The URL can be used to link to this page

2008-03-18 Packet~~ ~.~ ' n ~ ~ F~ ~~~~f~. CITY ~F ALAMEDA • ~ALIF~R I ~~ ~; ~~~.~, ~ N A fh ' ` + r~L ~S SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD TUESDAY - - - MARCH 18, 2008 - - - 6:00 P.M. Time; Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 6; 00 p.m. Place ; Cit Council Chambers Canferenc~ Rooan, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street I. Roll Call 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 REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Property; 1041 W. Midway and various easements in Alameda, California Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Power and Telecom Under negotiation; Price and terms 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment Beverly J M ar Sign language interpreters are available; requests must be made at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting. Equipment for the hearing impaired is available. 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. ;~ a ~ ~(F 4 ~ rr~, ~'~ 1~ . -:.~~~,,~;~, ~ITY~FALAMEDA•~ALI ~^~ ~~,,~::,~ F~RNIA ~], , _4f pn rp~ ~j V t'+ ~? ~~ ~~~P~b l'Cl ~~~ (~ V SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC7 TUESDAY - - - MARCH 18, 2008 - - - 6;01 P.M. Time: Tuesday, March 18, 2008, 6;01 p.m. Place: Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street Agenda; 1. Roll Call -- City Council, CIC 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only . Anyone wishing to speak on agenda items anly, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3-A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision ~b7 of Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One 4. 5. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any Adjournment - City Council, CIC Beverly Jo ns M or Chair, u it Improvement Commission /`~~`~ - r o ~~ ~ I ~ 2 ~~ ~a ' L~~- ~,~ CITY ~F ALAMEDA • CALIF ~~ ~ ~• , ~~ ~~ ~ ~ R N I A ~r ~ +. ~~ titi ~Q~ r5\ i_f ~ n ~ v ;, , ~~. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC} AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~ HABOC } TUESDAY ~- - - MARCH 18, 2008 - - - 7:25 P.M. Location; Cit Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Commission/Board on agenda items or business introduced by the Commission/Board may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Commission/Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL -- CIC, HABOC 2. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2-A. Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project. Development Services} CIC] 3. MINUTE 3-A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on February 6, 2008. City Clerk} [CIC] 4, AGENDA ITEM 4-A. Recommendation to approve and authorize the Executive Director/Chief Executive Officer to execute an Owner Participation Agreement Between the Community Improvement Commission, Housing Authority and Resources for Community Development for the development of Shinsei Gardens Apartments on certain real property on a portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center. Development Services? [CIC, HABOC] 5. ADJOURNMENT - CIC, HABOC ~1 Be erly Jo s Ch it CIC and ~~,~ o;,. ~~ ~~ ~' CITY ~F ALAMEDA • ~~r ~~'~~~~ CALIFORNIA /~ ~ ~ G •~r~~,l'I`p~h~ r 4 ara~~ •~' ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY APFA} TUESDAY - - - MARCH 18, 20D8 - - - 7:27 P.M. Location: ~~~~~,~ ~~,~~~~, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Board on agenda items or business introduced by Board Members may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda item. 1. Roll Call - APFA 2. Minutes 2-A. Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Financing Authority Meeting of March 20, 2007. 3. Agenda Items None. 4. Oral Communications Public Comment} Any person may address the Board in regard to any matter over which the Board has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance that is not on the agenda. 5. Board Communications Communications from the Board} ~. Adjournment - APFA ~~~ ~~, ~~ ~'' ~G ~'~ ~` 6 1 ~P ~ `~ MSr~ `i~ a tis ren~~ tUia ~~~~~ CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three X37 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. AGENDA - - - - - - - - - -- - REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY--------MARCH I$, 2008----7:30P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall, ~~~~~~~. C~a~r~, corner of Santa Clara Ave and Dak St] The Order of Business for City Council 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items Meeting is as follows: of the Day and Announcements G. Oral Communications, Non-Agenda Public Comment} 7. Council Referrals 8. Communications Communications from Council} 9. 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 JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 6:00 P.M. PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda Closed Session? SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND 6:01 P.M. COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM, Separate Agenda Closed Session? SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:25 P.M. COMMISSION, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, Separate Agenda ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING 7:27 P.M. AUTHORITY, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. RQLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNQUNCEMENTS 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public 4-A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on February 6, 2008; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 4, 2008. City Clerk? 4-B. Bills for ratification. ~Finance7 4-C. Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon Construction, Inc. for the first amendment to Agreement for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of Portland cement concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, Phase 7, P.W. 03- 0 6-0 6 . ~ Public Works } 4-D. Recommendation to approve the Proposition 1B Local Streets and Roads Funding Proposal for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, allocate $61,000 in Congestion Management Agency Transportation Improvement Plan Funds, and authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents. Public Works 4-E. Recommendation to address rent increases and maintenance concerns at 101, 121, and 127 Crolls Garden Court. Development Services? 4-F. Adoption of Resolution Approving Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the City of Alameda for the Period Ending December 31, 200$, to Establish Rubber Glove Educational Incentive Pay. Human Resources 4-G. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Execution by the General Manager of Alameda Power & Telecom of the First Amendment to the Power Purchase Agreement with Ameresco Keller Canyon, LLC for Price Increase of Delivered Power from Landfill Gas Generation. Alameda Power & Telecom 4-H. Introduction of ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Section 5-30 Filming Activities} in Its Entirety, and Replacing It with A Successor Section to Article II Permits} of Chapter V Licenses and Permits} Making Changes to the Procedures, Regulations and Related Fee Provisions for Filming Activities Within the City of Alameda. Alameda. Development Services} 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Adopting General Plan Amendment, PLN07-0077, Amending Section 2.5 Retail Business and Services of the Land Use Element of the City of Alameda General Plan. Planning and Building} 5-B. Public Hearing to consider Introduction of ordinance Amending Various Sections of the Alameda Municipal Code Contained in Article I, Zoning Districts and Regulations}, Chapter XXX, Development Regulations}, Pertaining to Retail and Commercial Uses. Planning and Building} 5-C. Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution Approving Master Plan Amendment, PLN07--0122, to Allow the Marina Village Shopping Center to Permit up to 25a Office Use ~A Maximum of 31,070 Square Feet} and to Allow the Future Addition of a 5,000 Square Foot Building Pad, an 800 Square Foot Kiosk, and a 500 Square Foot Kiosk. Planning and Building} 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NQN-AGENDA Public Comment} Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter aver which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda 7. COUNCIL REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item $. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Communications from Council} Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended S-A. Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Public Art Commission. 9. ADJOURNMENT - City Council **~ • For use in preparing the Official Record, speakers reading a written statement are invited to submit a copy to the City Clerk at the meeting or e-mail to: lweisige@ci.alameda.ca.us • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747-480 or TDD number 522-7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter. • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available. • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print. • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. • Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4$~0 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. CITY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Debra Kurita Executive Director Date: March 18, 2008 Re: Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project Construction Update BACKGROUND The City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission CIC} approved construction contracts with C. Overaa & Co. ~Overaa} on July 26, 2006, for the rehabilitation and restoration of the historic Alameda Theater and the design-build new construction of the Civic Center Parking Garage. The CIC approved the Theater construction contract for $8,800,000 and approved the parking garage design-build contract for $9,104,000 with the condition that the garage project be value-engineered within the CIC's budget before the construction phase commenced. Since contract approval in July, CIC staff and Overaa finalized the value-engineering for the garage design, reducing the contract price to within the C1C's budget. The original contract price of $9,104,000 was reduced by $604,000, resulting in a final contract price of $8,500,000. The Theater construction contract commenced in October 2006; the design phase of the parking garage project started in August 2006; and the construction phase of the parking garage began in October 2006. The overall project consists of an eight~screen movie theater, including a 484-seat, single~screen theater in the historic Alameda Theater and seven screens in the new Cineplex, 6,100 square feet of retail, and a 341- space parking garage. Additionally, on December 4, 2007, the CIC approved a loan for Alameda Entertainment Associates AEA}, the movie operator, to improve and install furnishings, fixtures, and equipment in the mezzanine balcony of the historic Theater, adding approximately 250 seats to the main auditorium; and authorized the use of up to $50,400 in interest earnings to complete the enclosure of the historic Alameda Theater balcony access corridor. DISCUSSION The status of both the Theater and parking garage projects, including the budget, payments, and schedule, are provided in Attachments 1 and 2, respectively; a summary of the schedule for each project is presented in Attachment 3. A status repork for each project is outlined below. CICIHABCC Agenda Item #2-A 43-'18-D8 Honorable Chair and March 18, 2008 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 4 Alameda Theater 4veraa's contract for the Alameda Theater has achieved completion for almost the entire Theater with the exception of installation of sound-proof frames and doors in the auditorium. The pending completion of this item will not affect the construction of AEA's tenant improvements, which are currently underway, including installation of the seats, speakers, and concession casework. The opening of the Theater complex is dependent on the final completion of the Cineplex and AEA's construction of the tenant improvements in the Theater. As previously discussed at the February 19, 2008, CIC meeting, the major storm in early January caused leaking on the interior eastern sidewall of the auditorium. CIC staff, in coordination wi#h its waterproofing consultant, has evaluated a number of options for resolving this condition and has decided to conduct an expedited bidding process for a new contractor with the expertise to abate lead paint, seal cracks, and re- paint the wall with special paint sealant. A call for bids was issued in late February, and bids are due in late March. Based on preliminary cost estimates, CIC staff expects this proposed work to result in a total cost of approximately $55,000 to $55,000. CIC staff recommends using project related funds to cover the cost of this work, including funds remaining in the garage contingency, and interest income earned from the Cineplex escrow account and United States Department of Housing and Urban Development THUD} Section 108 loan funds Attachment 4}. Cumulative current and pending contract changes are estimated to require the use of approximately $1,093,000 in contingency funds, or 99 percent of the CIC's contingency budget, excluding the cost of waterproofing the eastern elevation Attachments 1 and 4}. Parkin Gara e The Civic Center Parking Structure opened to the public on February 8, 2008. As of this date, the construction of the parking garage was complete with the exception of the final State of California elevator inspection, and installation of granite the at the base of the exterior columns. Since this date, the final State of California elevator inspection was completed, and the elevator is now operational. Gveraa is working closely with the City of Alameda to complete all of the final inspections and required approvals. Additionally, the CIC executed a contract with Komorous-Towey Architects ~KTA} to develop facade treatment options for the northern elevation of the parking structure with the intent of improving the current facade. KTA will develop visual schemes sufficient to convey the intent of each option; evaluate the pros and cons of each option; and provide a preliminary cost estimate for each. Based on feedback provided by the CIC, one option will be evaluated in greater depth and a more detailed budget prepared. Current and potential contract changes are estimated to require the use of approximately $381,500 in contingency funds, or approximately 93 percent of the CIC's contingency budget. CIC staff recommends allocating the $27,500 in remaining garage Honorable Chair and March 18, 2008 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 4 contingency funds for waterproofing of the eastern elevation of the Alameda Theater Attachment 4}. The total contingency budget for the garage is $415,000 Attachment 2}. Cine lex Theater Equipment, Construction and Service, Inc. ~TECS}, the contractor for the cineplex, completed installation of sheet rock along the facade, commenced with application of exterior stucco, continued with exterior glass installation, completed the interior finishes of three of the seven auditoriums, and continued with interior framing. The opening date for the entire Alameda Theater complex is anticipated for May 2005. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIALlMPACT There are no proposed changes to the CIC's total budget for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Garage project with the exception of allocating project-related funds from the garage contingency, and from interest income earned from the cineplex and HUD Section 108 loan funds for the waterproofing of the eastern exterior wall of the Alameda Theater Attachment 4}. MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 -Action B1.0 - Renovatelrestore Alameda Theater. Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 -Action F4 -Consider building a parking structure as part of a Downtown parking management program. RECOMMENDATION This report is for information only. No action is required. Resp tf submitted, eslie A. Little Development Services Director y: Dorene .Soto Manager, Business Development Division Honorable Chair and March ~8, ~g08 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 4 r Jennifer Ott Redevelopment Manager DKILALIDES1JO:rv Attachments: ~ . Monthly Progress Status Report for the Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and Restoration 2. Monthly Progress Status Report for Civic Center Parking Garage 3. Alameda Theater Project Schedule Update 4. Sources and Uses of Funds for vtilaterproofing of East Elevation of Alameda Theater Monthly Progress Status Report Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and Restoration City of Alameda March 18, 2008 C/C Meeting T' :I~.~ f ~.. •1 .. 1. .~Ii .11 ~• ~•~~'. ~: Iri!.,` 1'.. BDE U G T~ - V,t:, 1'' ...~}I .. fl'~I'~'I`1`..' 1. ~.(4 '%~" ",~J-~ I~`~`~,.• CONT T. ,,1 E:,~~':1' • ..RAC Original Contract Amount $B,SOQ,OQ0 Previous Changes $616,66 Executed Change Orders Underside of Marquee Repair $27,08 AP&T Changes $23,9D Storm Drain Connections at Sidewalk $1,42 Construction $8,800,000 Indirect Wasteline in Concession Area $4,59 Contingency 1 106 040 HCT Support in Plenum and Vent Roams $30,21 Total Contract Budget $9,906,Q40 Mixing Valve for Women's Lav $l35 Lower Pipe for Cineplex Iron $2,831 Expose Mezzanine Mural 6 37 Subtotal Executed Changes $97,16 Pending Change Orders Cost Estimates) Budget far Retail Tenant Improvement Allowances $120,000 Men's Raom Water Heater $1,500 Concession Area Utilities $5,000 Revisions to Hall $3,500 Plaster Repair in First Flaar Lobby $8,000 ,, PAYMENTS .. -~'~ " ~ • :~~ ~~~ ~ Sump Pump Connection $12,95 Roofing Downspout $5,500 Dimmable Ballasts for J Fixtures $15,000 Additional Misc. Items $60,800 Fence at Alleyway $5,000 Replicate Daar Pull and Push Bar $B,ODD Replace Front Doors $7,000 Revised Daor Hardware $6,000 Sound Proof Door Frames $17,000 Delete Balcony Gates ~$3,D00 Previously Paid $5,121,301 Balcony Handrail Rework $28,000 Payment this Period 506 42 Additional Floor Preparation $9,500 Total Payment To Date $9,227,721 Spandrel Glass Rework 8 000 Subtotal Pending Change Orders $318,75 Total Changes $9,092,58 Estimated Revised Contract Amount $9,892,58 Remaining Contingency $13,45 .CO ;'h~., :.~.. ~.(,~~,'..7'' -'e,!'//~ «)7'+\.- ~:i'Yyh. +'S, yy';H`~, .:1l, il'. •f.r ~~`.F '.~ y. .~ .tr f,~ ..F~~~ nC,~r 1A's..! i~ NTRA ~T° r:., ~.,- C STATUS' ~',. ` ;. ,I:r f. ~ h~': '~~~ ,:~1FhGr~Ji, ~.~.~..; :V.'s: ~'."{.:. '-n~:.~ ~y ~ :.L: - ~1 .~~~~ le{if.. ..H. -.~"~~ "~~ - .,~. - PICTURES.` , ~ - ,~~~sa ., , :. .:•`_l i.. -`~S, •: _~r rf i~ :~• `. s_.l:•;.~' ..~;~: rt '.,v( : ;.,::. ;•Y' ~ -~';t:. ~~:;~ ;~:--~No~ice~ao,yQroceed. ~;~`,:•~~ ~: •'i~.~':i ~:: ~,f~,,,,~Q•-Nov-q,fi n.~v ~~-~ ~•• ',L~ ~, :d Yr.: t 'I,,%.' "r1%e" 'h. .ti• S . '.'vI,°'~." - i ~l _ = I,'.Contract~:~~.Calend.ar:r. ~~''~~ Da~~s~ '~ ~4: '.` l „~' S _ ,:'•"'~~~- ,49;0 :'`' -~~ `,`~ ~: , ~.. ~: ~~~:~~" ~ ;.r ~~FTime:~Extensions; ~~~,:~~~ ~ ~:j`'~:.:,;v~~:;',2-~: . ,V•, ,.:~~. ~~~~.~~,:Sched:u:~ed"Com ~~etion: ~.;~4=J'an=08 ~ .. ~~ Perc~ent~'Time~rEx~ ~'ende ~.: ~~~~ .7, ~; ~ ~ *'~~~,, Base Bid Amount: $8,800,000 Amount Paid to Date: $9,221,12 c Percent Cost Ex ended inc. Cis : 93% ~,.~,~, ~ ExecutedlPendin Chan a Orders: $x,092,588 ,, Pro'ect Cvst: $9,892,588 "' ~' ,'„ Percent Contingency Expended: 99°/a ~e1 r'~, :i'~. ~,1~ - I ~` 1 rl v ';{ ~~~• '.L~~t f~.~ '~,. f~ - nJ M ESTONES,.. f,. =rJ ~_,.,. ~. a r:, , ~' Milestone Baseline Forecast A roved Notice to Proceed 1111012006 1111 D12oo6 1111012DD6 Final Com letion for Tenant Im ravement Areas 1111312407 1111312007 1111312007 Final Com letion for Other TI Areas 1211712007 1211712007 1211112007 Final Com letion for Remainin Areas 111412008 212912008 ~~~.. - , I" gy~pp:`` ~i! ~'~•~~:~~ •t f P'R0 E •T, T' T - J C S A u5~,, ;, :.( ,' Work Completed Completed Installation of Auditorium Handrails Thrs Perr`od; Completed Gas Service Installation and Mechanical Equipment Testing • Completed Electrical and Sheet Metal Repair of Underside of Marque Atta Work Pro'ects Next Period: Com lete Final Punch-List for Entire Theater c~ciHAgoc e chment 1 to Agenda item #2-A 03-1 S-OS Monthly Progress Status Report Civic Center Parking Garage City of Alameda March 18, 2008 C/C Meeting , t 1, :~<~~; A` :Y. BUDGET,:. :1:. ;,, ;;., ;~~':', ~.' ,r , ^',,., , .~ { +~ .4,: r' ...4 .. 4 ~~'t J~.. .f `• ~'tii ~ of :;11, 'Li 'R' Y '~~" '1'. Y,'.. •,K, I:. CONTRA ~ T",• Original Contract Amount $9,1D4,OD0 Value Engineering ~Credit~ ~$604,111y Construction $8,499,88 Revised Contract Amount $8,499,889 Contingency 415 000 Previous Changes $350,751 Total Contract Budget $8,914,889 Executed Change Orders Subtotal Executed Changes $0 Pi4YMENTS•; •;ra ~„~.;~ . '~'~~- 4: ,,5-;~' ;~~= ~,~~,. ';~~~- <:.>'.,~ .~; ~~~,,:, t Pen in h d g C ange Orders Cost Estimates Generator until Permanent Power $6,DOD Add'I Granite Tile $3,800 Add'I Fencing $8,000 Trash Cans, and Other Misc. $5,OOD Add'I Site Work $6,000 Add'I Signage $5,910 Previously Paid $8,205,545 Add'I Paint Mock-Ups $1,000 . Payment this Period 423 90 Subtotal Pending Change Orders $35,110 Total Payment To Date $8,630,45 Total Changes $387,4G0 Estimated Revised Contact Amount $8,887,349 Remaining Contingency $21,540 /, -i 1y~,., <~~'~~t.~ .1:7: a1'; ..1l~rl:•,.f•..~. 1, ~~:'. •N X; CONTRACT STATUS.' '~~:~ - y;..~' ~,r ~ ~,':,'; ~- ~ .,f.a;,, .i .,.,:n, .:~1,:~,.. ,,;~°-~ 'a~' {~ '.1, !'~".i' :~4i~. ~.5 ,~~ _ - PICTURES:-:, ,~: .-> :~~: f: ``r'' i~'. •~',•~.. ,~,,,,~~ ..,.•,s ~'r~,'.~, ,t .,v~; ''m;'':'a:;a;' - ~~~~ ,~r ~ ~~s~~~ :~I~~:~ ,..:N. ~ ~~~o e. d~ • , ! ;f: 1. .•, ,t"..'~e.~n,~,:, ~'f~r`~~~`10-Nov-.O dr;v r ,. ~~ '~•r ;.,~ ~. ~F '',~.~z: :: 7..y I.~~°,. J- Hnrl.r' .5; '`~,'^: ~~i,. .. J1:~t lZ,/' +.'~,r a~'. f°r'' ti; , i ;~I.. ',r :.-• c: .SCV ntri{ ' y ~ ~;1:'~~, ;;.;~: =+: ct: C,alendar-D,a s; .;i•:'•'+,,' P'r":"~ -.[~•:.k'~K`d.r, Y 5 (l y ^'~'r' '' ~o`- ,,.~y r ~-~.~ I. ~,~,},,:,; .~:}, 445 :~' , r ~~ ~, r:. : ~ :' ~~~ ~4:"' ~1~T~ ~ ~ e ~Ee~nsi ns 1 Ir~, , .;p. . ~-~.:~., ~' ` ' ~ ~ ,' m ~ o • ~ , , 1.~::5 V~•~ ~ ,.,Y ~+., '. '. 11. .F, f~.~,,~.. ,,T',•.. r'. ;_}•',~' aY,::.l,~w~. .`li: '~;'K..'.;K~ Ied•:,Com lets n,, S,'Idul}''•, :r'' ~=~'7~~.j•'• ~ ~~.~_ •~~~• fan-08. i ::~: ~ .: ~,,.^ ~ ~,;:~,~ ~ ~;:~.. ,-,~,.,~;:,;. :Tlime Used ,..7~.,:.; .:::.:.445 r '~ .:~~i..M. ;~~lF? ':• ,.I ~'~ r:l,, :. ail°: ^:a':; ..:~~qn 4~lyj~~'I t. r•;. ~I x.. ;'1~` ~.~1^ •V 1~. ~• ,I'~!fy i~ ~ `•~ ,. ., r-,l ~.~ ~;:r:~ Tim:~~~Rer~ainrn :: ."i y „~f ~t~:. ~!. ~fT. ~•i~~l'r~-i~j`;:~'~•' . ~ ]~•:~~•"~ 'J'r~~f~Mi.1' 4r •i ~'r•x ,;~..~ ~;~,~.~~,.:.~.;-,;:~:I~;O ~'' ., ~~,:,',.percen~•T~m`e:,E'z`:e~n'ded<: ~1:~~ .-;~~.~"~:,OD.,/o .r i,=~ , Base Bid Am n ou t. 9104 000 $ ,~ Amount Paid to Date: $8,630,454 ~, Percent Cost Ex ended Inc. Cos : 97°/° ., ; ;~ y o value-En ineerin : $fi04,111 ~ ~~ ~~ r `', ~`:~ ~ ~' • PreviouslPendin Chan a orders $381,460 :, i ~I Pro'ect Cost: $8,887,349 , Percent Contingency Expended: 93°/° ~~i"~ ` 1 i!i ~. '.4:i„y94' .~.' 1'~! ~~>~~. .I.~ r.. Yn'•~•'1.'.nE Y'n .`t' 4,1.':.•.',1,"••i11 ^x': ,! k~ ~^. „~ ~: l e.:.~ !';.' ' 7 ~ A ~ i l.}. ,:Lr~'' f'::'.i: ~~ .CC'-a'la~, ~,) ! ..T'./ ;1 .~.~.ry ,` ~'' [`~ CT ' t~ ` 1, '~r;~ '. .l , a ,'~ f~'~i', •.- 5'. , ~'~ ~; ,'~~•• t~. MI`EV I;ONE~~ r;~::, I - ,.r~. ~.:..9~.:, ~..~ ..ti:. Z ,r'[ i,;.,,;,;.fx ,:.~. ,h, .,,..• q,.,} .:.'•~ •~(.Il~:. ^..~ I.i `''Y'.'."~',.f '~~. .r~K~:~Y: Milestone Baseline Forecast A roved Notice to Proceed 11110!2006 11/10/2005 1111 Ol2D06 Substantial Com letion 1211512007 2/812008 2/8/2008 Final Cam letion 1129/2008 311412008 Work Completed Received Temporary Certificate of Occupancy This Period: Completed Granite Tile Installation at Base of Columns • Scheduled and Completed State Elevator Work Projecfs Next Period: Receive Final Certificate of Occupancy from Building Department c~c~HABOc Attachment 2 to Agenda ltem #Z-A ~3-'18-48 Z V V ~O L a L s H- d ca Q ' ` ' a i 1 R~ ` ' k i 1 ~ ~~ fir.-^.~ ~~ ~ ~ !~ :d ~=„^.;~i, c i ~., A,••E, i, ~~. '' ; ~s ~ . . 4 N~ 6 I ~"• + , b ~ ' ' ,r ,. '1 ,t A. .. ,,c r'~~;.~,~,. .,' ' ~ ~,•~ ~ ' i /~ ~ ~ 1 9r R' ''~,Ya~ J, ~ , ' j . ';.~. eto" "a r r .:.Y,y. '.3". "~~I'~,h'~`'1,~ •.`r lr, 1 Y: '..'r~: r Y^.~, i;~ ,r ~; in h•.~5~' ~.i ~;$; itie~~'Yl:~ t'~„~ti"r , !yr, ~ i:~ ~",v~> ~~hir ,. ~,'. M , , ~ ~ P• a ! ' ~ >~;F ,L~jr^, r •A.:;`~ A rash ~a~ /'~ i J..yV' kii~y~~ '~ r ~f•o > > '~ r ',7.~~~;XyS:;. ;,,j. 4,~~ ~ S; ,Y S~~! : ~ :~ A ~i. ~i ~.P,1 1 ,~ . v .~~~~>~' .~a1';,i, ~%k~ furry', ~A 1. :~' 11•,~ .~ ' ~ ie~'. •' ~ ' { ~.. '^ ~p ~~'~r ;.. ': h., ; : ~i ! 3, ~ • ` jam ~•r~IiY ,. . u ., F c' ~ ^.r ~ r•. rj ~'• ~ IF~-rr ; 'N:i~;,~•}Y 1•:~', i~ .i; lr,~~;; ~~•: .•r: ~ ~ ,~~i~''~~!~i' !'.W"'r''nr: r1 "; SI~~i'y'r Y~"~n1 •".~ .~;. .rr~ 9 ~ ~I w r ` r ~a ~`~«' .. ~ ,;~~ ^ ~fj~ ,~y" > .. .~r -..,r 'Hti.: ;C~~ '4.~i.~,s'`:.f t r,~1`:.if~:: ;;~r~.•.°-~..'th' ~{ . Y .~,2•, t' ','~:;O;a;, Nei.., -;~9'~6 ;~iy..~ ffir.,' •~T•rlh4 'a".v ,am• y rti;~,.,,,~.G~.•^ .. _~~ X15 y'~"'•:V o ~. . r,_r, ., ~ . . . 1 ~~~'.i ' ,'~l}t'.•~ `•J. i ~F:a~.' i f„r 'i ~I',1 :;'~~""`~~ ~;,,~~a~ ~', fir ~ , .'. e'~~V". ~: .~6F=~'. , - ,' •~~r, tia •~Fa" ' ,1~~` ~ ~• •,1~, : : cn~~~, . : .o ~ : f ,: .,.. :~~~..~ - $,. ,, r... •'F y Y , , •A, , r'~ ~,~~.~• (~ ~ ~ W ~ • ~W Z ~ J ~ ~a - Y a NW ~ Z - = a a - clc~HA _ ~ a t~ ~ Boc Attachment 3 to Agenda Item #2-A 03-18.08 Sources and Uses of Funds for Waterproofing of East Elevation Alameda Theater Restoration and Rehabilitation Item Amount SOURCES ~F FUNDS Remaining Garage Contingency $27,540 Interest Income from HUD Section 108 Loan $45,500 Interest Income from Cineplex Escrow Account 12 000 TOTAL SOURCES $85,040 USES OF FUNDS Waterproofing Contract 55 000 TOTAL USES $55,000 NET BALANCE $30,040 clciHABOc Attachment 4 to Agenda Item #2-A o3-'I S-O8 UNAPPROVED MINUTES of THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA} AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC} MEETING G~EDNESDAY- -FEBRUARY 6, 2008- -7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:55 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: ~O8- } Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: Alameda Naval Air Station; Negotiating parties: ARRA and Navy; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Board/Commission were briefed and discussed price and terms; the Council/Board/ Commission provided instruction to staff. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lora Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special. Joint Meeting Alameda City Council Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission February 6, 2Q08 CITY ~F ALAi~EDA Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission ~CIC} and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners From: Debra Kurita Executive DirectorlChief Executive Officer Date: March 18, 2008 Re: Approve and Authorize the Executive DirectorlChief Executive Officer to Execute an Owner Participation Agreement between the Community Improvement Commission, Housing Authority and Resources for Community Development for the Development of Shinsei Gardens Apartments on Certain Real Property on a Portion of the Fleet Industrial Suppl Center BACKGROUND The 39-unit Shinsei Gardens Apartment project is being developed to provide replacement affordable units for those lost when the former Navy East Housing units were demolished. These units are part of the homeless accommodation resulting from the initial base closure process that began in 1991. Operation Dignity SOD}, a local provider of housing and services for veterans and their families, has certain rights regarding the future management of the project. OD's rights and obligations are contained in a Settlement Agreement and Implementation Agreement approved in September 2006. The project is being developed in partnership with the Alameda Housing Authority and Resources for Community Development RCD}, a nonwprofit housing developer. In September 2006, the Planning Board approved the Development Plan and Major Design Review and related California Environmental Quality Act actions for the project. In October 2005, the Community Improvement Commission ~CIC} executed a quitclaim deed to transfer ownership of the site to the Housing Authority, which enabled the Housing Authority to execute a l5-year ground lease with RCD and the CIC and City approved resolutions to spend $4 million in local housing funds. This funding commitment allowed RCD to receive State Multi-Family Housing Program ~MHP} funds and State Low-Income Housing Tax Credits. Negotiations for the Owner Participation Agreement ~OPA}and other related documents between the city entities and RCD were also authorized in October 2006, and are now complete. The OPA, in substantiallyfinal form, is on file in the City Clerk's office. CICIHAB~C Agenda Item #4-A ~3-~ ~-Og Honorable Chair and March 18, 2008 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Pa e 2 of 3 . g and Members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners DISCUSSION The OPA defines the roles and responsibilities of the Housing Authority, CIC, and RCD for project funding, entitlement processing, construction, marketing, and long-term property management, The CIC will provide project funding and will coordinate various project approvals. RCD is responsible for securin al! ~ other necessa financin and g rY g developing the project according to the schedule and development program attached to the OPA. RCD will also lease and manage the complex in a manner consistent with Housing Authority-approved policies outlined in the OPA and the Implementation Agreement with OD. The Housing Authority will enforce its obligations pursuant to the Ground Lease with RCD, and endeavor to make up to 21 project-based Section 8 vouchers available forthe project, pursuantto annual Federal appropriations. RCD has obtained all of the required project financing. Folfo~ring approval of the OPA, escrow will be established for all of the required regulatory documents, including the OPA, and construction financing agreements. Escrow is scheduled to close on March 24, 2008. RCD has submitted construction drawings to the Planning & Building Department and anticipates obtaining permits and starting construction in May 2008. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIALIMPACT The City and CIC approved a funding resolution in October 2006, for up to $4 million in local housing monies, to fund a portion of the construction of the Shinsei Gardens Apartments. As of February 2008, $4 million has been encumbered forthe project. The C1CICity funds will be provided in the form of anon-recourse deferred loan secured by a deed of trust on the Shinsei Gardens Apartment site, for a period of 55 years, at 0°/° interest, In the event that additional funding, such as County HGME funds, are received, those funds will first be used to reduce the City'sICIC's $4 million contribution to the project. At no time will the City and .CIC obligation exceed the $4 million commitment. There is no fiscal impact to the City's General Fund. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Chief Executive DirectorlChief Executive Officer to Execute the Owner Participation Agreement between the Housing Authority, Community Improvement Commission and Resources for Community Development for the Development of Shinsei Gardens Apartments on Certain Real Property on a Portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Honorable Chair and March ~8, 2008 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 3 and Members of the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Resp ctf submitted, Leslie A. Little Development Se 'ce or ~,. Michael T. Pucci Housing Authority -Executive Director By: ebbie Potter Base Reuse and Community Development Manager DKILALIMP~DP:dc UNAPPRQVED MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING TUESDAY-- -MARCH 20, 2007- --7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 7:37 p.m. Board Member Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. ~rrTrzrTm~ C X07- } Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Financing Authority Meeting of March 21, 2006. Approved. Board Member Matarrese moved approval of the minutes. Board Member Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Board Member Tam - 1. AGENDA ITEMS None. ORAL CQMMCTNICATI4NS None. BQARD CoMMUNICATIQNS None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual Meeting at 7:39 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara weisiger Secretary The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act . Annual Meeting Alameda Public Financing Authority Match 20, 2Q07 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRAy AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC7 MEETING WEDNESDAY- -FEBRUARY 6, 2008- -7:01 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Jo~.nt Meeting at 7:55 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers / Board Members Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: X48- 7 Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: Alameda Naval Air Station; Negotiating parties: ARRA and Navy; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Board/Commission were briefed and discussed price and terms; the Council/Board/ Commission provided instruction to staff, Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:35 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 Jaint Meeting Alameda City Catancil, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission February 6, 2008 UNAPPRaVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - - MARCH 4, 2008 - - - 6:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: X08- } Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision ~b7 of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. SOS- } Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation X54956.9}; Name of Case: Collins v. City of Alameda. SOS- } Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations: International Brotherhood of Electrical workers. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel on a matter of potential litigation; no action was taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received an update on the status of litigation, including settlement negotiations; no action was taken; regarding Labor, the matter was not heard. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Specia]. Meeting AJ.ameda City Council. March 4, 2008 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MARCH 4, 2008- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Vice Mayor Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL -- Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS X08- 7 Proclamation declaring March 2008 as American Red Cross Month. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Helen Knudson and Cortes Sanders with the American Red Cross Leadership Council; and Jim Franz, Alameda American Red Cross Director. Ms. Knudson thanked Council for the proclamation; stated the Red Cross responded to ten events within the City in the past ten years; the annual CPR instruction will be held on March 8 in all six counties. Ms. Sanders thanked Council and the community for partnering with the Red Cross. Mr. Franz stated that volunteers are the lifeblood of the Red Cross; the Red Cross started in 1898 and in Alameda also. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted ar adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ~*08- 7 Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting; the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission Meeting; and the Regular City Council Meeting held on February 19, 2008. Approved. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 March 4, X008 (*08- } Ratified bills in the amount of $6,452,067.26. (*OS- } Recommendation to approve amendments to existing Professional Services Agreements with Lamphier Gregory and Harsh Investment Realty for the evaluation of potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed expansion of the Alameda Towne Centre. Accepted. (*08- } Recommendation to allocate $860,522 from Fund 310.1 Fleet Industrial Supply Center Catellus Traffic Mitigation Fee for the construction of Bayport traffic mitigation improvements at Ralph Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Webster Street, Constitution Way and Mariner Square Drive. Accepted. (*08- ~ Resolution No. 14186, "Approving the Power Purchase Agreement between Northern California Power Agency (NCPA} and Western GeoPower, Inc., for the Purchase of Power from a New Geothermal Power Plant at a Fixed Price of $98.00/MU~h over an Initial 20-Year Term and Authorize the General Manager to Execute the Third Phase Agreement for Members of NCPA to Participate in the Proposed Project." Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (O8- ~ Recommendation to consider an appeal of the Transportation Commission's decision to install parking restrictions at the existing westbound bus stops on the northerly side of Encinal Avenue at the intersection of Mound Street. The Program Specialist II gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many parking spaces would be removed by red curbing the Mound Street bus stop, to which the Program Specialist II responded three. Councilmember deHaan inquired how many riders use the bus stop. The Program Specialist II responded five people board and three people get off at the Encinal Avenue and Mound Street bus stop per day. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any safety issues were addressed; further inquired whether there are any problems with where buses stop now. The Program Specialist II responded that he has not heard of any complaints. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 March 4, 2x08 Councilmember deHaan inquired when parking was observed. The Program Specialist II responded parking was observed at 3:00 p.m. on a Tuesday; 9:30 a.m, and 9:00 p.m. on a Wednesday; and 9:30 p.m. on a Sunday. Councilmember deHaan stated parking is critical on Sundays. vice Mayor Tam inquired whether ridership is fairly high on the three bus lines; stated the OX Transbay line operates during the morning peak times and always seems to be fairly full. The Program Specialist II responded the bus line has good ridership. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Proponents ~In favor of appeal7: Mark Betz, Alameda; Brad Ashmore, Alameda. Opponents Not in favor of appeal: Deborah James, Alameda. Neutral: Susan Decker, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilmember deHaan inquired how far along is the red curbing policy. The Program Specialist II responded there are approximately twenty stops left; stated approximately half are on the list Council recommended in January. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether distinctions were made between storage of vehicles and parking. The Program Specialist II responded there is no way to judge whether vehicles are stored or parked. Councilmember Matarrese stated a boat trailer is taking up a parking space on Encinal Avenue; storage space should not be provided; taking parking away from a neighborhood is not easy. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has ordinances regarding storing vehicles. Regular Meeting Alameda city Council 3 March 4, 2aas Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative; stated Alameda was constructed when cars were not prominent; people are jockeying for parking spaces on the main thoroughfares on Sunday mornings; he is concerned with ridership and noise; parking is the major issue; enforcement needs to be done on illegal vehicles stared on streets. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she takes the Mound Street route often; she concurs with staff's observation regarding available parking; the City established a long range transit plan and is sending the message that a viable transit system is needed; she appreciates the efforts of staff and the Transportation Commission. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of upholding the Transportation Commission's decision. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion included the enforcement issue. Vice Mayor Tam responded that she hopes enforcement is happening irrespective of being included in a motion. Mr. Ashmore inquired why three parking spots are needed instead of two. Mayor Johnson responded staff would be able to answer the question. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ordinance is strong enough for enforcement of illegal vehicles stored on streets. The Assistant City Manager responded enforcement is done on a complaint basis. Councilmember deHaan stated that ticketing vehicles stored on streets over seventy-two hours becomes a game; vehicles are moved and then put back in the same spot; he would like to see how the existing ordinance can be strengthened; fines should be increased after three violations per year; requested that the Police Department provide Council with recommendations. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote ~ 5. X08- ~ Recommendation to request placement of a Ballot Measure Resolution proposing non-substantive changes to the City Charter on a City Council Agenda no later than July 15, 2008, and to prioritize and provide direction on future substantive changes. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 March 4, 2008 Vice Mayor Tam stated that Councilmember Gilmore, Senior Assistant City Attorney, and Deputy City Clerk have been meeting following the December 5, 2007 workshop; the subcommittee consolidated the proposed changes into three different categories: nonsubstantive revisions; substantive revisions; and revisions that Council and the City Manager suggested after the workshop. Councilmember Gilmore outlined the proposed nonsubstantive revisions. Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the deadline to pass a resolution. Vice Mayor Tam responded Council needs to pass a resolution no later than August 7, 2008, to qualify far the November consolidated election; stated the subcommittee recommends placing the matter on the July 15, 2008 City Council agenda. Councilmember Gilmore stated the subcommittee wanted to ensure that there was enough time to provide the public with information. Vice Mayor Tam outlined the proposed substantive revisions. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the proposed language for Article IV, Auditor, and Article V, Treasurer, was drafted in consultation with the current incumbents. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Article 28-5 has an extra provision for removal of a Historical Advisory Board Member, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired who the Charter designates as officers; stated the term "officer" seems to be broader than just people elected or appointed by Council. The Senior Assistant City Attorney responded Section 2-12 adds assistants and deputies. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the revision would not change who is or is not an officer, to which the Senior Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese questioned whether there is a way to override the formal bidding requirement while still requiring Council approval; no bid would be required to get work started, then a Council meeting could be called to approve the expenditure. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 March 4, 2D08 The Public Works Director stated that 2005 had some very bad storms which led to excessive bank erosion; the award of a contract had to be suspended until a Council meeting could be held; further erosion occurred; the intent of the proposed revision is to mitigate a similar situation. Vice Mayor Tam inquired what was the cost [to repair the erosion. The Public Works Director responded $150,000 at the time and approximately $300,000 to $350,000 later. Councilmember Matarrese stated a twenty-four hour notice is needed for an emergency Council Meeting; someone could start the work for $75,004 and then a Council meeting could be called called to get approval. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the sub-committee has requested the City Attorney's office to reference the definition of what constitutes an emergency which is taken directly from State law. Mayor Johnson inquired when an emergency would end; stated normal requirements could be in place after a certain number of days of the expenditure. The City Manager stated the City Attorney could review restrictions in terms of number of days or require that the matter come back for Council confirmation by the next regular Council meeting. Mayor Johnson stated that defining when an emergency ends is necessary. Councilmember Matarrese stated inserting language to have the matter came back for Council confirmation is a good idea; a quorum may not be available; the intent is to be able to address a catastrophy. Councilmember deHaan stated the City Manager has authorization up to $75,000; inquired whether past emergencies have warranted a City Manager to make decisions immediately. The Public Works Director responded there have been numerous sewer backups; stated the situation at Washington Park was just under $75,000, but could have been more if the large Palm tree was lost. Councilmember deHaan stated that things can change ten years from now; the $75,000 threshold has been in place for many years; the numeric value does not have a lot of value. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 4, 208 Mayor Johnson stated that the dollar amount should be set by ordinance, not the Charter. The City Manager stated the dollar amount is not in the Charter. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the ability to override the bidding requirements is fine as long as a confirmation occurs within a given amount of time. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the subcommittee will work with the City Attorney's office to prepare language to seek Council confirmation at the earliest opportunity following an expenditure. Mayor Johnson inquired who has the authority to bind the City in the event of an emergency, to which Councilmember Gilmore responded the City Manager. The City Attorney stated it is not uncommon for a City Manager to authorize an emergency contract, start work to protect things from getting worse, and then bring a contract to Council for ratification at the next available Council meeting; the City would only be obligated to pay for services rendered; if a contract is not ratified, the Contract would end. Councilrnember deHaan inquired whether issues would be brought to the public for review and recommendations. Councilmember Gilmore responded the subcommittee wanted direction from Council on whether any of the eight substantive revisions should move forward on the November ballot; input is requested on the items that came up after the December workshop and on how to move forward with public discussions between now and the time Council has to vote to put the matter on the ballot. Councilmember deHaan stated that his current recommendation is to amend Section 2-11 to have consistency between boards and commissions; a future recommendation would involve the selection of boards and commissions and allowing Council to make nominations. Mayor Johnson stated that she would strongly opposed the recommendation. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is comfortable with the eight substantive revisions. Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative; stated he supports the November timeline; commended the subcommittee on efforts made. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council March 4, 2008 Councilmember Gilmore stated the subcommittee discussed voter fatigue; inquired whether Councilmember deHaan has a priority preference. Councilmember deHaan responded that he did not view the issue in terms of priorities. Councilmember Matarrese stated that his top priority is the formal bidding requirements because the matter is emergency preparedness; Item 4 [governing the elected position of Auditor], Item 5 [governing the elected position of Treasurer], and Item 6 [eliminating "transportation" from Article XII, Section 12-1~A~ are clean up items. ~** Councilmember deHaan excused himself from the meeting at $:5H p.m. *** Councilmember Gilmore stated that her top priority is that contracts be in writing. The Senior Assistant City Attorney stated that there was a range of two to eight Charter revisions per ballot over a thirty-year period. Bill Smith, Alameda, stated that he supports the recommendation. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the Charter references the practice of requiring bonds for individual performance; the language is obsolete; the practice is to protect the City by carrying an insurance policy; inquired whether a provision should be added requiring that the City have appropriate insurance if references to bonds are eliminated. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the liability insurance would be for employees. The Senior Assistant City Attorney responded the City carries crime insurance which cover instances such as embezzlement or someone absconding with checks. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has an insurance policy, to which the Senior Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has used the insurance policy, to which the Senior Assistant City Attorney responded that Regular Meeting Alameda City Council $ March 4, 2008 she did not know. Mayor Johnson questioned whether the City should have an insurance policy if claims are not made; inquired what is the loss limit on the policy. The Senior Assistant City Attorney responded she does not know the limit; stated the deductible is $1~,~00. Mayor Johnson stated the City should use the policy or not have one; inquired when was the last time the City made a claim, to which the Senior Assistant City Attorney responded that she did not know. Councilmember Gilmore stated the subcommittee and City Attorney's office will discuss the matter with the Risk Manager and provide more information to Council. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the Charter stipulates that the City has performance bonds; the recommendation is to have some type of insurance policy instead. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the bond is intended to cover theft, to which the Senior Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore stated Councilmember Matarrese submitted a proposed revision to Article VII that would require the appointment of department heads to be on the advice and consent of Council; the subcommittee noted that the proposal would need to be harmonized with Article VII, Section 3, which prohibits Council from interfering with the execution of the City Manager's powers or duties; the proposal would substantially change the form of government. Councilmember Matarresse stated the proposed revision would provide for more accountability. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the Charter is based upon a strong City Manager form of government; the City of Oakland passed a strong Mayor initiative that allows the Mayor to be more deeply involved in the City's management and operations. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the matter needs extensive discussion. Mayor Johnson suggested looking at the City of Berkeley's form of government. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 March 4, 2aa$ Councilmember Gilmore stated that the matter should go straight to public discussion. Vice Mayor Tam concurred with Councilmember Gilmore. Councilmember Gilmore stated workshops could be held if revisions could be pared down to a workable mass. Vice Mayor Tam stated other cities, such as the City of Albany, formed a Charter Review Committee that has the specific task of reviewing the Charter on an on-going basis. Mayor Johnson stated that the City of Santa Ana has an on-going Council Subcommittee. The City Manager stated the City of Santa Ana has an ad-hoc committee that meets on a periodic basis. Councilmember Gilmore stated that Article Ix subjects the appointment, discipline and removal of a deputy city clerk to the approval of Council; the subcommittee suggests deleting the provision to be consistent with other Charter provisions; suggested that the matter be a cleanup item. Vice Mayor Tam stated that Councilmember deHaan seeks to amend Section 2-11 to have the Charter preclude any incumbent of any elective federal, State, County, or local office from serving on a City board or commission that was created by the Charter. Councilmember Gilmore stated that Councilmember deHaan also wants the provision to include any board or commission created by the Council. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a Task Force committee would be included. Vice Mayor Tam responded the intent is for a standing boards or commissions. The City Clerk stated that all bodies created in the Charter are boards, everything else is a commission; commissions are created by ordinance. The City Attorney stated one example that Councilmember deHaan used was the Hospital Board, which is elected; having someone serve on the Hospital Board and also hold a position on a City board would not be a violation of the Charter. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 Q March 4, 200$ Mayor Johnson stated there would be a conflict of interest issue. Vice Mayor Tam stated the issue is a compatibility of office. The City Attorney concurred with Vice Mayor Tam. Vice Mayor Tam stated a person serving on the Hospital Board could serve on the Economic Development Commission because the Commission is an advisory body, but could not serve on the Planning Board because there would be potential conflict of land issues. Councilmember Gilmore suggested that the discussion be held when Councilmember deHaan is present. Mayor Johnson stated that there is no restriction on a person serving on more than one board or commission, but is a practice. Councilmember Gilmore stated the City Manager proposes to amend Section 22-5 to provide flexibility to close offices, such as during winter holidays. Mayor Johnson stated that opening and closing times should not be in the Charter; the matter should be covered by ordinance or resolution. The City Manager stated that she sees the issue as being similar to setting of Council meetings in order to provide flexibility. Mayor Johnson stated the issue is a cleanup item. Councilmember Gilmore stated Councilrnember deHaan wants Councilmembers to have the ability to nominate members of boards and commissions, not just the Mayor; the matter should be brought back to Council for further discussion. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the job that the subcommittee has done; issues are sifting down to be presented to voters; inquired whether the subcommittee is requesting approval of the resolution for nonsubstantive revisions along with additional cleanup items. Vice Mayor Tam responded that issues have been bifurcated; stated the subcommittee is seeking Council approval of nonsubstantive revisions, as well as what Council considered to be additional cleanup items; adoption of a formal resolution is not needed until the July 15 City Council Meeting; items that were brought up after the December workshop can be tabled and discussed separately. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 March 4, 2aaa Mayor Johnson inquired whether the item requiring contracts to be in writing is a new provision or cleanup. Councilmember Gilmore responded there is consensus on what is being presented in terms of cleanup; stated Article IV, V and a new provision requiring contracts to be in writing should be added to the cleanup list. Mayor Johnson stated that Item 6 [eliminating "transportation" from Article XII, Section 12-1~A}] and Item 8 [eliminating three reasons for removal of Historical Advisory Board Members] should be cleanup also. Councilmember Gilmore stated that consensus indicates that Item 3 formal bidding requirements] should be on fast track but some language should come back to Council before further action is taken; the City's insurance policy would be reviewed. Mayor Johnson stated the insurance policy should not be discussed because the issue is not a Charter issue; bond requirements need to be removed. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether insurance language should be added to protect the City if bond requirements are removed. Vice Mayor Tam responded removing the bond language would be more modern; stated thirty years from now insurance may be defeated by something else; inquired whether there would be any downside by not having specific insurance requirement language. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the issue could be deferred to an ordinance. The Senior Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the matter could remain silent also. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether closing offices is considered a cleanup issue. Councilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative; stated that the following items will be discussed further: board and commission nominations; amendments to Section 2-11 regarding federal, State, County or local office incumbents holding City board or commission positions; City Manager appointments of department heads to be on the advice and consent of Council; stated the City of Berkeley's form of government will be reviewed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 2 March 4, 200$ Councilmember Matarrese stated the elimination of the provision that subjects the appointment, discipline and removal of a deputy city clerk to the approval of Council should be a cleanup issue. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether alternatives should be provided for public discussion forums. Vice Mayor Tam responded in the affirmative; stated it is hard to generate interest on Charter issues at regularly scheduled meetings; it would be helpful to have focused citizen interest and expertise. Mayor Johnson thanked Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Gilmore for the hard work. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the Senior Assistant City Attorney has been excellent in keeping the subcommittee on track and on task; the Deputy City Clerk has provided much needed history. Mayor Johnson stated the subcommittee will bring the matter back to Council. oRAL COMM[TNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA X08-- } David Howard, Alameda, stated $6 million was transferred from the Business Waterfront Improvement Project ~BWIP} to two trust accounts for the School District; the balance is now $2 million; the accounts have very little transparency; the accounts are managed by the City; the money is not segregated; questioned why the Finance Department is unable to answer questions regarding the matter; stated an audit report needs to be provided to the public; people might question management of the funds and not approve the parcel tax. SOS- } Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed Base reuse. X08- } Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, stated the City entered into an agreement with the School District in 1991; Municipal officers for Redevelopment Reform ~MoRR} has done a lot of research regarding the impacts of redevelopment money on public schools; the intent of a 1991 Agreement between the Community Improvement Commission and School District was to provide affordable housing for School District employees and was never met; requested an audit; stated the money should be put into the School District's budget. Mayor Johnson requested that the City Attorney's office provide Council with a copy of said Agreement. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 3 March 4, 2008 X08- } Ken Peterson, Alameda, stated Los Angeles and the City of Roseville recycle polystyrene; some places recycle post food service materials; provided a list of web site addresses that offer polystyrene recycling. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Peterson had any information on polystyrene recycling costs. Mr. Peterson responded in the affirmative; stated Los Angeles pays $3,000 per ton; polystyrene is approximately 90~ air and is fifty times the volume of comparable waste material; a comparable solid material cost is $7 per ton; $98 per ton is charged at Davis Street. COUNCIL REFERRALS X08- } Consider directing the City Manager to have staff and the Economic Development Commission research and proposed projects and policies in order to attract, retain and expand marine related business for Alameda. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have marine related services expanded from the commercial side and more extensively from the pleasure boat side; Pleasanton had a Boat Show; a local broker advised him that the Boat Show was a bust because there is no water in Pleasanton; he would like to have the Economic Development Commission ~EDC} and staff come up with some potential projects to meet the updated Economic Development Strategic Plan; three marine related services left when the Grand Street housing project was developed; two left the island; he would like to have the EDC come up with some ideas and present the ideas to Council. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese was referring to marine related businesses. Councilmember Matarrese responded marine related businesses and services include: yacht brokers, yacht repairs, part services such as hull cleaning, and training; the commercial side involves berth leasing to commercial boats; the City has a commercial shipyard; the issue is how to increase business in order for businesses to contribute to the City's tax base. Mayor Johnson stated the matter seems like a large project and should be reviewed in light of other Council priorities. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he feels the matter is a fairly Regular Mee~.ing Alameda City Council 1 4 March 4, 2008 good size priority; he wants to stay away from the approach that says the City becomes dependent on one industry; no one industry is going to carry the economic health of the City. Mayor Johnson inquired whether yacht sales generate sales tax. The Development Services Director responded yacht sales are approximately 90 of the City's sales tax revenue; stated the percentage is cyclical because yachts are a luxury item; boat shows are not a point of sale trigger; brokers report into the County where the business is registered; local businesses report at the point of origin; she will provide more information on the impacts of boat shows; a Revenue Enhancement Committee has been created to review different revenue enhancement ideas; the Committee could review the matter and see whether priority time should be spent on the matter; currently, the Development Services Department has staffing issues and is slow in providing detailed information on the matter. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the matter warrants some study; boat shows are not for sales tax but are for bringing people into an area to show case marine facilities; the constant flow of goods that go into keeping a boat are a hidden source of revenue. Mayor Johnson stated that the matter could come back to Council after Committee review; inquired whether the sales tax trigger could be requiring a business license, to which the Development Services Director responded that she would check. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to receive feedback from the Revenue Enhancement Committee; the health of the City's economy depends on being as diverse as possible. The Development Services Director stated job creation is a possibility. Councilmember Matarrese stated business license contributions are also a factor. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS X08- } Vice Mayor Tam stated that she has been attending the Alameda Education Foundation strategy sessions regarding the School District's funding crises; Councilmember Matarrese and Councilmember Gilmore also attended a meeting on February 28; discussions involved reviewing BV~IP redevelopment funds accrued and managed by the City to see if there are opportunities to work with the School District within the parameters of State Redevelopment Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 5 March 4, 2008 Law, which is very constraining. The Assistant City Manager stated staff has been talking with School District staff to see if there are creative ways to have BWIP housing funds more immediately available for School District use. Vice Mayor Tam stated that the money has to be used for housing or capital improvement; restrictions preclude the City from automatically shifting the funds directly to the School District for operation costs. The Assistant City Manager stated affordable housing funds need to be used for affordable housing; staff is exploring ways to get the funds in use for said purpose. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City can past the accounting of funds and use restrictions on the website and provide some impetus to get the project started. The Assistant City Manager responded staff has prepared a number of question and answer sheets over the last two years; stated information can be centralized on the website. Mayor Johnson stated that consolidating redevelopment information is a good idea; examples of redevelopment projects should be provided also. Vice Mayor Tam stated the School District is meeting tonight; the School District is looking at severe cuts; an emergency parcel tax will be considered; she would like to see the community and Council support the School District's actions. SOS- }Vice Mayor Tam stated that she and the Deputy City Manager attended the League of California Cities East Bay Division meeting; Carl Guardino, Executive Director for the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, was the keynote speaker; Mr. Guardino brought up some intriguing ideas regarding developing public and private partnerships for things such as affordable housing and retention of teachers; Silicon Valley companies pay a stipend to have teachers come and work at their company during the summer breaks; she would be happy to talk with any community member interested in a briefing. SOS- } Mayor Johnson requested a briefing on the East Bay Interoperability Program; stated all jurisdictions have not paid assessments for last year; the City should wait to pay the new assessment until other jurisdictions have paid last year's Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 6 March 4, 2QQ8 assessment. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:09 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 1 7 March 4, 20x8 March 13, 2008 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 a ainst the g . City in accordance with their res ective amou p nts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers Am oust 20741 9 - 208DD 1 ~ 2 403 21 5 21 $ EFT 5D0 . , $25 374 37 EFT 501 , , $236 14fi 48 EFT 502 , . $4D 474 98 EFT 5a3 , . $98 746 54 EFT 504 , . $75 fi 11 19 EFT 505 , . 244 $11 5D EFT 506 . , 557 1 D $87 EFT 507 . , $29,869.43 Void Checks: 20fi 1 fi5 3 53D. ~$ , oD} G RAN D TOTAL 3 D04 fiD9. $ , 80 Respectfully submitted, ~a Pamela J. Sibley BILLS #4-B Council Warrants 03/18/08 3/18/2008 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: March 18, 2008 Re: Accept the Work of SpenCon Construction, Inc., for the First Amendment to Agreement for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 Repair of Parkland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Phase 7. No. P.W. 03-06-06 BACKGROUND 0n May 16, 2DD6, the City awarded a contract in the amount of $436,000, including contingencies, to SpenCon Construction, Inc., for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of Portland Cement Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, Phase 1, Na. P.vU, 03-06-06. The Agreement included the option to mutually extend the contract on ayear-by-year basis for up to four additional years. On March 19, 2001, the First Amendment to Agreement was executed in the amount of $120,000. DISCUSSION The project has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications and is acceptable to the Public Works Department. The project repaired approximately 1,500 linear feet of sidewalk at 6D locations and upgraded four handicap ramps. The final project cost is $104,221. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIALlMPACT Funding for this project is budgeted under the 84-2 Landscape & Lighting Assessment District Zone 6 fund, CIP# 05-12 Accessibility DADA} Upgrade fund, and CIP# 90-05, Storm Drain Reconstruction fund. MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. city council Agenda item #4-C 43-18.05 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council REC~MMENDATI~N March 18, 2008 Page2of2 Accept the work of SpenCon Construction, Inc., for the First Amendment to Agreement for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of Portland Cement Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, Phase 7, No. P.v11.03-46-06. Respec II ubmitted, i~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Matthew T. Naclerio Public vllorks Director B CW ChU y Associate C~I Engineer MTN:CINC:gc CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: March 18, 2008 Re: Approve the Proposition 1 B Local Streets and Roads Funding Proposal for Fiscal Year 200112008, Allocate $61,000 in Congestion Management Agency -Transportation Improvement Plan Funds, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents BACKGROUND Proposition 1 B Prop 1 B}, approved by voters in November 2006, provided $19.925 billion in bond funds for a variety of transportation priorities, including $2 billion for cities and counties to fund the maintenance and improvement of local transportation facilities. The State Controller's Office has determined that the City of Alameda's share of Prop 1 B funds for fiscal year 200112008 is $1,210,409. DISCUSSION To receive the City's allocation of funds, the City Council must first approve a funding proposal and submit the proposal to the State Department of Finance for approval. The proposal must include, at a minimum, the following information: 1. A description and location of the proposed projects}. 2. The amount estimated to be spent on each project. 3. A proposed schedule far the completion of each project. 4. The estimated useful life of each project. The streets identified in the funding proposal see Attachment 1 }will be included in the City's annual resurfacing program, which will be presented to the City Council later this fiscal year. Due to the additional step of having the Department of Finance approve the proposal, and to ensure that Prop 1B funds will be available when needed, staff is presenting a portion of the street resurfacing program to the City Council at this time. BUDGET C~NSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT The City's annual resurfacing program is identified as C1P# 82-0128. The estimated cost to resurface the streets included in the funding proposal is $1,996,409. In addition to the $1,210,409 in Prop 1 B funds, $115,000 in Gas Tax and $611,000 in Congestion City Council Agenda Item #4-D 03-18.08 Honorable Mayor and Members ofthe City Council March 18, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Management Agency -Transportation Improvement Plan CMA-TIP} funds will be used. The City Council has already allocated the Gas Tax monies and $550,000 of CMA-TIP monies to the resurfacing program, as park of the C1P budget approval in June 2007. There is an additional $61,000 in CMA-TIP funds available to the City this fiscal year that will need to be allocated to fully fund the work. MUNICIPAL CGDEIPGLICY DOCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE This action does not affect Municipal Code. RECGMMENDATIGN Approve the Proposition 1 B Local Streets an 200712005, allocate $61,000 in Congestion Improvement Plan funds, and authorize the documents. Respectf y submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public~Jllorks Director ~'~ By: Laurie Kozisek c~ Associate Civil, Engineer MTN:LK:gc d Roads funding proposal Management Agency - City Manager to execute for fiscal year Transportation all necessary Attachment 1. Prop 1B Funding Proposal d O a O a C7 w a O as a d A w a w O U ~ ~ a~ v~ ~ a o o a a o a o a a ~ r~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ as ~ ~ ~ o ~ a 'd„ o a a N a N o N o N ~ ~ o N o N o N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ +, a~ +„- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o c~ ~ k~ ~ N o Z Z ~D ~ ~ ~ N o M p ~ a 4~ o 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ N ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ N c ~ c~ ~D ~D o~ ~ ' . o ~ a , ~ ~ ,,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ,~ ~ a~ ° ° ° a o o a a o a a o a a ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O o 0 o 0 N 0 N 0 N 0 N ~ ~ o N o N a N N ~ ~ cd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~' ~ oo ~+ M ~ N ~D ~ N M ~"' o ~ V~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ m ~ N b~ b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ N ~; N ~ ~ ~ A ,,_, ~ N c~ t~ ~ ~D o0 G1 ~ o ~ o ~ ~ .~ W . ~ ~ , .,.., W ~ . ~ ~ ~ a~ U a~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ 0 0 ° 0 o o a o o a o o0 a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o o ^ o ~ a N o N o N o N ~ ~ a N o N o N ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ pq ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ N Z Z ~ ~ N ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~} ° ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ° ~ a ~ o N ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~D oo o~ ,~, ~ ~ .o ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ w ~ o o ° ~ et ~ o v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ ~ +j ~ ~ ~ ~' a 0~ ~ o ° N ~ a ° ~ ~ o0 ° 0o ° ao ° 00 ° 0o ° ao ° ao ° ~ o ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ +~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ o N o N o N o N ~ ~ o N o N a N N 4~ ' ~ ~ 4~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N l~ ~„~ 00 o ~ '-' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ o ~+ ~-+ a ~ ~-, o a a M o U ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ b~} cy M c~ ~D ~D oO p~ ~ N N N ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U r~ 4] ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~ a a o ~ ~ ~ ~ '~' ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ o o ~ o o ~ ~ w o ~ ~ a~ ,~ ~, ~ w ~ , Z U U ~ a w ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ . U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ,~ ,~ ~ ~ a~ a~ ~ ~ A ~ ,~ ~ o ~ o h ° o N 0 0 N ~ ~ ~ A a~ A Q ~ o o ~ ° ~ ~ ~, a v~ v~ w a w a a ~ ~ ~ U a a w w ~ City Coua~cil Attachment to Agenda Item #4-~ 03-'18-~5 CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: March 18, 2008 Re: Address Rent Increase and Maintenance Concerns at 101,123 and 127 Crolls Garden Court and Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter Encouraging the Gwner to Comply with the Rent Review Advisory Committee's Recommendations BACKGROUND The Rent Review Advisory Committee ~RRAC} was formed in 1919 to review complaints of significant rental increases. The RRAC provides a neutral forum for renters and residential property owners to present their views, evaluates increases, determines whether they are equitable, and, if not, attempts to mediate a resolution acceptable to all parties. At its December 3, 2901, meeting, the RRAC first reviewed substantial rent increases and maintenance concerns raised by tenants at 101, 123, and 12l Crolls Garden Court. The property owner, Kumari Judge, was invited but did not attend the December 2901 meeting. Ms. Judge's property manager, Travis Faulk, did attend the December 2907 meeting but did not have negotiating authority. Neither Ms. Judge nor her representative attended the January 2008 meeting. Ms. Judge also failed to respond to RRAC letters Attachment 1} asking her to participate in the mediation process and requesting she lower the rents to their prior level and defer increases for one year, attend to maintenance concerns, and apply any overpayments to future rents. DISCUSSIGN This property is a 17-unit complex owned by Kumari Judge, and the units are approximately 18 years old. The Business License is current. In November 2908, three tenant households submitted Rental Increase Complaints, citing rental increases of $85 to $951month ~5°/o to 8°/° annualized}, for their two-bedroom, one-bath units. The new rents for the three units range from $1,385 to $1,4001month. !n addition, two of the three tenants had been asked to pay an additional $591month for a second parking space, which tenants had previously been provided at no additional charge. The additional $50 increase for parking would have resulted in an effective annualized increase of 10°/o and 12°/o for those two tenants. However, tenants have reported that City Council Agenda Item #4-E 03-'I 8-~8 Honorable Mayor and March 18, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 since the parking fee was not properly noticed, they have not been paying the additional $50 monthly parking charge. Tenants testified regarding a variety of maintenance problems, including badly-lit entry areas, defective or missing rain gutters, lack of maintenance of common areas, dry rot, cracked windows, unsafe heater, broken stove, leaking sinks, mold, inadequate weather stripping, and a missing garage structural suppork. Code Enforcement conducted an inspection of the property on December 3, 2001, and issued a report Attachment 2}. Since then, the major code compliance items -the broken heater, stove, and garage support -have been repaired or replaced. Smaller items relating to cracked windows and dry rot have not yet been brought into compliance. The City of Alameda Fire Department re-inspected the property in February 2008 and noted several violations Attachment 3}. Tenants have expressed frustration that repairs are not performed in an adequate or timely manner and that the property manager expects them to coordinate and handle repairs themselves. Given the outstanding code compliance and maintenance concerns, the RRAC determined the rental increase to be unwarranted. Based upon the RRAC's prior experience, when an owner actively participates in the mediation process, the RRAC has been able to craft a variety of compromises. In this case, without owner attendance and participation, the RRAC has been unable to mediate this excessive increase. The RRAC's letters to the owner suggested that she lower rents to the former level, hold them for one year, address the maintenance concerns and code violations at the property, and apply tenants' overpayments to future rents. BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund. RECGMMENDATIGN Acknowledge that given the maintenance history and condition of the property, includin g outstanding code compliance and maintenance issues, the rent Encreases at this property are unwarranted and place an unfair burden on the tenants. Authorize the Mayor tv send a letter encouraging the owner to comply with the RRAC's recommendations regarding rent increases and maintenance concerns at 101,123, and 12l Crolls Garden Court. RespectFull2~ubmitt d _ %~~~ Kendra Holloway, Chair Rent Review Advisory Committee KHIRS:sb Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Attachments: ~ . RRAC Letters to owner 2. Code Compliance Report 3. Fire Inspection Report cc: Owner Tenants Sentinel Fair Housing Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda County RRAC Members March 18, 2008 Page 3 of 3 ,~ ~ . 