilization measures and the structural upgrade of the majority of the 7,116 piers below the Wharf is approximately $35 million. According to the Project applicant, the extent of the estimated cost of repairs to the Wharf and soil stabilization will render the Project economically infeasible. As a result, the Project applicant now proposes several modifications to the Project that will: • Meet all of the requirements of the approved B ayport/Alameda Landing Project Master Plan • Provide similar or equivalent public benefits and spaces to those included in the approved Waterfront Development Plan • Maintain the financial feasibility of the Project • Maintain the proposed Clif Bar headquarters project in its current location 50120\107636v3 City Council Attachment 2 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -E 1 1 -06 -07 DRAFT • Provide improvements necessary to mitigate existing structural deficiencies in the Wharf and soil instability Specifically, the Project applicant proposes the following changes to the Project (the "Project Changes ") : 1. Demolition The Project applicant proposes to demolish approximately 100 feet of Wharf from the northern edge to the "K- Line" of piles, with the exception of a few areas such as the Wharf in front of the proposed Clif Bar building and near the Port of Oakland turning basin. In total, approximately 290,000 square feet of the Wharf would be removed. With these changes, the estimated cost to stabilize and structurally upgrade the Wharf would be substantially less than the retention of the entire wharf, due to the decreased number of damaged piles needing repair. The proposal also includes work to reinforce soils and rebuild /retrofit approximately 3,000 existing piles. The proposed Wharf demolition work would incorporate several techniques designed to avoid or minimize potential impacts to the Estuary environment. Specifically, the identified portions of the wharf would be removed by cutting sections of the Wharf and removing them via crane. The existing piles in the area of removed Wharf would be cut off below the mudline or below existing rip rap. A containment boom, silt curtain, coffer dam, or other suitable containment device would be installed along the Wharf perimeter during removal of the Wharf (including the piles). 2. Increased Shoreline Access The proposed partial demolition of the Wharf will expose some areas of land previously located beneath the Wharf. The newly exposed areas will be restored as a publicly accessible tidal marsh shoreline. Some dredging or removal or rip rap, and placement of suitable soil for establishment of marsh vegetation, may be necessary. A containment device will be used during any such placement of soil. 3. Enlarged Floating Dock The approved Waterfront Promenade Development Plan proposed an approximately 4,000- square -foot floating dock. In order to maximize public access to the waterfront (for such activities as kayaking, windsurfing, and access to the water shuttle) despite the removal of portions of the Wharf, the Project applicant proposes to increase the size of the floating dock to approximately 10,000 square feet. Nonetheless, the Project Changes still will result in a net reduction of bay fill, compared to both existing conditions and the approved Project, because the area of wharf removed will exceed the area of proposed fill as a result of the enlarged floating dock and shoreline access improvements. Construction of the enlarged floating dock would require installation of piles in the area currently covered by the Wharf. A vibratory hammer or bubble curtain will be used to reduce acoustic vibrations generated by pile installation to below 150 decibels. 501201107636v3 2 DRAFT 2. Assessment of Environmental Impacts of Proposed Project Changes 2.1 Geology, Soils and Seismicity As noted in Part 1 above, the Project Changes would include removal of a portion of the Wharf (including piles). Mitigation Measure GEO -1 of the SEIR, previously adopted and made a condition of Project approval, requires preparation of a detailed geotechnical and soils report, prior to grading or building permits, addressing, among other things, the stability of the bulkhead, and compliance with measures recommended in the report. In its September 7, 2007, Memorandum (attached hereto as Exhibit A), Treadwell & Rollo indicates that the removal of above grade features of the Wharf (including portions of piles above the rip rap) will not alter the static stability of the existing slope. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would reduce the potential for significant soils impacts from Wharf demolition to a less than significant level. In order to clarify that the component of the geotechnical and soils report related to the stability of the bulkhead after Wharf demolition should be completed prior to the proposed Wharf demolition, Mitigation Measure GEO -1 is hereby revised as follows: Mitigation Measure GEO -1 (Revised): Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits or with res • ect to wharf demolition work •rior to issuance of demolition permits for the wharf, a detailed geotechnical and soils report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Alameda Public Works Department and the California State Geologist for review and approval. The report shall determine the site's surface geotechnical conditions and address potential seismic hazards, including liquefaction and associated ground failure, and the stability of the bulkhead. The report shall identify building techniques appropriate to minimize seismic damage, including but not limited to the following: • Buildings and other structures shall be designed to meet the requirements of the most recently adopted Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4. • Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall conform with the California Division of Mines and Geology recommendations presented in the "Guidelines for Evaluating Seismic Hazards in California." All mitigation measures, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the geotechnical and soils report shall be followed in order to reduce impacts associated with seismic hazards to a less - than - significant level. 2.2 Biological Resources As noted in Part 1 above, the Proposed Changes include partial demolition of the Wharf (including piles); restoration of tidal marsh beneath the removed Wharf, which may involve some dredging or removal of rip rap and placement of suitable soil for establishment of marsh vegetation; and enlargement of the floating dock, including installation of new piles, in a portion of the area of the removed Wharf. In its letter report dated September 12, 2007, WRA states: 50120\107636v3 3 DRAFT In conclusion, the proposed revisions to the Alameda Landing Project will not result in changes to the significance of impacts or mitigation measures required for biological resources as a result of the Project. Project BMPs [Best Management Practices] and avoidance measures, along with implementation of the SEIR mitigation measures ... [described in the WRA report], will minimize and avoid any potentially significant impacts to biological resources that may occur due to the project. The increase in open water and tidal marsh shoreline will be a net benefit to biological resources in the project Area." The conclusions of the WRA report are summarized below, and the report is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Jurisdictional Waters of San Francisco Bay: The WRA report notes that the Project will implement the portions of Mitigation Measure BIO -3a, previously adopted and made a condition of Project approval, applicable to jurisdictional waters of San Francisco Bay (including implementing Best Management Practices ( "BMPs ") identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (the "RWQCB ") to minimize water quality impacts, and obtaining and complying with the conditions of any permits required for in -water construction activities from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the RWQCB pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act), and will include a sediment containment device proposed as part of the Project. The WRA report concludes that the Project Changes would result in a net benefit to biological resources and waters of the San Francisco Bay by removing hardscape and restoring tidal marsh, and that no additional mitigation is required. Fish: The WRA report notes that, for in -water construction work, the Project will implement the portions of Mitigation Measures BIO-3b, previously adopted and made a condition of Project approval, that apply to fish species with the potential to occur in the Project vicinity (including restricting dredging during the Pacific herring spawning period (December 1-- February 28) and the sensitive period for salmonids (December 1—May 311), and will install the sediment containment device proposed as part of the Project. The WRA report indicates that installation of the sediment containment device also will prevent significant impacts to green sturgeon, a species that has been listed since certification of the SEIR. The WRA report concludes that "[n]o additional mitigation measures are necessary for potential impacts to special status fish species." Birds: The WRA. report notes that the Project will implement Mitigation Measure BIO -5 (surveys and buffers for nesting birds), previously adopted and made a condition of Project approval. The WRA. report indicates that the proposed Wharf removal will not result in a significant decrease in foraging habitat for birds and actually will increase foraging habitat for some bird species. The WRA report concludes that "no additional mitigation measures are necessary for potential impacts to raptors and other nesting bird species." The WRA report also notes that the Project will implement the portions of Mitigation Measure BIO -3b applicable to federally protected bird species (restrictions on dredging within 300 feet of the brown pelican 1 The WRA report notes that, due to a typographical error, the SEIR says May 3, but should say May 31. 50120\107636v3 4 DRAFT nighttime communal roost between one hour before sunset to sunrise from July 1 to September 30 and restrictions on dredging during the California least tern breeding season (March 15 July 31)), and will install the sediment containment device proposed as part of the Project. According to the WRA report, compliance with Mitigation Measures BIO-5a and BIO -3b also will avoid any potential impacts to nesting Double- crested Cormorants. Special Status plan Species and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: The WRA report indicates that existing conditions in the project area are not conducive to supporting special status plant species or submerged aquatic vegetation, and that no impacts are expected to occur to these resources. In order to clarify that Mitigation Measure BIG -3b applies to all in -water construction activities and to the Double- crested Cormorant, and to correct typographical errors, Mitigation Measure BIO -3b is hereby revised as follows: Mitigation Measure BIO -3b: Mitigations Applicable by Species • During the Pacific herring spawning period (December 1-February 28) dredging is-and in -water construction activities are restricted. If dredging or in -water construction activities must be conducted during this period, CDFG must be contacted and the permittee must provide an observer to identify herring spawning activity. Dredging and in -water construction activities must stop immediately if herring are within 200 meters of the work site, and may not continue until hatch -out is complete (approximately 10-14 days). • No dredging or in -water construction activities within 300 feet of the brown pelican nighttime communal roost site located at the Alameda Breakwater will occur during the period between one hour before sunset to sunrise, and from July 1 to September 30. • During the California least tem breeding season (March 15 —July 31) dredging is and in -water construction activities are restricted within 3 miles of active nesting areas. Restrictions on dredging and in -water construction activities applicable to the California least tern also shall a • • l to the Double- crested Cormorant. • During the period of December 1—May 31, dredging and in -water construction activities will be restricted to protect adult and juvenile salmonids occurring in the Bay. Summary of Seasonal Restrictions: Consultation with the Crops, NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG during permit applications for the project may result in changes to the restrictions above. For example, underwater construction, e.g., pile driving, may be permitted subject to maximum sound pressure levels (SPLs). For CEQA purposes, these restriction will result in less than significant impacts. 501201107636v3 5 DRAFT 2.3 Construction Impacts Transportation, Air Quality, Noise, Solid Waste, and Water Quality As noted in Part 1 above, the Project Changes include the demolition of a portion of the Wharf. According to BKF Engineers, the Wharf demolition will generate approximately 352,000 CU of debris, all of which would be reused on -site, other than rebar, which would be sent off -site for recycling. The SEIR concluded that noise impacts from construction activities, including demolition and pile driving, would be less than significant as a result of compliance with the City's noise ordinance and the temporary and intermittent nature of construction noise. The Project would comply with Mitigation Measures T /C -1 (preparation of a Traffic Control Plan to address the impacts of construction vehicles, street restoration, etc.), AQ -1 (dust control, emission reduction, and asbestos handling measures during construction) and PUB -2 (preparation of a Waste Management Plan for managing construction debris), all previously adopted and made conditions of Project approval. The SEIR concluded that, with implementation of these mitigation measures, construction - period traffic, air quality, and solid waste generation impacts would be less than significant. The minor increase in demolition and off -haul of construction debris as a result of the Project Changes would not change the conclusions of the SEIR that construction- period transportation, noise, air quality impacts, and solid waste generation impacts would be less than significant after mitigation. The WRA Report indicates that Project BMPs, including the method of removing the Wharf by cutting sections and lifting them by crane and the installation of a suitable containment device, will minimize any increase in turbidity in the Estuary as a result of these activities. In addition, in accordance with Mitigation Measure HYD -2, previously adopted and made a condition of Project approval, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( "SWPPP ") designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction and life of the Project will be prepared. The SWPPP will include BMPs for preventing discharge of regulated pollutants to the Bay and other waters during demolition work. Based on the foregoing, the Project Changes would not result in any new or substantially more severe construction impacts including without limitation transportation, air quality, noise, solid waste, or water quality impacts than identified in the SEIR. 3. Conclusion The Project Changes require minor technical changes and additions to the SEIR that are appropriate to be addressed in an addendum. There are no substantial changes in the Project or the circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that require major revisions to the SEIR due to the involvement of new or substantially more severe significant impacts. There is no new information of substantial importance that could not have been known at the time the SEIR was certified that shows that the Project will have new or substantially more severe significant impacts, or that mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible are feasible or that mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different from those analyzed in the SEIR are feasible, but the project proponent declines to adopt them. As a result, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 and Public Resources Code Section 21166 do not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. 50120\107636v3 6 DRAFT EXHIBIT A TREADWELL & ROLLO MEMORANDUM 501241107636v3 7 • MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Mark McClelland -- ProLogis FROM: Russell C. Thompson /Richard D. Rodgers DATE: 7 September 2007 PROJECT: Alameda Landing Alameda, California 2310.37 SUBJECT: Potential Slope Stability Issues Related to the Removal of the. Existing - wharf and-Piles- Number of Pages: 1 At your request, this memorandum presents our opinion regarding the potential effect of the removal of the existing wharf and piles on the stability of the existing slope along the northern boundary of the site. Based on our discussions with you, we understand ProLogis in contemplating the removal of portions of the existing wharf and piles along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to the Oakland Estuary, We further understand the existing piles would be removed to the top of the existing rip rap (embedded portions of the piles would remain). In our previous reports for the project we have stated the northern portion of the site, including the area of the existing wharf and piles under discussion, are subject to potential liquefaction and lateral spreading during a seismic event on a nearby fault. However, the existing slope is stable under static conditions. The above grade portions of the wharf and piles do not contribute to the static stability of the slope. Therefore, the removal of these "above grade" features will not alter the static stability of the existing slope. If you have any questions, please call. 23103703.RCT ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEWE:MINH:AL CONsuLTAmT 555 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1300 SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94111 T 415 955 9040 F 415 955 0041 www.Ireadwellrollo.com DRAFT EXHIBIT B WRA LETTER REPORT 50120\107636v3 8 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS September 12, 2007 Mark McClelland ProLogis 47775 Fremont Blvd. Fremont, California 94538 Re: Alameda Landing Biological Resources Revised Project Addendum Dear Mark, The purpose of this letter is to confirm that the proposed minor modifications to the wharf design and associated demolition activities will not result in changes to the level of significance of impacts to biological resources as set forth in the Alameda Landing Supplemental ER. This letter also describe changes to the avoidance, and minimization measures for biological resources as part of the revised Alameda Landing redevelopment project in Alameda, California. The original Alameda Landing Project design has been revised due to seismic instability in portions of the existing wharf in the Project Area. The largest change in the Project revision is the demolition and removal of approximately 290,000 square feet of existing unstable wharf in two sections along the northern portion of the Project Area. The majority of the removed wharf area would be open water following Project completion. The shoreline along much of the removed wharf area would be restored to tidal marsh. A new floating dock, which would be a dual purpose water shuttle landing and recreational access point to the Bay, would also be installed in the wharf removal area. The Waterfront Promenade would remain in place as part of the revised project and would still meet the minimum size dictated by the Bayport/Alameda Landing Master Plan. Summary of Existing Conditions at the Alameda Landing Project Site Existing conditions in the Project Area have not changed since the certification of the Alameda Landing Supplemental EIR. The Project Area is located in a 94 acre portion of the former Alameda U.S. Naval Air Station known as the Fleet industrial Supply Center in northwestern Alameda, Alameda County, California. The site consists of active and abandoned warehouses and similar structures, most of which are built on existing concrete docks and piers. The majority of the site is paved asphalt and concrete, with a few small areas of compact fill material which support a few species of non - native plant species such as horseweed (Conyza sp.) and yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis). The waterfront is made up entirely of concrete wharf which is actively used for shipping. The wharf does provide some "artificial reef' habitat for shellfish such as mussels and barnacles. There are no tidal or non -tidal wetlands present along the wharf or wharf front. Water depths within the shipping channel are maintained at depths appropriate for the movement and docking of deep water shipping vessels. Currently available bathymetry shows depths of approximately -12 feet MLLW. The photographs below show conditions along the waterfront and landward portions of the Project Site. 2169 -G East Francisco Blvd., San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 454 -8868 tel (415) 454 -0129 fax info@wra-ca.com www.wra- ca.com Waterfront dock with docked shipping vessels Waterfront dock showing "artificial reef" habitat Vegetated mound of fill material with warehouses in background Project Description The Hospital, typical of abandoned structures in the Project Area The Alameda Landing project is a redevelopment project that includes a mix of housing, commercial office and retail space, research and development facilities, and parks and open space. The project is being designed as a pedestrian friendly, waterfront- focused community seeking to establish a new focus on water oriented mixed use development in the City of Alameda. Approximately 25 percent of the residential units will be constructed as affordable housing. Included in the Project design is a network of parks and open space including the Waterfront Promenade, Waterfront Plaza, Village Green, and a network of smaller parks. The Project would replace the existing blighting influences and correct environmental deficiencies in the area including soil contamination, inadequate or deteriorated public infrastructure, and lack of public access to the shore. Waterfront redevelopment activities would include a 10- 12,000 square foot floating dock that would serve as a public kayak launch area and water shuttle landing. The water shuttle will provide public transit to the Jack London square area of the City of Oakland. As part of the Project, approximately 290,000 square feet of existing wharf would be removed. A portion of the former wharf would be replaced by a restored, publicly accessible tidal marsh 2 shoreline, comprised of tidal marsh vegetation such as pickleweed (Saiicornia virginica) and Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa). Wharf removal is anticipated to occur by cutting sections of the wharf and removing them via crane. This technique will minimize and possibly eliminate incidental fallback of debris into the Bay. Existing piles supporting the wharf would be cut off below the mudline or below existing rip rap. Construction of the large floating dock would require installation of piles in the area currently covered by existing wharf. Some amount of dredging or removal of rip rap, and placement of suitable soil for establishment of marsh vegetation may also be necessary as part of the Project. Project BMPs and Avoidance Measures The Project will incorporate the following measures to avoid and minimize impacts to biological resources. Removal of the existing wharf by cutting sections and removing them via crane will minimize the increase in turbidity and potential for incidental fallback that may occur during wharf removal. To further prevent increased turbidity and retain any incidental floating debris during wharf removal, a containment boom, silt curtain, coffer dam, or other suitable containment device will be installed along the perimeter of wharf during removal of the wharf and pilings. A containment device will also be installed during placement of soil for the tidal marsh that will be established along the shoreline. A vibratory hammer or bubble curtain will be used during installation of piles for the floating dock to reduce acoustic vibrations generated by pile installation to below 150 dB, preventing impacts to fish in the area. A spill prevention and control plan will be developed to prevent pollutants from entering the Bay from accidental spills during construction. Mitigation Measures included in the SEIR are described below. Biological Resources impact Assessment The following sections describe how the implementation of mitigation measures contained in the Alameda Landing SEIR, along with Project BMPs and avoidance measures contained in the revised Project Description, will avoid or mitigate for potential impacts to biological resources. The Project revisions do not result in changes to the level of significance of impacts to biological resources identified in the SEIR. Jurisdictional Waters of San Francisco Bay Applicable laws and regulations governing agency jurisdiction in the Project Area include Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (Corps), Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (Corps and RWQCB), Porter - Cologne Act ( RWQCB), and McAteer - Petris Act (BCDC). Corps jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, RWQCB jurisdiction under the Porter Cologne Act, and BCDC jurisdiction in the Project Area applies to work occurring below the elevation of Mean High Water (MHW), which is 2.98 feet NGVD 1929 (5.84 feet MLLW). BCDC jurisdiction also applies to any work performed within the 100 foot shoreline band extending landward from the shoreline in the Project Area. Corps and RWQCB jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act applies to in -water work below the High Tide Line (HTL), which is 4.95 feet NGVD 1929 (7.81 feet MLLW). Table 1 summarizes tidal elevations of regulatory significance in the Project Area. 3 Table 1. Tidal Elevations of Regulatory Significance for the Project Area. Tidal Elevation Elevation MLLW datum Elevation NGVD datum MHW (Section 10, Porter - Cologne Act, McAteer - Petris Act) 5.8 feet 3.0 feet HTL (Section 404) 7.8 feet 4.9 feet Removal of the wharf surface will require approval from BCDC. Removal of the piles supporting the current wharf, any removal or placement of rip rap, and removal or placement of any other material into the Bay will require approval from the RWQCB, the Corps, and BCDC. Installation of piles to support the floating dock would also require permits from the Corps, RWQCB, and BCDC. The floating dock would be placed in an area that is occupied by the existing wharf, so there will be no net increase in fill or covered area in the Bay. Portions of Alameda Landing SEIR Mitigation Measure Bio -3a apply to potential impacts to jurisdictional waters of San Francisco Bay. Mitigation Measure Bio -3a states that the project shall: • Implement