0 0 ~1 ~~ a '~1 p+ ~~ , p~ :~ ~ ~, ~J ¢~ . o 'n ray ~ va'` ~^u' ~~~° ~t1,1~~ .ity of Alameda • California CASE #279 December 7, 2007 Kumari Judge 130 Woodside Court Woodside, CA 94062 Subject: Case #279 -101 123 & 127 Crolls Garden Court Dear owner: vile appreciate your property manager's participation at the City of Alameda Rent Review Advisory Committee Committee} meeting on Monday, December 3, 2007. This letter confirms the Committee's recommendations regarding this case: ~:• Roll back rents to rental rate prior to the noticed increase, and hold for one year; •:• Rvll back rent amount shall include any second parking space renter is using; • Repair all maintenance issues; and •:• Apply any overpayments to future rents. Please respond in writing to the Committee's recommendatianswithin ten X10}days of the date of this letter. 1f you do not accept the recommendations, we ask that you or a representative wi#h negotiating authority appear at the Committee's next scheduled meeting. The Committee next meets on January 7, 2008, at 7:0o p.m. in the Council Chambers, Alameda City Hall, 22fi3 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda. Doors open at 6:45 p.m. If you have any further questions regarding the Committee's procedures, please call Rachel Silver who staffs the Committee at (510) 749-5800. Sincerely, /~~~~~ - Kendra Holloway, Ch Rent Review Advisory Committee KH:mlf cc: Travis Faulk, manager Renters RRAC January Packets G: RRACIowner.Ltrs12aQ3-2D081Case #279Recomrnen~ F: Case #279 Development Services Department 950 West MaU Square Alameda, California 945x1-7552 510.749.5800 ~ Fay: 51Q.749.5808 ~ TDD 510.522,7538 City Council Attachment 'l to Agenda Item #4-E 03-'18-08 ~ ~~~ ~/~1~ LJ ~ P 1 1 ~ ,O JJ 4` W ~~ ~ ~~~ Kumari Judge 130 Woodside Court Woodside, CA 94062 CASE #~l9 January 15, 2008 Mail Certified Subject: Case #279 -101, 123 & 127 Crolls Garden Court Dear Ms. Judge: We regret that you did not join us or send a representative with negotiating authority to our Rent Review Advisory Committee (Committee) meeting on Monday, January 7, 2009. At that meeting, the Committee reaffirmed its prior recommendations regarding this case: • Roll back rents to rental rate prior to the noticed increase, and hvid for one year; ~:• Roll ,back rent amount shall include any second parking space renter is using; •: Apply any overpayments to future rents; and • Repair all maintenance issues. The Committee also directed staff to send this case to City Council for further action if you do not accept the Committee's recommendations within ten X10}days. Please confirm your,acceptance of the Committee's recommendations byJanuary 25, 2D08, or this matter will be placed on the agenda of the City Council for public hearing in February or March. If you have any questions regarding the Committee's procedures, please call Rachel Silver who staffs the Committee at (510) 749-5800. Sincerely, ~r•r+ Kendra Holloway, Chai Rent Review Advisory Committee KH:sb cc: Travis Faulk, manager Renters RRAC Feb. Packets G; RRAC1Dwner.Ltrs120081Case2l9Rec2 r ,~ Case #279 Development Services Department 950 West Mall Squaxe Alameda, California 94501-7552 510.749.5$00 • Fax 510.749.5$08 • TDD 510.522.7538 City of Alameda • California ~~ 1'rirlred ors keryr&~rl 1'rrpcr- City of Alameda • California ber 6, 2007 X070535 ~ X03-0068 Kumari Judge 13 0 Crest Rd VLloodside California 94531 RE: FIRST NCITICE QF VIGLATIGNS OF THE CITY GF ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CUDE AT 101 CR4LLS GARDEN COURT Dear Property Gwners. Gn December 3, 2007, based upon a complaint, Alameda City Gfficials conducted an inspection at your property located at 133 Crolls Garden Court. The interior of some units as well as the exterior of the property was inspected and several violations of the Ci 0f .. ~' Alameda Municipal Code RAMC}were observed Unit 101-- The heater and oven door is broken. Staff was provided with a Hazard Notice issued by PG&E stating that the combusflon chamber is cracked. The stove door is broken creating a burn hazard for the tenants. These conditions are hazardous and a violation of The Uniform Housing Code UHC 1001.1 General, 1001.2 ~6} lack of adequate heat~n ... g facilrt~es, 1001.2 X13} General Dilapidation and Callfornra Burldrag Code CBC 304.1 Listed Appliance Installation. Unit 127 -- The threshold to this unit is overcome with dry rot. There was some evidence of the dry rot spreading into the living room area of this unit, In the bedroom the carpet near the closet is coming up and the carpet tacks are exposed. These are violations the UHC 1001.3 ~2} Structural Hazards 1001.1 General,1001.2 X13} General Dilapidation. Unit 123 -Several windows are cracked causing a damp condition. This is a violaflon of UHC 1001.2 X11) &,1001.8 Faulty weather Protection. Additionally, the linoleum in the bathroom is separating from the sub ~- floor a violation of UHC 1001.2 (13}, Gne of the diagonal garage supports is broken. It appears that it has been repaired without permit. This is a structural support that must be repaired immediately. This is a violation of UHC 1001.3 Structural Hazards and AMC 13w1.1 UAC 301.1 Permits Required. Additional violations observed: • Some of the required exterior lighting is not working • Rain gutters defective or missing • Fencing around the property is broken • Gvergrown vegetation throughout the perimeter of the property Planning & Building Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 19a .Alameda, California 94501-4477 Clt]~ C4uhCl1 510.747.GS4~ !Fax 51.747.6804 * TDD 51a.5z2.753$ Attachment 2 t® Agenda Item #4-E ~3-'l g-ag • Extensive dry rot on stair supports and guardrails • Defective covers on condulets at various locations throughout the corn lex p The City of Alameda hereby requests that you immediately obtain ermits and P replace the heater m Unit lol, You must also repair or replace the dama ed stove. A g permit ~ not required to repair the stove, You must wrthm 72 hours from the date of this notice obtain permits for the repair or replacement of the dia oval ara a brace, g g g 'Within 15 days from the date of this notice you must contact me directl with a lan on y P how you will address all of the remaining substandard conditions contained in this Notice of Violation, Permit applications are available from the Ci o Alameda Central ~' f Permit office located at 2~b3 Santa Clara Avenue Room 190. Your date or com liance .~ P on the heater, stove and diagonal brace is ~Ionda December 1~ 2D~7, You must contact me directly at 747-647 to set up an appointment regarding remainin g violations stated on this notice before your final compliance date o f MONDAY DECEMBER 17 21107 we hope that you will take this opportunity to abate these issues and brie our . gY property into compliance. I am available Monday -Thursday from 7:30 am to 4; 00 m to . p assist you through this process. Please contact me directly at 7476547. Your antici aced . p coopera~,on ~s appreciated. spectfully, ~. . . ~ ores Seri ode orcement officer ALAMEDA FIRE DEPARTMENT PREVENTIVE SERVICES DIVISION 950 West Mall Square, Suite 150 Alameda, CA 94501-7575 ~~?~~ fur Business is keeping You in Business FIREILIFE SAFETY INSPECTION Inspection Result Notice Application Number; FS 105-1311 Address;133 CROLLS GARDEN CT, ALAMEDA, CA 94501 Owner: KUMARI JUDGE TRUST 130 CREST RD WOODSIDE, CA 94062-2309 The following inspectionls were completed at above address: Phone: (510) 337 2120 Fax: (510) 749 9170 Ins ection Date Ins ector ShiftlDe t Result Initial Inspection 02/27/05 Sharon Oliver A12745 FAILED Comments: FIRE DOOR & RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION: CFC 1111.1 Maintain fire resistive construction and occupancy separation.The following building addresses have holes cut in the sheet rock inside the water heater closets. Please properly repair, making sure to tape and mud all seams. 101,103,105, 107,109,111,117,119,127,129,121,123,113,115,133, STORAGE:CFC 1103.3.2.3 Remove storage from under stairways. Remove shed and it's contents from under the stairs of address 127-129 HEAT PRODUCING APPLIANCES:CFC 1103.3.2.4 Provide clearance between heat producing appliances and combustible material. Clean lint from behind the washer and dryer. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS:CFC 1001.5.2 Provide documentation that all private fire hydrants have received annual service and 5 year certification. Paint hydrant red and color code the bonnet per tested GPM flow. Refer to NFPA 291. The inpsection completed July of 2007 has been withdrawn. The inspection complete on 2127108 will stand in it's place. You are hereby notified to correct above conditions. Re-inspection will be made on or after 0311912008, Please be advised that each re-inspection conducted after the first re-inspection due tonon-compliance will result in an additional fee assessment of $129.00. PAUL JUDGE PAUL City Council 600 ALLTERTON STREET #201 REDWOOD CITY , CA 94 Attachment 3 to Agenda item #4-E Rpt6108.C70604 ~3-~ a-~8 CITY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: ~ March 1S, 2008 Re: Adopt a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding Between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the City of Alameda for the Period Ending December 31, 2008, to Establish Rubber Glove Educational Incentive Pay. BACKGRaUND The Memorandum of Understanding for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers IBEW} covers the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2008. The subject resolution establishes a new section to the Memorandum of Understanding for Rubber Glove Educational Incentive pay. A copy of the Amendment is attached. DISCUSSION At its February 25, 2445 meeting; the Public Utilities Board Board} approved a resolution directing the General Manager of Alameda Power & Telecom to work with the Human Resources Director on a letter of agreement between IBEW and the City of Alameda City} that would create a special assignment incentive pay for electrical line workers. The City and IBEW have met and have reached a tentative agreement for this special assignment incentive pay. This agreement, if approved by the City Council, would amend the current Memorandum of Understanding between the City and IBEW by adding a new section to the contract. Alameda Power & Telecom SAP&T} is experiencing difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified individuals in the electric line section. The Journey Lineworker position has been posted on a continuous basis since May 2006 in an effort to fill numerous vacancies and to date the City has only been able to hire one individual from that continuous recruitment. At its meeting, the Board took note of the extremely competitive market place for electrical lineworkers and acknowledged the need for AP&T to take action to retain sufficiently trained employees to provide safe and reliable electric service to the residents of Alameda. As part of that retention strategy, a special assignment compensation equal to 6% of base. pay called Rubber Glove Educational Incentive is recommended. Each_ City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4-F 03-'I S-OS Honorable Mayor and ~ March ~ 8, 2008 Members of the City Council ~ Page 2 of 2 employee who satisfactorily completes and maintains training and certification in the use of rubber gloves when working with high .voltage electrical lines, and who possesses at least two years of experience performing- rubber gloving work shall be eligible for this incentive pay. This incentive pay shall apply only to employees in the classifications of Journey Lineworker, Service Lineworker, and Lineworking Supervisor. The addition of this incentive pay will make the City compensation for electric line workers comparable to that of other electric utilities. BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIALlMPACT The Alameda Power & Telecom Enterprise Fund will pay the funds required to cover the recommended Rubber Glove Educational Incentive pay. There is no financial impact to the General Fund. The cost for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2007-OS will be approximately $~S,37S. There are sufficient funds budgeted to cover these increased costs. RECGMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution approving the Amendment between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the City of Alameda for the Period Ending December 31, 2008, to Establish Rubber Glove Educational Incentive Pay. Respectful y submitted, Karen Willis Human Resources Department Attachment: ~ . Amendment AMENDMENT TD MEMORANDUM DF UNDERSTANDING Between CITY OF ALAMEDA And INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD GF ELECTRICAL 'WORKERS The City of Alameda and the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers ~IBEW} having met and conferred in good faith pursuant to the Meyers-Milian Brown Act ~"MMBA", Government Code §§ 3500 e~ seq.