Best Management Practices, as identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to minimize water quality impacts. ▪ Determine whether in -water activities (including dredging) will require Corps authorization in compliance with Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) or Section 404 (Clean Water Act) and a Section 401 (Clean Water Act) water quality certification. The applicant shall obtain such approvals (if required) before activities proceed within Corps jurisdictional waters, and shall comply with all mitigation measures required by those approvals. The Project will obtain approval from the RWQCB, the Corps, and BCDC prior to in -water construction and wharf removal, in compliance with SEIR Mitigation Measure Bio -3a. A suitable sediment containment device will be placed at the perimeter of the wharf removal areas to prevent water quality impacts as stated in the Project Description. Any other BMPs required by the RWQCB as part of previous or future Project approvals will also be implemented. Overall, the Project revisions would result in a net benefit to biological resources and the waters of San Francisco Bay. Existing hardscape at and over the edge of the Bay would be removed and replaced with a restored tidal marsh area, establishing a more natural landscape to the shoreline of the Inner Oakland Harbor. The Project revisions not require additional mitigation for wetlands or waters and will result in a net increase in the area of jurisdictional wetlands and waters in San Francisco Bay. Special Status Wildlife Species A number of special status wildlife species are known to occur in the vicinity of the Project Area. Table 2 below contains a list of special status wildlife species that may occur in the Project Area. 4 Table 2. Special status wildlife species that may occur in the Project Area and vicinity. Fish Species Raptors and Common Breeding Birds Federally Protected Birds Bats Chinook salmon (Federal Threatened), steelhead (Federal Threatened), Pacific herring (CDFG - commercial fisheries), green sturgeon (Federal Threatened) Cooper's Hawk (CDFG Species of Special Concern), White - Tailed Kite (CDFG Species of Special Concern), Double- Crested Cormorant (CDFG Species of Special Concern) California Brown Pelican (Federal Endangered, State Endangered), California Least Tern (Federal Endangered, State Endangered) pallid bat (CDFG Species of Special Concern), big free - tailed bat (CDFG Species of Special Concern), yuma myotis (CDFG Species of Special Concern) Table 2 contains two species that were not addressed in the Alameda Landing SEIR: green sturgeon and Double - crested Cormorant. Although these species may be present in the Project Area and vicinity, their potential presence does not increase the level of significance of impacts to biological resources that could occur due to the Project. Green sturgeon may occasionally use the waters of Project Area as foraging and rearing habitat, but is not known to spawn in the Project Area. Installation of the sediment containment system BMP to control turbidity during wharf removal will prevent significant impacts to rearing and foraging green sturgeon, if present in the Project Area during construction. Double - crested Cormorant may forage over the waters in the Project Area, and may nest in power line structures, navigation channel markers, or similar structures. Pre - construction surveys required as part of SEIR Mitigation Measures Bio -5 will avoid any potential impacts to nesting Double- crested Cormorant. Dredging restrictions applicable to the California Least Tern as part of SEIR Mitigation Measure 3b would prevent significant impacts to Double - crested Cormorant foraging during the breeding season since it is very rare that Double- crested Cormorants breed past July 31. Portions of SEIR Mitigation Measure 3b apply to fish species with the potential to occur in the Project Area and vicinity. Applicable portions of Mitigation Measure 3b state that: • During the Pacific herring spawning period (December 1 — February 28) dredging is restricted. If dredging must be conducted during this period, CDFG must be contacted and the permittee must provide an observer to identify herring spawning activity. Dredging must stop immediately if herring are within 200 meters of the work site, and may not continue until hatch -out is complete (approximately 10 -14 days). • During the period of December 1 — May 3, dredging will be restricted to protect adult and juvenile salmonids occurring in the Bay'. Dredging and other in water work, including wharf and pile removal, will occur between June 1 and November 30 to avoid disturbance to salmonids and Pacific herring in accordance with 1The SEIR states that dredging is restricted in salmonid habitat from December 1 - May 3. Dredging restrictions for salmonids are actually from December 1 - May 31. Therefore, the appropriate work window is June 1 through November 30. 5 SEIR Mitigation Measure Bio -3b. Installation of the sediment containment device BMP as set forth in the Project Description will prevent significant impacts to foraging and rearing green sturgeon. No additional mitigation measures are necessary for potential impacts to special status fish species. SEIR Mitigation Measures Bio -5 apply to special status raptors, and other common and special status breeding birds. Mitigation Measure Bio -5 states that: To the extent practicable, construction activities should be performed or vegetation removed from September through February to avoid the general nesting period for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period, pre - construction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests on site or within 250 feet from proposed construction activities prior to the start of construction and prior to the removal of any tree. If active nests are located, a 250 -foot buffer zone will be established around any active nest which is not a raptor species; active raptor nests will require a 500 foot buffer zone. However, buffer zones can be reduced or modified on a case -by -case basis with consultation with CDFG. Construction activities shall avoid buffer zones and no tree with an active nest will be removed until the young have fledged or the nest is otherwise abandoned. Implementation of SEIR Mitigation Measure Bio-5 will prevent significant impacts to special status raptors and other special status and common breeding birds. There will be no significant decrease in foraging habitat for bird species that may occur in the area as a result of the Project. Wharf removal will result in an increase of foraging habitat for some bird species. No additional mitigation measures are necessary for potential impacts to raptors and other nesting bird species. Portions of SEIR Mitigation Measure 3b are applicable to federally protected bird species. These sections state that: • No dredging within 300 feet of the brown pelican nighttime communal roost site located at Alameda Breakwater will occur during the period between one hour before sunset to sunrise, and from July 1 to September 30. • During the California least tern breeding season (March 15 — July 31) dredging is restricted within 3 miles of active nesting areas. No work associated with the revised Alameda Landing Project will take place within 300 feet of the Brown Pelican roost site. Any dredging or removal of rip rap will take place between August 1 and December 1 to avoid impacts to California Least Tern foraging habitat. With the application of the Project BMPs and avoidance measures, wharf removal activities are not expected to result in significant impacts to California Least Tern foraging habitat. The wharf removal area is not currently California Least Tern foraging habitat. The sediment containment device will contain any increased turbidity that may occur due to wharf removal so that surrounding California Least Tern foraging habitat will not be significantly impacted by increased turbidity. Dredging restrictions and Project BMPs covering the California Least Tern are also sufficient to avoid significant impacts to Double - crested Cormorant, as described above. 6 SEIR Mitigation Measure Bio -2 applies to special status bat species, and states that: Within a 0 -month period prior to any demolition of abandoned buildings, a qualified biologist familiar with bats shall conduct a survey to determine the status of these bat species on the project site. If special- status bat species are found, a biologist familiar with relocating bats shall be consulted regarding the best methods to remove bats from the buildings, and such methods shall be implemented. This could include removing sections of the walls and roofs, which could discourage bats from continuing to roost in the buildings. If a maternity colony if these species is found, the building and the bats shall not be disturbed until the young have dispersed. WRA conducted pre - construction bat roost surveys on March 2, 2007 in and around buildings that are scheduled for demolition as part of the Project. No bats roosts were observed and the buildings to be demolished and surrounding habitats in the Project Area were determined to be low quality bat roost habitat. Building demolition is scheduled to occur during September and October 2007, which is the appropriate time to conduct work in areas of potential bat roost habitat. During this period, juvenile bats are mature enough to be mobile and bats have not yet begun to hibernate, so they are able to move quickly in response to change. The removal of walls and roofs recommended in SEIR Mitigation Measure Bio -2 are best performed during September and October to avoid impacts to roosting bats. Although the Alameda Landing SEIR requires that bat surveys be conducted within 6 months of building demolition, no additional pre - construction surveys are recommended because demolition work will occur between September 1 and October 31, when it is not expected to impact roosting bats. Mitigation Measure Bio -2 will be implemented if building demolition has not begun prior to October 31, 2007. Special Status Plant Species and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Existing conditions in the Project Area are not conducive to supporting special status plant species or submerged aquatic vegetation. The majority of the site is developed land, consisting of paved and graveled surface. The only exposed soil in the Project Area are piles of fill material containing non - native weeds and invasive plant species. A long history of industrial and military activity in the Project Area have created conditions that are not suitable for the growth of special status plant species. SEIR Mitigation Measure 3b requires that: • If the project will cause unavoidable direct or indirect effects to submerged or emergent aquatic vegetation, provide compensatory mitigation at a 3:1 ratio for lost functions and values. Other proposed ratios require consultation with USFWS and CDFG. The Project Area is not likely to support submerged aquatic vegetation. Eelgrass has been mapped north of the entrance to the existing shipping channel, and east of the Project Area offshore of the U.S. Coast Guard Reservation, but no eelgrass has been mapped in the Project Area, and no eelgrass is likely to occur there. The current depths of approximately -1 2 feet MLLW along the waterfront of the Project Area are too deep to support eelgrass and other submerged aquatic vegetation. No submerged aquatic vegetation was observed growing on the "artificial reef" habitat in the Project Area, and none is likely to occur there. The daily use of the waterfront by deep water shipping vessels and regular dredging to depths that are not suitable for the growth of submerged aquatic vegetation make the Project Area extremely 7 unlikely to support submerged aquatic vegetation. No impacts are expected to occur to special status plant species or submerged aquatic vegetation in the Project Area. In conclusion, the proposed revisions to the Alameda Landing Project will not result in changes to the significance of impacts or mitigation measures required for biological resources as a result of the Project. Project BMPs and avoidance measures, along with the implementation of SEIR mitigation measures as described above, will minimize and avoid any potentially significant impacts to biological resources that may occur due to the Project. The increase in open water and restored tidal marsh shoreline will be a net benefit to biological resources in the Project Area. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding any of the above information. Sincerely, Justin Semion Associate Biologist WRA, Inc. 8 C I TY OF ALAM E DA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT ITEM NO: APPLI CATION: GENERAL PLAN: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: RECOMMENDATION: STAFF PLANNERS: ACRONYMS: ATTACHMENTS: 1. 9 -B DPO7 -0002 Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Development Plan and Design Review - Applicant: Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company. The applicant requests approval for an Addendum to the SEIR, a Waterfront Promenade Development Plan Amendment, a Site - Wide Landscape Development Plan Amendment, and an Alameda Landing Commercial Project Development Agreement Amendment. The site is located along the northern end of the former FISC Site (Tract 7884) within the M-X Mixed Use Planned Development Zoning District. (AT) Specified Mixed Use A Final SEIR has been certified for the project. An addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Final SEIR has been prepared for the proposed amendments. Approval Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager - 747.6881 AMC: Alameda Municipal Code DA: Development Agreement SEIR: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report FISC: Fleet Industrial Supply Center Alameda MX: Mixed Use Planned Development PD: Planned Development Draft Resolution Exhibit A: First Addendum to Final EIR Exhibit B: Waterfront Promenade Development Plans Adam - . = - fanning Board Staff Report Meeting of Septemb 4, 2007 City Council Attachment 3 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -E 11 -06 -07 The following are available in the Planning & Building Department offices for review: • Bayport/Alameda Landing Project Master Plan, December 2006 • Supplemental EIR, ESA Associates, August 2006 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 29, 2007, the Planning Board passed resolutions approving a Waterfront Promenade Development Plan and an amendment to the Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project. In preparing the design review plans for the first phase of the Waterfront Promenade for Planning Board review, Catellus commissioned an extensive structural and geotechnical evaluation of the wharf and underlying soil. Both evaluations reviewed the existing studies and analyses that had been prepared in previous years and included additional soil testing, wharf column inspections, and structural evaluations. The new studies found that the underlying soils and waterfront embankments under the wharf are subject to failure in the event of a significant seismic event. In addition, due to Tong -term wear and tear and lack of maintenance, the wharf columns in and adjacent to the high tide line lack structural strength and cannot be depended on to withstand the vertical loads that the current building code requires without significant structural upgrades. These new findings significantly increase project costs necessary to seismically reinforce the entire Alameda Landing embankment underneath the wharf and structurally upgrade all of the piles within 100 feet of the wharf edge. Catellus has determined that they will not be able to move forward with the Alameda Landing project unless they can reduce the estimated $30 to $35 million cost to perform all of the embankment improvements under the wharf and structurally upgrade and repair the majority of the 7,116 piers that would be necessary to implement the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan. The proposed revision to the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan: • Meets all of the requirements of the approved Bayport/Alameda Landing Project Master Plan. • Provides similar, equivalent, or better public benefits and spaces to the plan approved in May. • Maintains the financial feasibility of the Alameda Landing Project. • Maintains the proposed Clif Bar headquarters project in its current location. • Address the structural, geotechnical and financial constraints that must be overcome to provide public waterfront access in this area of the City that has been historically off - limits to the public. The revised Waterfront Promenade Development Plan is consistent with the approved Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 2 Bayport/Alameda Landing Project Master Plan. However, to ensure consistency between all of the project entitlements, minor amendments to the approved Site -wide Landscape Development Plan are necessary to account for a new landscape area to be provided in an area where a portion of the wharf would be removed. In addition, minor amendments to the Alameda Landing Commercial Development Agreement are necessary to clarify the definition of the wharf and the divisions of responsibilities between the City and the private parties for public open space maintenance and ownership. The revised Waterfront Promenade Development Plan and minor amendments described above do not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than identified in the SEIR. An addendum to the E I R has been prepared that explains and clarifies the extent of the wharf demolition and waterfront construction that would be necessary to implement the project. Staff is recommending that the Planning Board review and approve: (1) the addendum to the SEIR; (2) the revised Waterfront Promenade Development Plan; (3) the second amendment to the Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan; and (4) recommend that the City Council approve the First Amendment to the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project). 11. BACKGROUND Waterfront Promenade Development Plan Amendment. The approved Waterfront Promenade Development Plan represents an endorsement by the City of Alameda of the overall design concept and configuration for the new waterfront public open spaces. Approval of the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan early in the Alameda Landing development process is required by the Bayport Alameda Landing Master Plan and is essential to ensuring a coordinated, well designed waterfront open space, as well as providing the guidance necessary to the design team preparing the detailed design review and development and construction drawings. The Master Plan allows Cateilus to build the Waterfront Promenade in up to three phases. Prior to actual construction, each phase will be subject to a detailed Design Review application to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. At that time, the detailed design for each phase can be carefully reviewed and programmed prior to actual construction. The first phase to be developed will be the eastern portion from the eastern boundary of the project adjacent to Cardinal Point and the Boathouse to the western edge of the proposed Clif Bar project. Substantial completion of the first section is a condition of approval on the Cliff Bar Headquarters project approved on May 29th. The second and third phases will occur with the development of the waterfront properties to the west of Clif Bar. On September 13th, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the revised Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 3 Waterfront Promenade Development Plan. Upon review of the plan, the Commission commended the design team on the quality of the proposed design, but reiterated its comments from March 2007 on the original plan approved in May. Specifically, the Commission expressed their: 1) continued concern about the lack of active playing fields on the plan large enough to accommodate a regulation sized soccer or football field, 2) desire to see the waterfront green enlarged if possible to accommodate a regulation sized field, and 3) desire for shared use of the proposed Miracle League field. The May 29th approved Waterfront Promenade Development Plan and the ro osed p p revised plans are shown in the attached packet of drawings (Exhibit B, Page 1.1). In the following discussion and analysis, the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan approved on May 29th is referred to as the "May 29th Plan" and the new revised p lan is referred to as the "Revised Plan ". 111. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS A. Waterfront Promenade Development Plan Amendment: As with approved May 29th Plan, the intent of the Revised Plan is to transform the northern edge of the former FISC site into a major new public waterfront open space. The need to modify the edge of the wharf to address the structural and geotechnical issues provides an opportunity to redesign the Waterfront edge and provide additional opportunities and spaces for the public to experience this unique site and the estuary. In the process or revising the design to address the structural and seismic issues, the consultant team and staff tried to maintain the overall quality and amount of publicly accessible open space. The May 29th Plan included 11.9 acres of publicly accessible open space and the Revised Plan includes 10.8 acres of publicly accessible open space. The Master Plan requires a minimum of 8 acres. A comparison of open space in both plans is provided on page 1.5 of the attached drawings. The Revised Plan introduces some new waterfront spaces that did not exist in the May 29th Plan. These spaces are approximately 40 feet wide, landscaped, and located immediately adjacent to the water's edge at the top of the riprap. (These spaces are underneath the wharf in the May 29th Plan.) The spaces will allow the public to descend down from the wharf approximately four to six feet to a lower, landscaped, more protected space closer to the water. (The section drawing on page 1.4 of the exhibit illustrates this new condition created by the partial removal of the wharf.) These new spaces provide the opportunities for more convenient access to floating docks that may be used for boat docking, kayak launching, or bird watching. As with the May 29th Plan, the Revised Plan would include several sub-areas connected by a promenade along the water. Each of the sub areas is described below with an emphasis on the proposed changes to the plan for that area. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 4 4 The "Promenade ": All the sub areas will continue to be linked by a public promenade along the water's edge. The promenade is a hardscape pedestrian walkway and bicycle path. Similar to the May 29th Plan, the promenade is approximately half a mile long and varies in width, but at no point is the promenade Tess than 44 feet in width. The Master Plan requires a minimum width of 25 feet. In the May 29th Plan, the public open space narrowed down to a minimum of 44 feet in front of the Cliff Bar building and the adjacent waterfront warehouse to the west. In the revised Plan, the adjacent waterfront warehouse would be removed. A future new building would replace the warehouse, but it would be located further back from the water's edge and provide a wider public open space. The width of the public open space in this area, measured from the water's edge, increased from 44 feet to over 100 feet in the Revised Plan. The "Waterfront Plaza ": Similar to the May 29th Plan, the Revised Plan will continue to be anchored by the Waterfront Plaza at the terminus of Fifth Street directly across the estuary from Jack London Square and within an easy walk of the adjacent Cardinal Point Senior Housing Project. The proposed steps down to the water in the May 29th Plan have been redesigned to accommodate the change in the width of the wharf in this area, but the redesign maintains pedestrian access to the water, an enlarged floating dock at water level to provide opportunities for accessing the water for kayaks, and the proposed Water Shuttle to Oakland. Similar to the May 29th Plan, the Revised Plan shows two future retail or restaurant building pads that protrude into the public open space adjacent to the water. The actual location and configuration of these pads would be determined as part of the Development Plan and Design Review for the Waterfront Plaza Retail Area. Approval of the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan does not represent an approval of retail building footprints in this area. Despite the reduction in the size of the wharf in this area, the Revised Plan provides a comparable amount of public open space to the May 29th Plan. The May 29th Plan provided approximately 8,000 square feet of plaza and 12,000 square feet of steps down to the water's edge. By redesigning the plaza area, the Revised Plan provides approximately 15,000 square feet of plaza and approximately 8,000 square feet of publicly accessible floating dock. The 'Waterfront Green ": The Waterfront Green is located between the Waterfront Plaza and the Clif Bar headquarters. The Waterfront Green in the Revised Plan provides approximately the same area of space for informal play, picnics, kite flying and a flexible playing field as the May 29th Plan. Approximately 1.5 acres of lawn area are provided that can accommodate a 230' by 140' soccer field. (A regulation sized soccer field is 180' by 300'). Clif Bar's main entrance, Theatre, and the Clif Bar and Grill will continue to front onto the Waterfront Green. The Waterfront Green could also be designed to serve as an outdoor amphitheatre, which is a high priority for the Alameda arts community. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 5 The "Central Commons ": Similar to the May 29th Plan, in the Revised Plan the Central Commons area is an approximately two acre formal open space located west of the proposed Clif Bar building that provides a wind protected, tree lined area for picnics, seating, and small sport courts, such as Bocce Ball. Due to the reduction in the size of the wharf, the overall size of the Central Commons was reduced by approximately 10,000 square feet, but the revised design has the benefit of the new lower, landscaped open spaces described in above that did not exist in the May 29th Plan. The `Turning Basin Active Recreation" Area. Similar to the May 29th Plan, the eastern edge of the Waterfront Promenade is immediately adjacent to the Port of Oakland tuming basin and is designed as an active recreational area with programmed spaces and a large seating area. The large seating and picnic area provides dramatic views of San Francisco and a "front row" seat for the turning of the ocean -going cargo ships in the Oakland/Alameda Estuary. The combined size of the active recreational area and the seating area is 3.15 acres, the same as the May 29th Plan. Due to the reduction in the size of the wharf east of the turning basin area, a previously proposed picnic and seating area in front of the western most office building has been eliminated. However, the Revised Plan provides a larger variety of viewing and seating areas that include the raised promenade at the new wharf edge, a viewing "deck" that projects out into the estuary at the western most corner of the site, and the lower level, landscaped area in front of the wharf Promenade. The actual location and configuration of the new office buildings in this area would be determined as part of the Development Plan and Design Review for the later phases; approval of the Waterfront Development Plan Amendment is not an approval of office building footprints. At that time, a waterfront promenade design review application will also be prepared and submitted for Planning Board review. Approval of the Waterfront Development Plan Amendment is not an approval of specific active recreation programs and/or facilities. When the Design Review application for the Turning Basin Active Recreation area is submitted for City review, Planning Board, with the assistance of the Recreation and Parks Commission, can decide exactly how the space should be programmed and what facilities should be constructed. Waterfront Promenade Conclusions: In conclusion, the Revised Waterfront Promenade Development Plan: ■ Meets all of the requirements of the approved Bayport/Alameda Landing Project Master Plan. ■ Provides similar, equivalent, or better public benefits and spaces to the plan approved in May. • Is necessary to maintain the financial feasibility of the Alameda Landing Project. ■ Maintains the proposed ClifBar headquarters project in its current location. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 6 • Addresses the structural, geotechnical and financial constraints that must be overcome to provide public waterfront access in this area of the City that has been historically off- limits to the public. Staff is recommending approval of the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan Amendment with the condition that prior to construction, each phase will return to the Planning Board for Design Review at which time the specific materials, configurations, furniture, lighting and programming of each phase can be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. B. Site -wide Landscape Development Plan Amendment On May 29th, the Planning Board approved an amendment to the Site -wide Landscape Development Plan (LDP). The LDP describes the landscape design elements that define and reinforce the visual and functional character of Alameda Landing project. The LDP addresses the visual and functional character of the project area, tree species and their location throughout the project area streets and open spaces, and the types of site furniture and lighting, and their location throughout the project area. The Revised Plan is consistent with and supports the LDP with one enhancement. The Revised Plan introduces a new landscape element along the water's edge in the areas where the wharf would be removed. As described above, these new landscaped areas provide an interesting new public open space and water viewing opportunity for the community. To maintain consistency between the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan and the LDP, staff is recommending that the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan Amendment be accompanied by an amendment to the LDP to recognize this new landscape element. Specifically, the LPD would be amended with Page 1.3 from the Exhibit to show the new landscape elements along the waters edge. Landscape Plan Conclusions: The proposed revision to the LDP: ■ Is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Bayport - Alameda Landing Master Plan. • Supports creation of waterfront open spaces and promenades that will be of Tong -term benefit and enjoyment to the citizens of Alameda. ■ Is necessary to clarify the City's expectations for future design review applications and landscape plans associated with future phases of the development. C. Development Agreement Amendment (Alameda Landing Commercial Project) Per the Alameda Municipal Code, the Planning Board must review amendments to Development Agreements, before being considered by the City Council for approval or denial. Per AMC Section 30.92.5, the Planning Board's responsibility is to advise the City Council as to whether the proposed amendment is Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 7 "consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the general plan; and is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the other regulations prescribed for the use of the land." Section 6.2 of the Development Agreement allows for amendments to the Agreement, provided that those amendments are mutually agreeable to both parties. Section 6.2 also states that the review and approval of an amendment to the Development Agreement shall be limited to consideration of only those provisions to be added or modified. In this instance, both Catellus and city staff are in agreement that an amendment is necessary to clarify certain provisions of the agreement to reflect that actual extent, size and location of the wharf. Based upon the recent investigations and studies, Catellus and the City have learned more about the extent, size and condition of the wharf than was previously known when the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Commercial Project) was negotiated in 2006 and finally approved in January of 2007. The proposed amendments are technical in nature and are not designed to change the intent of the original agreement. Specifically, the amendments: ■ Define the exact extent of the portions of the wharf that the City will own, maintain and insure and which portions Catellus or future private parties, such as Clif Bar will own, maintain and insure. The amendment ensures that the portion of the wharf that will eventually be conveyed to the City to own and maintain is limited to the waterfront portion of the Wharf in the are to be developed as the Waterfront Promenade and does not include the inland portions of the Wharf which are outside the perimeter of the Waterfront Promenade • Define and clarify where a new building would need to be placed, if a decision is made in the future to demolish the existing waterfront warehouse that is currently planned for Cliff Bar. Development Agreement Amendment Conclusions: Staff is recommending the proposed amendments to the commercial development agreement because they are: • Consistent with the intent and purpose of the Bayport - Alameda Landing Master Plan and the City of Alameda General Plan. ■ Compatible with the uses authorized in, and other regulations prescribed for the use of the land in the General Plan, the Alameda Landing Master Plan, and the existing Development Agreements that govern the use of the land. ■ Necessary to ensure that the agreed upon division of responsibilities for maintaining the wharf and the public waterfront promenade are well articulated and clear. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 8 On December 5, 2006, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (a Supplement to the 2000 Catellus Mixed -Use Development Project EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State Clearinghouse #2006012091). Staff completed a review of the proposed changes to the waterfront promenade design and the original project description and analysis included in the 2006 FEIR for the project. The analysis found that the proposed work to the wharf necessary to implement the revised Promenade Plan would not result in any new or significantly more severe environmental impacts than the original project described in the 2006 SEI R. However, staff determined that an addendum to the 2006 SEIR would be appropriate to document these findings, clarify and improve the description of the proposed work on the wharf, and make any necessary or appropriate clarifications or changes to the 2006 FOR mitigation measures. The attached Addendum (Exhibit A) includes a detailed description of the proposed work and concludes that: • Geology and Seismic Safety: The existing mitigations regarding seismic safety and geology are adequate but should be amended to clarify the timing of the required geotechnical study with respect to the wharf demolition. • _Biological Impacts: The existing mitigations regarding biological resources are adequate, but the mitigation related to work in and around the edge of the water should be amended to clarify that it applies to all in -water work and affected special status species. • Construction Impacts: The amount of demolition work and material to be removed from the site will not significantly increase and existing construction mitigation measures are adequate. The Addendum concludes that the proposed revisions would not trigger the need for subsequent or supplemental environmental review pursuant to sections 15162 and 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines, because the project would not create any new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of previously identified significant effects: No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project would be undertaken and there has been no discovery of new information of substantial importance that would require major revisions to the previous EIR. v. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS Property owners and residents within 500 feet of the project's boundaries were notified of the public hearing and given the opportunity to review and comment on the proposal. Staff has not received any response to the notice and is not aware of any opposition to the proposal. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 9 VII, RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Board adopt the resolution: • Approving the first addendum to the EIR, • Approving the second amendment to the Site -wide Landscape Development Plan, • Approving the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan amendment, and • Recommending that the City Council approve the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Commercial Project) amendment GA PLANNINGIPB \Reports120071A9- 24- 071AIameda Landing Report - Wharf Report.doc Alameda Planning Board Staff Report Meeting of September 24, 2007 Page 10 Approved as to Form CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. UPHOLDING PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION PB -07 -31 APPROVING THE FIRST ADDENDUM TO THE ALAMEDA LANDING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT SUPPLEMENTAL PROJECT EIR, APPROVING A REVISED WATERFRONT PROMENADE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SITE -WIDE LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, an application was made by Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (successor by merger to Catellus Development Corporation) p ) ( "Developer ") 1 requesting an amendment to the Bayport/Alameda Project Master Plan in order to revise a J portion of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project as the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006, the City certified the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report (a p supplement to the 2000 Catellus Mixed Use Development Project EIR) WHEREAS, the proposal for Master Plan Amendment, MPA -06 -001 was approved by the City Council on January 2, 2007; and 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Board adopted the Catellus Alameda Project Site -wide Landscape Development Plan Amendment, the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan, and the Clif Bar & Co. Headquarters Development Plan and Design Review on May 29, 2007; and WHEREAS, Catellus is pursuing amendments to the May 29th approved Waterfront Promenade Development Plan to address geotechnical and structural deficiencies in the existing wharf structure, and WHEREAS, the proposed changes to the Waterfront Promenade Development Plan require a minor amendment to the Site -wide Master Landscape Development Plan and an amendment to the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project); and WHEREAS, a first addendum ( "First Addendum") to the December 2006 Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") (SCH #2006012091) which supplemented the May 2000 Catellus Mixed Use Development Project EIR ( SCH #1 99811 2078) (as also supplemented by 2001, 2004 and 2006 addenda, the "2000 EIR") has been prepared by the City of Alameda ("City") ppursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, section 15164; and WHEREAS, the First Addendum concluded that no subsequent environmental review is required because there are no substantial changes in the project or the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and no new information that involves new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified environmental effects Resolution #5 -E 11 -06 -07 that would require preparation of a subsequent EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15162 and Public Resources Code section 21166; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board has considered and approved the First Addendum along with the 2006 EIR; and the revised Waterfront Promenade Development Plan, second amendment to the Site -wide Landscape Development Plan, and the proposed First Amendment to Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) on September 24, 2007, and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the First Addendum was prepared in compliance with CEQA and reflects the independent judgment of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the appeal filled by Ms. Kathy Wagner; WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings relative to the appeal: 1. Substantial evidence in the administrative record demonstrates that the criteria triggering the need for a subsequent or supplemental EIR do not exist, and 2. The appellant has failed to demonstrate in any way that the conclusions in the Addendum are not supported by substantial evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council upholds Planning Board Resolution PB -07 -31 approving the first addendum to the Alameda Landing mixed use development Supplemental project EIR, approving a revised waterfront promenade development plan, and a second amendment to the site -wide Landscape development plan. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the day of , 2007, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2007. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: November 6, 2007 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of Planning Board Resolution PB -07 -32 Approving Design Review DPO7 -0003 at Tract 7884 (Alameda Landing Retail Center) BACKGROUND in December 2006 and January 2007, the Alameda City Council unanimously approved a General Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, Development Agreement Amendment, and two new Development Agreements for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project. The Master Plan and the new Development Agreements provide the basic entitlements for the project and guidelines and standards for the review and approval of each phase of the development. On May 14, 2007, the Planning Board reviewed and approved the Alameda Landing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program and the Design Plans for Fifth Street and Mitchell Avenue. On May 29, 2007, the Planning Board approved the Alameda Landing Site -Wide Landscape Development Plan Amendment, Waterfront Promenade Development Plan, and the Clif Bar & Co. Headquarters Development Plan and Design Review. on June 25, 2007, the Planning Board reviewed the Development Plan and Design Review applications for the Retail Center at Alameda Landing. The Board approved the Development Plan for the Center with the condition that Catellus make several changes to the site plan to improve pedestrian facilities and with the condition that Catellus present an analysis of an alternative north /south driveway design that included sidewalks on both sides of the driveway for Planning Board consideration with the Design Review Application for Building A. Based upon the Board's direction, Catellus made all of the required changes to the site plan and prepared the alternative site plan for its September 24th Design Review submittal. On September 24, 2007, the Planning Board held a public hearing and conditionally approved the Retail Center Design Review application with a number of additional conditions, which included but were not limited to: City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5 -F 11 -06 -07 Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 8 1. Modifying a condition of approval to include reference to the Master Demolition, Grading, Infrastructure and Phasing Plan ( MDGIP) for the project, 2. Modifying a condition of approval related to closing the southern driveway in the future, and 3. Modifying the site plan adopted on June 25th to include an additional sidewalk on the west side of the north /south driveway. Catellus appealed the Planning Board's approval of their proposal in order to provide the City Council with the opportunity to review and potentially modify the Planning Board conditions of approval that pertain to the MDGIP, driveway, and site plan. DISCUSSION Master Demolition, Grading, Infrastructure and Phasing Plan: Based upon the recommendation of the Public Works staff, the Planning Board modified a recommended condition of approval to include reference to the Master Demolition, Grading, Infrastructure and Phasing Plan ( MDGIP). Public Works requested this modification because the MDGIP, which was anticipated to be approved prior to the Planning Board approval had not been approved as anticipated. The MDGIP is a plan that must be reviewed and approved by staff to ensure that the site grading, design of the public streets, and major sewer and storm drainage systems within the public rights of way are designed to the satisfaction of staff. Catellus is requesting that the references to the MDGIP be removed from the following condition as shown below: "Where there are substantially similar requirements or inconsistencies contained in the conditions of this approval on the one hand, and the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Commercial Project), Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project), andlor the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program on the other hand, the provisions of the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Commercial Project), Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project), andlor the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, as applicable shall govern. " Soon after the Planning Board meeting, staff approved the MDGIP, and therefore City staff and Catellus agree that the reference to the MDGIP should be removed from the Condition. South Driveway The Planning Board, staff, and Catellus, agree that a southern driveway from the project to Stargell Avenue should be maintained to provide access from Stargell to the project. In addition, at the request of the City and the adjacent property owner, Ms. Kathy Wagner, Catellus agreed to a condition that would require Catellus to provide access to Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 8 Ms. Wagner's property (pursuant to an access agreement) via the southern driveway so long as the driveway remained open. The City Engineer is concerned that the driveway may need to be modified at a future date, if required by the future EIR for Alameda Point Stargell Avenue is widened to accommodate the redevelopment of Alameda Point, because of excessive queues, the driveway is located at the end of a curve, and the largest delivery trucks entering the Retail Center would encroach into adjacent lanes on Stargell or the opposing traffic lane exiting from the driveway when making the turn, thereby creating an unsafe condition. Catellus and staff discussed modifying the design of the driveway by shifting the driveway or widening the driveway, but instead decided to condition the project to address the problem in the future if it arises. They agreed to this condition for a number of reasons, including: ■ The additional turning space is not needed unless Stargell is widened in the future and a traffic safety issue develops; ■ Catellus's traffic engineers disagree that the driveway as designed will pose a safety hazard even if Stargell Avenue is widened in the future; ■ Catellus is not able to purchase additional land from the adjacent property owner at this time for either a turning lane or a widened driveway; and ■ Moving Building B to make room for a wider driveway would result in reducing the size of the pedestrian plaza at the corner of 5th and Stargell. ■ Limiting truck access to the driveway at a future date might resolve the problem. Given the challenges of addressing a potential future traffic concern, Catellus agreed to the condition of approval shown below that requires that, if the City widened Stargell and identified a safety problem in the future, Catellus would fund a modification to the driveway to address the problem. Catellus agreed to this condition, notwithstanding the provisions of the Development Agreements prohibiting the City from imposing future public infrastructure obligations on the project. The condition includes the caveat that, if the City imposed a safety - related improvement on the project at a future date that was unacceptable to Catellus for financial, operational, or other reasons, then Catellus could choose to address the identified safety problem at the driveway by closing the driveway and associated access to Ms. Wagner's property at their expense. In the meantime, staff began a series of meetings with the adjacent property owner, Ms. Kathy Wagner, to develop a plan for her property, which would increase parking on her site and provide for the turn lane for the southern driveway if necessary. The conceptual plan will require Planning Board and City Council approval. If approved, the plan would eliminate the need to close the driveway in the future to address any future safety concern. The conceptual site plan is included as an attachment to the September 24til Planning Board staff report. All the parties agree that closing the driveway is the least preferred option for addressing a safety concern if such a concern should arise in the future. However, in Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 8 modifying the condition, the Planning Board imposed an open -ended future commitment on Catellus that is contrary to the Development Agreements. Since Catellus prefers to keep the driveway open, the company remains willing to explore other safety measures if required, but they are not willing to waive the protections of the Development Agreements. For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council amend the Condition as follows: The southern driveway into the center from Willie Stargell Avenue shall be signed as "right in -right out". If at a future date Willie Stargell Avenue is widened beyond the 2010 configuration and it is determined by the Public Works Director based upon vehicle queues, delays, or collision rates that the driveway must be reconfigured or modified to maintain traffic safety, then the property owners shall be required to modify the driveway to address the traffic safety concern. Potential solutions may include but are not limited to providing a right turn lane into the driveway for westbound traffic that could accommodate the turning traffic demand, closing the driveway, or a traffic signal. The proposed modification shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Board at a noticed public hearing based upon a recommendation by the Planning and Building Director and the Public Works Director. Catellus, or its successor in interest "the property owners" shall be responsible for funding the design and construction of the approved modification provided that if the approved modification proves to be infeasible or unacceptable to the property owner for financial, operational or other reasons, then the property owner may remove the traffic safety concern by closing the driveway at their expense, in which case the access required by Condition 5 shall no longer be required. This condition shall be noted on the tentative and final maps for the Retail Center property. As modified, if the traffic safety concern arises in the future, the Planning Board, the community, Catellus, and the neighboring property owner can meet in a public meeting setting to determine the most cost - effective and appropriate means of addressing the traffic concern. At that time, the parties can decide the most appropriate improvements and how those improvements should be funded. Site Plan Sidewalks: During the review of the project, the Planning Board pressed the applicant to provide sidewalks on both sides of all four of the major internal automobile drive isles. Catellus's original submittal on June 25th (Plan 1 shown in Attachment 1) showed sidewalks on both sides of two of the four major drive isles, and sidewalks on only one side of the other two major drive isles. On June 25th, the Planning Board approved Plan 1 with the condition that Catellus add a sidewalk on the third of the three east/west driveways. The Planning Board's June 25th approved plan as amended is shown as "Plan 2" in Attachment 2. On June 25th, the Planning Board also requested that Catellus submit an alternative plan that provided sidewalks on both sides of the major north /south drive isle, which was the only remaining major driveway without Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 5 of 8 sidewalks on both sides. At the Planning Board's request, Catellus prepared and presented "Plan 3" shown in Attachment 3, which provided sidewalks on both sides on the north/south drive isle in addition to the three major eastlwest drive isles. Despite Catellus's objection to Plan 3, the Planning Board approved Plan 3 on a vote of 4 -1. Both Plan 2 and Plan 3 are consistent with the Bayport Alameda Landing Master Plan. The Catellus preferred plan, referred to as "Plan 2 ": • Provides sidewalks on both sides of the three eastlwest major internal drive isles and a sidewalk on one side of the north/south drive isle. • Provides 1052 parking spaces, for a ratio of 4.07 spaces per 1,000 square feet of retail space. • Provides unlimited automobile access from the central parking areas to the major north/south driveway at 15 locations. • Provides a slightly wider sidewalk in front of Building A. The Planning Board's approved plan, referred to as "Plan 3 ": • Provides sidewalks on both sides of all four major internal drive isles. • Provides 949 parking spaces, for a ratio of 3.68 spaces per thousand square feet of retail space. • Limits automobile access from the central parking areas to the major north/south driveway to six locations. • Reduces the number of spaces that back into the north/south Driveway. At the September 24th meeting the Planning Board majority approved Plan 3 and stated ty pp that Plan 3: ■ Did a better job of reinforcing and recreating an Alameda -style grid of streets within the Alameda Landing Retail Center. ■ Provided pedestrian access on both sides of all four of the major driveways that comprise the grid. ■ Facilitates and encourages users of the center to walk rather than drive and provides an experience similar to the experience on Park or Webster Streets. ■ Provides parking to support the business community, but limits parking to support the Alameda Landing TDM program and the mix of uses in the project. ■ Provides pedestrian enhancements and reduction in parking that is consistent with the City's goals to address global warming and trip reduction and the goals of the Alameda Landing Bayport Master Plan to encourage alternative modes and reduce automobile trips. At the September 24th meeting, staff and Catellus argued that: Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 6 of 8 ■ Plan 2 provided excellent pedestrian facilities. ■ Plan 2 does a better job of supporting Catellus's and the City's economic development objectives for the project. The City /Catellus agreements establish Catellus as the partner that will take responsibility for leasing and tenanting of the buildings with a specific range of retailers that will complement (rather than compete with) the retailers on Webster Street and Park Street and other Alameda shopping areas. Plan 2 will enable Catellus to do a better job of attracting and retaining tenants for the project that meet the City's expectations in regards to tenant mix, size, and type. ■ The continuous sidewalk in Plan 3 will result in parking areas that are substandard in size for retail centers of this size and that the internal parking circulation system created by the continuous sidewalk will be frustrating and difficult for users of the center. The continuous sidewalk limits auto access to the parking areas and limits shoppers who would prefer to walk directly from their car to the store or from the store directly to the car with their shopping carts. Medium format tenants proposed for this portion of the Center often sell items of sizes and quantities that dictate that customers will drive, making it les likely that restricting parking in this area will in fact result in customers taking alternate transportation modes. ■ The continuous sidewalk in Plan 3 and the lack of parking lot access points will encourage speeding on the north /south driveway. After Catellus submitted its appeal, staff asked Catellus to explore a "compromise plan" that might provide some of the advantages of the Planning Board's "Plan 3" with fewer of the potential tenanting and circulation problems. At staffs request, Catellus prepared Plan 4 for the City Council's consideration. Plan 4, shown in Attachment 4: ■ Proposes to share the space between pedestrians and automobiles. ■ Provides sidewalks on all four major driveways, similar to Plan 3, by providing a five -foot wide continuous, stamped concrete pedestrian pathway that does not limit automobile access to the parking fields. ■ Provides less parking than Plan 1 and 2, but more than Plan 3. ■ Provides automobile access to the parking areas in a manner that is similar to Plan 1 and 2. "Plan 4" provides an alternative for Council consideration that Catellus argues will support their leasing efforts and that staff argues will provide for a full and extensive pedestrian facilities and access throughout the center. BUDGET CONSIDERATION /FINANCIAL IMPACT 1 It should be noted that the Plan 2 is consistent with and supports the Alameda Landing Project's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Neighborhood Development (ND) application. Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 7 of 8 The proposed action to uphold the Planning Board resolution with select modifications will not impact the City's General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODE /POLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The Alameda Landing Project was approved and is being implemented pursuant to Section 30 -4.20 MX, Mixed -Use Planned Development District of the City of Alameda Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW On December 5, 2006, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (a Supplement to the 2000 Catellus Mixed -Use Development Project EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (State Clearinghouse #2006012091). The proposed actions implement the proposed project and will not result in any new or substantially more severe environmental impacts than identified in the EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, no further environmental review is required. RECOMMENDATION Uphold the Planning Board's approval of the Alameda Landing Retail Center Design Review with the following modifications: 1. Remove the reference to the M DG I P from Condition #2. 2. Amend Condition #6 to include the option to close the driveway if all other options prove financially infeasible. 3. Amend Condition # 4 to modify the September 24th approved site plan as shown in Plan #4, which is described in this report and shown in Attachment 4. Respectfully submitted, i/L1 (JA, Cathy Woodbury (1”) Planning and Building Director By: An rew Thomas Planning Manager AT:at Honorable Mayor and November 6, 2007 Members of the City Council Page 8 of 8 Attachments: 1. Plan #1: June 25th Site Plan 2. Plan #2: June 25th Plan as amended by Planning Board 3. Plan #3: September Site Plan approved by Planning Board 4. Plan #4: Compromise Plan 5. Appeal from Catellus Development Group cc: Planning Board Catellus ▪ a ▪ 2 o PLAZAS AND PASEO E, / PEDESTRIAN PA, AND GA7EWAY PLAZA AND WR'r PASEO TREE q) 00 0 0 •;'; -u .; .',11,471// TrMiV.LS if 1_;) j; - - - - - - ((it? r j g- 0 CjV LF SERVrC. fLOROINC,' - Ji (*.) (4) (4) (4) (ie FUTURE RESMEN3IAL LE City Council Public Hearing Attachment 1 to Agenda Item #5-F 11-06-07 a g id • Fi 61 • . .zno • AO 110'; S E., City Council Council Public Hearing Attachment 2 to Agenda Item #5-F 11-06-07 it" 3 u. W — Z iij a D O Z! w cr, • CI 5 Z Z • C < < 0 § LL `4` z 11 Fc s ----414-==-4.1-2- tf6 rabTilnit rh...474tkpiggrairgi..00.11.%41. 9 ell .,/, .if 7,:,,,,,., zi___ ...._, L-=_ -..--,.. -.. . . _-,-i ' ;- t-......,] ° • 6 i-wqr"'a . – - --......." i !, :;-, I .. ..dmi. 1.IF N. :47Y •^0....... • 0 ..,. '-7.04.,,v .,:.,., -11, ..... 1.1.-.t ^, ."%?.i . •:-. , .f.: in . ..0 ....--2.0 "44 1lTrird Ir r City Council Public Hearing Attachment 3 to Agenda Item #5-F 11-06-07 g w Lul a > ,„, 0 — a X C9 Z co ct. c <z E < < 0 m w CD Z < a uJZ 2 a. a a_ 0 0 I ce 0 a 0 -?( 0 4 • -as*. ■•••••• 3I1NMV 113501S r t ( 111111111111•11 1 1 City Council Public Hearing Attachment 4 to Agenda Item #5-F 11-06-07 PIANNING& BUILDING PETITION FOR APPEAL This petition hereby filed as an appeal of the decision of the: Planning Board _, which (Planning and Building Director /Planning Board/ Historical Advisory Board/ Appeals Board) Established Conditions (Denied /Granted/ Established Conditions) Design Review (Application Type) for application number DP07 -003 (Application Number) at north of Wilver "Willie" Stargell avenue, east of 5th Street, south of Mitchell Avenue, and west of Mariner square Loop on September 28, 2007 (Specify Date of Action) The basis of the appeal is: See attached. (If more space needed, please attach additional sheets) Appellant: Catellus Development Group, A ProLogis Company, Company Phone: Aldan Barry: (510) 267-3402 Address: 807 Broadway, Suite 210, Oakland CA 94607 (Appellant Address) I hereby agree to pay the City of Alameda all incurred costs for staff time and materials associated with review and processing of the subject appeal even if the appeal is withdrawn or not approved. 1 understand that one or more deposits will be required to cover the cost noted herein at such time as required by the Planning and Building Director to ensure :ere are adequate funds to cover anticipated time and materials costs related to the appeal. I express) : •wledg - . • : • rue to pay a written invoice for additional funds within 14 days of date of invoice. Aar • ppe Signed: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ant ignature(s)) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** (For Office Use Only Received by: Receipt No.: G :IPLANN I N GIFORMS\APPEALO I .W PD * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Date Received Stamp City Council Public Hearing Attachment 5 to Agenda Item #5 -F 11-06-07 PETITION FOR APPEAL DESIGN REVIEW DPO7 -003 BASIS FOR APPEAL On September 24, 2007, the City of Alameda Planning Board voted 4 -1 to approve the application of Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis company ("Catellus") for Design Review DP7 -003 (the "Design Review ") for the Alameda Landing Retail Center (the "Retail Center ") located north of Wilver ( "Willie ") Stargell Avenue, west of Mariner Square Loop, south of the proposed Mitchell Avenue Extension and east of the proposed 5th Street Extension. While Catellus appreciates the Planning Board's thoughtful consideration and approval of the Design Review, several of the conditions imposed by the Planning Board adversely affect the Retail Center to such an extent that Catellus is compelled to appeal those conditions, as further described below. Condition 2 Catellus appeals the Planning Board's imposition of Condition 2, because it undermines the marketability of the Retail Center. The Planning Board originally reviewed Catellus' application for Development Plan and Design Review approval for the Retail Center at its June 25, 2007 hearing. At that hearing, the Planning Board conditionally approved the Development Plan and continued consideration of the Design Review. Development Plan Condition 11 requires that, in conjunction with the Design Review application for Building A, the applicant, prepare an analysis of alternative treatments for the north/south drive aisle located immediately in front of Building A that extends from Mitchell Avenue to Stargell Avenue, including design alternatives to include a pedestrian sidewalk on the western side of the drive aisle from Stargell Avenue to Mitchell Avenue, and discussion of the benefits and consequences of the alternative. In compliance with Development Plan Condition 11, the Staff Report for the Planning Board hearing on the Design Review contained a graphic depiction of a design alternative (the term "alternative" was presented as an analysis to graphically respond to concerns raised by the Planning Board, not as an alternative proposed by the applicant) that includes a pedestrian sidewalk on the western side of the north -south drive aisle from Stargell Avenue to Mitchell Avenue, and a written description of the benefits and consequences of this alternative. Upon reviewing this alternative, the Planning Board imposed Condition 2, requiring compliance with the alternative. Specifically, Condition 2 provides: All improvement plans, building permit plans and project improvements shall be consistent with the Planning Board approved Alternative Site Plan shown on Page L1.1 of Exhibit A, which shall supersede and replace the June 25th approved site plan shown on Page LO.2 of Exhibit A. As described in the Staff Report, although this alternative has some planning benefits (provision of an additional drive aisle, a slightly shorter walk to the building from some 50120\108422v2 parking spaces, a more "street- like" design and increased trees), the problems caused by this alternative outweigh these benefits. These problems include the following: • This alternative will adversely impact Catellus' ability to tenant the project in a manner that meets the City's and Catellus' expectations, and the requirements of the DDA, with respect to tenant mix, size and type. First, this alternative will result in the elimination of 121 parking spaces, reducing the overall parking ratio for the Retail Center below the 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet permitted by the Master Plan and required by most retailers. In addition, the more street -like design of the north -south drive aisle creates a barrier to shoppers moving in an east -west direction from the parking area to the tenant buildings with their shopping carts, baby strollers, wheelchairs, and other goods. These factors are inconsistent with common and accepted shopping center design principles and would not meet the site selection criteria for most retailers, creating a significant impediment to attracting the type and quality of retailers desired by the City. • One of the primary objectives of the Master Plan is to establish Fifth Street as the central spine of the Alameda Landing project, and to encourage pedestrian traffic along that spine. The north -south drive aisle is intended primarily to provide internal circulation within the Retail Center. With the design alternative, the north-south drive aisle becomes more "street- like ", which will tend to divert both pedestrians and vehicular traffic from Fifth Street, detracting from the central focus on Fifth Street and encouraging cut - through traffic within the Retail Center. The "street-like" design with curbs on both sides of the drive aisle encourages faster vehicle speeds, compromising both vehicular and pedestrian safety. • The more "street - like" design of the alternative plan creates a visual and physical barrier between Building A and the rest of the Retail Center, which is detrimental to the overall design and functionality of the Retail Center. Storefront visibility is a major consideration in retailer's site selection criteria. The additional trees and row of parking that would be created by the design alternative would completely obscure storefront entrances for Building A and would be unacceptable for most retailers. From a practical standpoint, the additional sidewalk is less attractive to pedestrians than the sidewalk in front of the Building, and may get little actual use to offset its negative impacts. Also, pedestrians walking between the parking field and Building A are likely to take the shortest path and cut through the landscape, creating maintenance and safety issues. For these reasons, the Staff Report concludes that the problems caused by the design alternative outweigh its benefits, and recommends that the north -south drive aisle be maintained in configuration shown on the site plan approved on June 25. Catellus respectfully requests that the City Council delete Condition 2, in accordance with staff's recommendation, and reinstate the site plan approved on June 25. Condition 3 Catellus appeals the Planning Board's amendments to Condition 3, imposed in response to a request made at the hearing by the Department of Public Works ("DPW"), because 50120\108422v2 2 the amendments both are unnecessary and potentially have the effect of giving the Department of Public Works the ability to override conditions imposed by the Planning Board. The Planning Board's amendments to Condition 3 are shown in redlined text below: Where there are substantially similar requirements or inconsistencies contained in the conditions of this approval on the one hand, and the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Commercial Project), Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project), Master Grading Demolition, and Infrastructure Plan (MGDIP) and/or the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program on the other hand, the provisions of the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Commercial Project), Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project)} MGDIP and/or the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, as applicable shall govern. As proposed by staff and agreed to by Catellus, without the Planning Board's amendment, this Condition appropriately would have provided that the existing governing deal documents — the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project), Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Residential Project) (collectively, the "Development Agreements "), Disposition and Development Agreement Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) (the "DDA "), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (the "MMRP ") -- all of which were approved by the City Council, would prevail over any inconsistent provisions imposed by the Planning Board on the Retail Center Design Review. Although the Planning Board conditions were intended to be consistent with these governing documents, this condition simply was intended to provide guidance in the event of any inadvertent inconsistency. This outcome is consistent with the assurances provided by the Development Agreements and the DDA. The amendments to Condition 3 are unnecessary, because the Development Agreements and DDA already establish the contents of the MDIGP, Catellus' obligations with respect to compliance with the MDIGP, a mechanism for amending the MDIGP with mutual consent of the parties. Nothing in the Design Review conditions is intended to, nor can it, change these established provisions. Moreover, the amendments to Condition 3 have the potential to enable DPW to override conditions imposed by the Planning Board, particularly because DPW has not yet approved the MDIGP. There is a clear distinction between allowing existing governing documents approved by the City Council to prevail over subsequent Planning Board conditions, and allowing future DPW decisions to override prior Planning Board decisions. In the event of a dispute between or among DPW, the Planning Board and Catellus with respect to the MDIGP, such dispute should be resolved either by the Executive Management team or by the City Council. It is simply inappropriate for DPW to be given authority to override prior Planning Board decisions. As such, Catellus respectfully requests that the City Council delete the references to the MDIGP added to Condition 3 by the Planning Board, and restore the language proposed by staff. 501201108422v2 3 Condition 4 Catellus appeals the Planning Board's amendment to Condition 4, because it potentially conflicts with the Development Agreements. The Planning Board's amendment to Condition 4 is shown in redlined text below: The southern driveway into the center from Willie Stargell Avenue shall be signed a "right in -right out ". If at a future date Willie Stargell Avenue is widened beyond the 2010 configuration or it is determined by the Public Works Director based upon vehicle queues, delays, or collision rates that the driveway must be reconfigured or modified to maintain traffic safety, then the property owners shall be required to modify the driveway to address the traffic safety concern. Potential solutions may include but are not limited to providing a right turn lane into the driveway for westbound traffic that could accommodate the turning traffic demand, closing the driveway, or a traffic signal. The proposed modification shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Board at a noticed public hearing based upon a recommendation by the Planning and Building Director and the Public Works Director. The property owners shall be responsible for funding the design and construction of the approved modification, provided that the reasefts. This condition shall be noted on the tentative and final maps for the Retail Center property. As proposed by staff and agreed to by Catellus, without the Planning Board's amendment, in the event that the Stargell driveway needs to be modified for safety reasons, this Condition appropriately would have given Catellus the option of funding the required modifications or closing the driveway. This option is consistent with the Development Agreements, which generally prohibit the City from imposing conditions on subsequent approvals that "... require dedications or reservations for, or construction or funding of, public infrastructure or public improvements beyond those already included in the Alameda Landing DDA, the Master Plan, the MMRP ... , and/or the MDIGP ... ". (The DDA, the Master Plan, the MMRP and the MDIGP do not presently provide for additional safety improvements in connection with the Stargell driveway.) Because the Development Agreements prevent the City from imposing such additional infrastructure requirements on Catellus, Catellus must have the option to address any safety issue by closing the driveway. The Planning Board's amendment removes the driveway closure option and thereby purports to give the City the ability to impose on Catellus new requirements for dedications, construction and funding of public improvements, in violation of the Devlopment Agreements. Pursuant to the provisions of the Development Agreement and Design Review Condition 3 (quoted above), because of the conflict between the Development Agreements and the Planning Board's amendment to Condition 4, the Development Agreements prevail. Nonetheless, rather than allowing this inconsistency to exist, Catellus respectfully requests that the City Council restore the language deleted by the Planning Board. 5012011084222 4 E a 2 co ca .0 cu 2 0 0. a z the General Plan Diagram; and CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW, DPO7-0003 AT TRACT 7884 (RETAIL CENTER) WHEREAS, an application was made on May 10, 2007,by Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company, for a Development Plan and Design Review to construct a retail center with 250,000 square feet of retail space, 8,000 square feet of office space and associated parking, landscape and pedestrian improvements on an approximately 23.3 acre site; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Specified Mixed Use on WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a MX (Mixed Use - Planned Development) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2006, the City certified the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (a Supplement to the 2000 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project), and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and WHEREAS, the proposed project will be consistent with the Bayport - Alameda Landing Project Master Plan (the "Master Plan ") as approved by the City Council on January 2, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board adopted the Transportation Demand Management Program and Development Plan for Fifth Street and Mitchell Mosley Avenue on May 14, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board adopted the Alameda Landing Site- Wide Master Landscape Development Plan Amendment, Waterfront Promenade Development Plan, and the Clif Bar & Co. Headquarters Development Plan and Design Review on May 29, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board approved the Development Plan portion of the Alameda Landing retail center application on June 25, 2007, and directed the applicant to return at a future date for consideration of the design review portion of the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board approved the landscape and site improvements for Fifth Street and Mitchell Avenue Extensions on July 23, 2007; and Resolution #5 -F 11 -06 -07 WHEREAS, on September 24, 2007, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the design review portion of the Retail Center application, examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and made the necessary findings pursuant to AMC Section 30 -37.5 to approve Design Review DPO7 -0003; and WHEREAS, Planning Board approved Design Review DPO7 -0003, subject to certain conditions of approval, which supplement the conditions imposed on the Retail Center Development Plan by Planning Board Resolution 07 -25 approved on June 25, 2007; and WHEREAS, the applicant, Catellus Development Group, a ProLogis Company, appealed certain conditions imposed by the Planning Board on the approval of the Retail Center Design Review; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2007, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal of the design review portion of the Retail Center application and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby upholds the Planning Board approval of retail center design review application and condition of approval with the following three modifications: 1. Planning Board Resolution Condition of Approval #3 shall be modified as follows: Where there are substantially similar requirements or inconsistencies contained in the conditions of this approval on the one hand, and the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Commercial Project), Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project), - .. .. +� �� r r r r r and/or the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program on the other hand, the provisions of the Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Commercial Project), Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project), and/or the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program, as applicable shall govern. • • • r r 2. Planning Board Resolution Condition of Approval #4 shall be replaced with the following condition: All im•rovement •1 an s buildin • ermit •tans and •ro'ect im•rovements shall be consistent with the City Council approved alternative Site Plan #4 shown in Attachment 4 to the City Council Staff report and included as Exhibit A to this resolution. 3. Planning Board Resolution Condition of Approval #6 shall be amended as follows: The southern driveway into the center from Willie Stargell Avenue shall be signed a "right in -right out ". If at a future date Willie Stargell Avenue is widened beyond the 2010 configuration and it is determined by the Public Works Director based upon vehicle queues, delays, or collision rates that the driveway must be reconfigured or modified to maintain traffic safety, then the property owners shall be required to modify the driveway to address the traffic safety concern. Potential solutions may include but are not limited to providing a right turn lane into the driveway for westbound traffic that could accommodate the turning traffic demand, closing the driveway, or a traffic signal. The proposed modification shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Board at a noticed public hearing based upon a recommendation by the Planning and Building Director and the Public Works Director. Catellus, or its successor in interest "the property owner" shall be responsible for funding the design and construction of the approved modification provided that if the approved modification proves to be infeasible or unacceptable to the property owner for financial, operational or other reasons, then the property owner may remove the traffic safety concern by closing the driveway at their expense, in which case the access required by Condition 5 shall no longer be required. This condition shall be noted on the tentative and final maps for the Retail Center property. S' ~ W 4 W C.7 4 ce 0 0 0 O u a 10f r 3flN3AY 1139dY1S AGGS, a ^.fit -i rrR�•F,+r.�� Attachment 4 oZe d W 2 re az w RFVIFW ANI) 1 ANIMC.APF PI 11 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 6th day of November, 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