} and the IBEW Memorandum of Understanding ~"MOU"} for the period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2008, agree to the following amendment to that Memorandum of Understanding to establish Section 12,6.2 Rubber Glove Educational Incentive as follows: "12.6.2 Rubber Glove Educational Incentive An employee assigned to the classifications of Journey Lineworker, Service Lineworker, or Line Working Supervisor, who satisfactorily completes and maintains training and certification in the use of rubber gloves when working with high voltage electrical dines drubber gloving}, and who possesses at least two years experience performing rubber gloving, shall be paid an additional 6% of base salary as Rubber Glove Educational Incentive. This incentive pay becomes effective on the first day of the pay period following certification and completion of required service time." This section shall be effective the beginning of the pay period following City Council approval. Made and entered into this day of March, 2008 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD CITY DF ALAMEDA OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS By: By: Debra Kurita City Manager By; APPROVED AS TO FORM: By; City Attorney City Council Attachment to Report Re: Agenda item #4-F 03-'18-08 CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO, 0 0 c~ as 0 a a U APPROVING AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS AND THE GITYOFALAMEDA FOR THE PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2048, TO ESTABLISH RUBBER GLOVE EDUCATIONAL INCENTIVE PAY WHEREAS, there has been submitted to this Council an Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Cit of . Y Alameda and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 1 X45 #o establish Rubber Glove Educational Incentive Pa ; Y and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda has fully examined the proposed Amendment, a copy of which is attached, and thereb Y finds and determines adoption of said document to be in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that said Council hereby approves and adopts said Amendment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the provision of this Resolution shall supersede any other resolution in conflict herewith. ****** Resolution #4-FCC 03-18.48 ATTACHMENT 1 AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM DF UNDERSTANDING Between CITY DF ALAMEDA And INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD DF ELECTRICAL WORKERS The City of Alameda and the International Brotherhood of Electrical workers ~IB.EW Navin } g met and conferred in good faith pursuant to the Meyers-Milias Brown Act ~"MMBA", Government Cade § § 3 500 e~ seq.} and the IBEW Memorandum of Understandin ~"MOU" for g } the period from January 1, 2005 through December 31, 200$, agree to the followin amendment g to that Memorandum of Understanding to establish Section 12.6.2 Rubber Glove Educational Incentive as follows: "12.6.2 Rubber Glove Educational Incentive An employee assigned to the classifications of Journey Lineworker, Service Lineworker, or Line Working Supervisor, who satisfactorily completes and maintains trainin and g certification in the use of rubber gloves when working with high voltage electrical lines drubber gloving}, and who possesses at least two years ex erience erformin rubber p p g gloving, shall be paid an additional 6% of base salary as Rubber Glove Educational Incentive. This incentive pay becomes effective on the f rst day of the pay eriod P following certification and completion of required service time." This section sha11 be effective the beginning of the pay period following City Council a royal. Pp Made and entered into this day of March, 200$ INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD CITY DF ALAMEDA OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS By: By: Debra Kurita City Manager By: APPROVED AS TO FARM: By: City Attorney 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 8th day of March, X008, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN VIIITNESS, vIIHERE~F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , X008, Lara Vveisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: March 1 S, 2008 Re: Authorize the General Manager of Alameda Power & Telecom to Execute the First Amendment to the Power Purchase Agreement with Ameresco Keller Canyon, LLC, for a Price Increase of Delivered Power from Landfill Gas Generation BACKGROUND At its March 1l, 2008, meeting, the Public Utilities Board Board}approved Amendment No.1 to the Power Purchase Agreement PPA} between Ameresco Keller Canyon, LLC, Ameresco}, a limited liability subsidiary of Ameresco Incorporated, and Alameda Power & Telecom Alameda P&T} for an increase of the original contract energy price of $59.OOlMWh with a 1.5% annual price escalator, to a new price of $62.501MVllh with a 1.5°/o annual escalator, subject to ratification by the City Council. The PPA with Ameresco provides for the purchase of electricity generated from landfill gas at the Keller Canyon landfill located in Pittsburg, CA, for a 20-year #erm. Ameresco requested an increase to the original contract energy price due to unanticipated pre-construction cost items that have significantly increased the project's capital costs. Since the term of the PPA exceeds 15 years, the proposed amendment to the PPA must be ratified by the City Council as required by the City Charter sub-section 12-2 ~A}. DISCUSSION In 2005, the City Council approved an agreement between Alameda P&T and Ameresco for the purchase of renewable energy from a proposed landfill gas generating project located at the Keller Canyon landfill in Pittsburg, CA. The PPA was officially executed on August 1 S, 2005. Allied vVaste industries, Inc., owns the landfill, and Ameresco holds exclusive rights to develop a generating facility at the site utilizing the methane gas released from decomposing material at the landfill. Alameda P&T and the City of Palo Alto are the two buyers of the full electricity output from this project. Power production will be shared equally by the two cities under the terms of two separate, but identical, PPAs with Ameresco. City Council Report Re: Agenda item #4-G 03-'~ 8.08 Honorable Mayor and March 18, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 4 The Keller Canyon project will have an installed capacity of 3.5 net MUV and operate as a baseload energy facility. Alameda P&T's 50% project participation share is expected to result in 1.15 MW of power. The contract term is for 20 years, and the original contract price was specified at $59.OOIM~IVh with an annual price escalator of 1.5°/°. Construction of the Keller Canyon plant is expected to begin in March, and the project is scheduled to be operational in November 2008. In December 2001, Ameresco informed Alameda P&T and the City of Palo Alto that the proposed project encountered a number of permitting and site evaluation problems that have significantly increased the project's capital costs. These impacts were unanticipated by Ameresco and were therefore not included in the economic modeling of the project. As a result of the material cost impacts of these pre-construction events, and as allowed under the terms of the PPA, the project developer is seeking a price increase for the plant's output. Beyond the proposed change to the contract energy price, Ameresco is not seeking any other modifications to the PPA; all other provisions of the PPA shall remain in full force and effect. Factors Underlying Ameresco's Requested Contract Price Increase Ameresco attributes its need to request a contract price increase to the following site evaluation and permitting issues: 1. The quality of methane gas at the landfill site requires the addition of a siloxane cleanup system. 2. New power lines at the project site will need to be installed underground as opposed to above ground on poles. 3. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District imposed more stringent air permit limits for the facility, thereby necessitating a change to larger and more expensive engines at the project site. 4. The switch to the larger engines to meet air quality standards resulted in higher costs to interconnect with Pacific Gas & Electric's system. 5. The quality of soil beneath the proposed power plant is not adequate for construction purposes and needs to be replaced with 3000 cubic yards of engineered fill. 6. Additional sound attenuation needs to be installed in order for the facility to comply with the landfill's nighttime noise limit. 7, Additional precautionary measures need to be undertaken in order to protect several biologically endangered species nearthe proposed project site. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council March 18, 2008 Page 3 of 4 8. Contra Costa County charged a significant fee for building permit review and required Ameresco to upgrade its proposed onsite sewage facilities to a more costly system. 9. Additional fire suppression equipment needs to be installed at the power plant to comply with permitting requirements. The pre-construction items listed above have resulted in a cumulative increase of project capital costs in excess of $2.5 million. Consistent with the terms of the PPA, Ameresco provided extensive and detailed documentation supporting the above items. Ameresco is seeking a price increase in accordance with the provision of the PPA allowing the project developer to propose amendments to the agreement relating to the developer's ability to receive yr maintain financing from lenders. Cost-Effectiveness To lessen the impact of the significant cost factors listed above, as well as to help support the developer's ability to secure project financing and ensure the economic viability of the project, Ameresco approached both Alameda P&T and the City of Palo Alto requesting a price increase. The company requests an increase from $59.OOIMWh with a 1.5% annual price escalator to $62.501MWh with a 1.5% annual escalator. At the higher price of $62.501MWh, the estimated annual cost for Alameda's share of the plant output starts at $891,000 and increases to $1,182,000 in the final year of the contract term. The cumulative total cost is projected to reach $20.6 million over the course of the 20-year contract. Overall, the cos# for power over the life of the contract is $1,154,000 more, or 6% higher, than the original contract price. Notwithstanding the higher costs to the City of Alameda resulting from the price increase, the PPA remains cost-effective when compared with other alternative resources. The new price remains far below forecasted wholesale market prices of electricity aver the 20-year term of the contract. When operational, the project will meet Alameda P&T's goal of obtaining clean, economic, and stable priced power. In addition, the resource will contribute to Alameda P&T's renewable resource portfolio and help the City meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. BUDGET CGNSIDERATI~N (FINANCIAL IMPACT As discussed above, the cumulative total cost is projected to reach $20.6 million over the course of the 20-year contract. This is $1,154,040 higher than the originally specified price. The price is 6°/° higher over the 20-year life the contract but remains very competitive with other comparable sources of power. Although the increased price of the PPA will result in slightly higher costs to the City, this renewable energy resource remains cost-effective when compared to other alternative resources. Honorable Mayor and March ~8, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 4 MUNICIPAL CGDE l POLICY DGGUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Municipal Code. This action will assist in meeting the goals of the City of Alameda's Local Action Plan for Climate Protection. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEV1l All environmental review and CEQA compliance will be completed by Ameresco, the project developer, as required. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District issued an air permitforthe projecton March 5, 2001. RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution to authorize the General Manager of Alameda Power & Telecom to execute the First Amendment to the Power Purchase Agreement with Ameresco Keller Canyon, LLC, for a price increase of delivered power from landfill gas generation. Respectfully submitted, r' L/ '~ J `--` i _ Girish Balachandran General Manager Alameda Power & Telecom -~~ ~ '' By: Brad Wetstone Utility Analyst cc: Public Utilities Board CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. _.~____ L 0 N a~ 0 1 ~. a .~ AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF ALAMEDA POWER & TELECOM GF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TG THE POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH AMERESCO KELLER CANYON, LLC FOR A PRICE INCREASE OF DELIVERED POWER FROM LANDFILL GAS GENERATION WHEREAS, in 2005, the City Council approved a power purchase agreement between Ameresca Keller Canyon, LLC ~Ameresco} and Alameda Power & Telecom for the purchase of renewable energy from a proposed landfill gas to energy project located at the Keller Canyon landfill in Pittsbur , g CA; and WHEREAS, Alameda Power & Telecom and the City of Palo Alto are the two buyers of the full electricity output from the project with power production shared equally X50150} by the two cities under the terms of two separate, but identical, power purchase agreements with Ameresca; and WHEREAS, in December 200?, Ameresca contacted Alameda Power & Telecom and the City of Palo Alto representing that the proposed eneratin g g project encountered a number .of permitting and site evaluation problems that have significantly increased the project's capital costs; and WHEREAS, due to the material cost impacts of these pre-construction events, and as allowed under the terms of the power purchase agreement, Ameresca is seeking a price increase for the plant's energy output; and WHEREAS, Alameda Power & Telecom staff has evaluated the financial impact of the requested price increase and finds that the new price remains cost~effective when compared with other alternative resources; and WHEREAS, the Alameda Public Utilities Board has reviewed and approved Amendment No. 1 to the power purchase agreement and recommends that the City Council ratify its action. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Cit of Y Alameda that: 1. The Counci! ratifies the action of the Public Utilities Board to authorize execution of the first amendment to the power purchase agreement between Alameda Power & Telecom and Ameresca and authorizes the General Manager to execute the amendment. *~*~*~ Resolution #4-G CC o3-~a-o8 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was dul ,y and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda ~n a regular meeting assembled on the 18th day of March, 2008, by the followin g vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTIaNS: IN vvITNESS, VvHERE4F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of March, 2008. Lara V1leisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: March 18, 2008 Re: Introduce an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Sections 5-30 through 5-30.19, Inclusive, in Their Entirety and Adding New Successor Sections to Article II of Chapter V Making .Changes to the Procedures, Regulations, and Related Fee Provisions for Filmin Activities Within the Cit of Alameda BACKGROUND In 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2510, which established Sections 5-30 through 5-30.19 in Chapter Five, Licenses and Permits, of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC}. These sections in Chapter Five address film activity in Alameda and set forth the process of permit issuance for film and video activity in Alameda, along with other film and video related basics. Since the adoption of the ordinance, a departmental reorganization occurred, and, in 2006, the City Council established the Alameda Film Commission (AFC}. Chapter Five needs to be updated to reflect these events. DISCUSSION The AFC's first act was to organize into subcommittees to develop and execute afirst- yearwork plan. The Internal Operations Subcommittee was charged with working with Development Services Department (DSD} staff to revise Sections 5-30 through 5-30.19 in Chapter Five. Staff also collaborated with the Permit Center, Planning and Building Department, on the Code update. Much of the revision is editing to promote clarity. The three most significant changes are: 1. Changed Role of the Public Works Department, The current Code designates Public Works as responsible for the coordination offilm-related activity. In 1999, several City departments, including Public Works, were reorganized. At thattime, the permit and coordination function for filming was moved from Public Works and placed with the Permit Center, Planning and Building Department. The revised Code would reflect this change and place the responsibility for coordinating filming activity and issuing permits within the Permit Center. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4-H 03-18-D8 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Cauncii March 18, 2008 Page 2 of 3 2, Film Permit Turnaround Times. The current Code sets forth film permit turnaround times for different types of permits. These time limits have been removed from the revised Code. Instead, they would be set forth in administrative regulations, a format simpler to change in the future. Currently, the California Film Commission is encouraging the City to reduce the longest turnaround time ten days for permits involving street closure} so that Alameda might be more competitive with other jurisdictions with shocker turnaround times. 3. Acknowledgment of the Alameda Film Commission. The revised Code acknowledges the creation of the AFC in 2006 and recognizes its responsibility to promote film and video activity in Alameda. It also transfers the appeal process for a denied permit to the AFC. At its regularly scheduled meeting of June 20, 2007, the AFC voted unanimously to endorse revised Sections 5-30 through 5-30.9, Chapter Five, License and Permits and to refer the revised Code to Council for its consideration and adoption. The California Film Commission has reviewed the revised Code and endorses the proposed changes. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT There is no impact on the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Municipal Code, Chapter II, Alameda Film Commission, Sections 2-18 through 2-~ 5.6. RECOMMENDATION Introduce an Ordinance amending the Alameda Municipal Code by repealing Sections 5-30 through 5-30.19, inclusive, in their entirety and adding new successor sections to Article II of Chapter V making changes to the procedures, regulations, and related fee provisions forfilming activities within the City of Alameda. Respectfully submitted eslie A. Little Development Services Director Concur: M Naclerio Public vUorks Directar :~ ~J ~B ,i: Dorene oto Manager, Business Development Division ~~~~~~~~ Cathy odbury Planning and Building Director Honorable Mayor and Member the Cit C ncil By. . Ru 11 Economic Development Coordinator and Film Liaison March ~ 8, 2008 Page 3 of 3 DKILALI DESISGR:rv CITY GF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NG. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CGDE BY REPEALING SECTION 5-30 FILMING ACTIVITIES} IN ITS ENTIRETY, AND REPLACING IT WITH A SUCCESSGR SECTION TG ARTICLE II PERMITS} GF CHAPTER V LICENSES AND PERMITS} MAKING ~ CHANGES Ta THE PRGCEDURES, REGULATIaNS AND RELATED o` , FEE PRGVISIGNS FGR FILMING ACTIVITIES 1lV1THIN THE CITY OF ~' ALAMEDA 0 ~v ~ ~a ~ .~ WHEREAS, in November of 1991, the Council adopted Grdinance No. ° U~510 New Series establishin fees re ulations and ' a ., g g procedures governing ~ filming activities in the City of Alameda; and d . WHEREAS, the City's Public Works Department was initially responsible for coordinating film-related activities; and WHEREAS, the responsibility of managing the program has been transferred to the Planning and Building Department; and WHEREAS, the California Film Commission has recommended specific regulations with regard to film permitting be removed from the AMC and set forth in administrative regulations; and WHEREAS, the amendment of those initial provisions appears appropriate subsequent to the aforementioned departmental reorganization and the establishment of the Alameda Film Commission by the Council in 2006. BE IT GRDAINED by the Council ofthe City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by repealing Sections 5-30 through 5-30.19, inclusive, Filming Activities} of Article II ~Permits~} of Chapter V Licenses and Permits} in its entirely exce t that p underlying fee resolutions adopted pursuant to Section 5-30.10 shall continue unchanged in full force and effect pursuant to successor Section 530.10 unless hereinafter modified. Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new successor Sections 5-30 through 5-30.19, inclusive, Filming Activities} of Article it Permits} of Chapter V Licenses and Permits} to read as follows: Introduction of Ordinance #4-H CC 43-1848 5-3D FILMING ACTIVITIES 5-30.1 Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide rules governing the issuance of permits for filming activities on location within the City. The section is to ensure that still photographers and motion picture, television, and commercial film and digital media companies will be encouraged to use Alameda for filming activities as long as those .activities are consistent with the public safety and the protection of property. 5-30.2 Definitions. As used in this section: Alameda Fr'!m Commission -11-member body established by Council ordinance in 2006 with a mandate of promoting film and digital media activity in Alameda. Applicant - the person, organization, corporation, association or other entity applying for a permit for filming activities in the City of Alameda. Fr're Chief ~-~ the chief of the Fire Department of the City of Alameda andlor designee. Permit Center-the office in charge of coordinating and issuing permits for the City of Alameda. Police Chief -the chief of Police of the City of Alameda andlor designee. Commercaa! still photography includes all activity attendant to staging or shooting still photographs for commercial purposes. Development Services Depar#men# (DSD) -City Department charged with staffing the Alameda Film Commission, Filming activity - the staging, shooting, filming, videotaping, photographing, or other similar process conducted for the making of still photographs, motion pictures, television programs, commercial and nontheatrical film productions. Film permit- written authorization from the Permit Center to conduct the filming activity described in the Permit. 1Vews purposes -filming activity conducted for newspapers, television news, and other news media for the purpose of reporting on persons, Electronic News Gathering ~ENG}, events, or scenes which are ~n the news. Permittee -the person, organization, corporation, association or other entity issued a film permit. Planning and Building Department Director -the Director of the Planning and Building Department for the City of Alameda andlor designee. The Department is charged with coordinating filmlvideo activity and issuing permits for same through the Permit Center. ~. Public property -any sidewalk, parking area, park ar open space, building or any other property owned, leased or controlled by the City of Alameda. 2 Public Sfreef -any street or road maintained by the City and located within City limits. Public Works Dlrecfor -the Director of Public UlJorks for the City of Alameda andlor designee Pyro#echnics -special effects involving explosions, fireworks or anything else which produced light, smoke or noise when ignited. Student filming acfivr'ty -filming activity conducted to fulfill a course requirement by a student enrolled at a public or private school. Studio - a fixed place of business where filming activities are regularly conducted upon the premises. 5-30.3 City Cooperation. The Planning & Building Department Director andlor desi nee shall g coordinate the City's procedures under this section. The Director andlor designee shall work cooperatively and responsively with other City departments with significant roles in filming in Alameda, specifically, those other City departments involved in the processing of film permits such as the Development Services Department ~DSD}, Police, Fire, and Public ~111orks. The DSD Director andlor designee shall work with the Alameda Film Commission to carry out its mandate to promote filming activity in Alameda through marketing activity and working with various City department to ensure an environment that while "film-friendly" still protects the high quality of life enjoyed by Alamedans. 5-30.4 Permit Required. A permit is required by the City for the purpose of filming on City-owned, (eased or controlled real property or streets. This permit does not constitute or grant permission to use or occupy property no# owned, leased or controlled by the City. An applicant shall obtain the private property owner's permission, consent, andlor lease for use of property not owned or controlled by the City. Student produced filmlvideo activity is not exempt from permit requirements. The permit must be in the possession of the permittee at all times while on location in the City. 5-30.5 Permit Exceptions. No permit is required for the following activities as long as the activit will y not require the closure of a public street, sidewalk, or place nor substantially impede vehicular or pedestrian traffic thereon: a. Filming activities conducted for news purposes b. Filming activities conducted at commercial studios, either inside or outside, on private property c. Filming activities conducted for use in a criminal investigation or civil court proceedings d. Noncommercial activities e. Commercial still photography or staging when: i. Na aspect of the still photography is conducted on City property, and, 3 ii. No aspect of the still photography will require more than than two ~Z} motor vehicles parked on any public street, f. Filming activities conducted by or for the City. 5-30.6 Application Form. The permit application shall be on a form furnished by the Permit Center. Terms and conditions of the permit will be added as needed to the particular filming activity, Applicants must sign the permit form before undertaking any filming activity authorized by the permit. 5-34.1 Deadline for Film Permit Applications. Applications for film permits must be filed with the Permit Center, Administrative regulations, kept on file within the Center, will set forth maximum time periods for permit issuance date based on the complexity of the proposed action in the following categories: a. applications that include stunts, special effects, including pyrotechnics or traffic control in excess of three ~3}minutes b. applications that involve public street closure c. applications that involve neither of the above. , 5-34.8 Permit ApprovallDenial. Film permits shall be approved unless: a. The proposed filming activity would substantially disrupt the use of a public street at a time of traffic congestion, or interfere with the operation of emergency vehicles andlor interfere with street maintenance work or a previously authorized excavation permit. b, The area of proposed filming activity is on City property and would substantially interfere with; i, other previously authorized activities, contracts, or the safety of the public oremployees while on City property andlor, ii, municipal functions or the scheduled maintenance of City buildings orgrounds. c. The proposed filming activity creates a substantial risk of injury to persons or property. d. The applicant fails to complete the application after being requested to do so or the information contained in the application is found to be false in any material detail, e. The proposed filming activity would violate Federal, State, or local law including licensing or permit requirements, Vvhen grounds for permit denial can be corrected by imposin ,. g reasonable permit conditions, the Planning & Building Department Director andlor designee in consultation with the Fire Chief, Police Chief, andlor Public vvorks Director as appropriate, may impose such conditions rather than den Y the permit. Na late applications will be processed unless the Plannin & . g Building Department Director andlor designee determine that s ecial , p circumstances exist relative to the application which would have precluded its 4 application on a timely basis. Upon such showing of good cause, applications which are filed after the filing deadline shall be processed if there is sufficient time to process and investigate the application and for City staff to prepare for the filming activity. 5-30.9 Permit Conditions. The Planning & Building Department director andlor designee may condition the issuance of a film permit by imposing reasonable requirements concerning the time, place, manner and duration of filming activities. Additional "Terms and Conditions" attached to the film permit, may include, but not be limited to, the following requirements or restrictions: a. Requirements for the presence of City employees at the applicant's expense. b. Requirements concerning posting of no parking signs, placement of traffic control devices, and employment of traffic and crowd control monitors at the applicant's expense. c. Posting the outer boundaries of the filming activity and providing advanced notice to affected property owners and businesses, d. Requirements concerning the clean ,up and restoration of public streets and City property used in the filming activity. e. Restrictions concerning the use of City employee services, vehicles and other equipment in the filming activity, f, Requirements that the applicant pay all fees and obtain all permits and licenses required for the filming activity. g. Restrictions on explosions, noise, or hazardous devices which might disturb the peace, to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. h. Restrictions on the use of stunts involving pyrotechnics, open flames, vehicle crashes or other hazardous materials. i. Requirements on the usage of police, fire and other official uniforms worn by actors when the actors are not on camera. j. Restrictions on the use of City logos, insignias, badges or decals for filming purposes. k. Restrictions on the daily hours the filming activity may be conducted within the City. I. Requirements concerning proper acknowledgment of any City assistance provided in making feature, television or commercial productions. 5-30.14 Fees. The City Council shalt establish film permit fees by resolution which are due and payabEe at the time their permit application is submitted. In addition to the film permit fees, the applicant shall pay for any other necessary permits, for the use of the sites, and for all costs incurred by the City in providing City employees or equipment to be present during filming activity. 5 5-30.11 Change of Filming Activity Date. Upon reasonable notice by the permittee in advance of filming activity, the Planning & Building Department Director andlor designee is authorized to change the date for which the film permit has been issued without requiring a new application or permit. 5-30.12 Insurance Required. The applicant for a film permit shall procure and maintain for the duration of the film activity insurance in the amounts and types required by the City's Risk Manager. 5-34.13 Liability and Indemnification. Prior to the issuance of the film permit the permittee must agree in writin to g comply with the "Filming Permit Terms and Conditions." 5-30.14 Duties of Permittee. The permittee and all agents, employees and contractors of the permittee at the filming activity site within the City shall comply with the following requirements; a. The permittee shall not conduct within the City a filming activity not authorized by the film permit. . b. The permittee shall: i. Comply with instructions made by the Alameda Police officers assigned to police the filming activity area, ii. Comply with instructions made by City employees assigned to regulate the filming activity site. iii. Clean and restore all City-owned property utilized during the filming activity to the same condition as existed prior to the filming activity. iv. Comply with this Chapter and all Federal, State and local laws,. 5-30.15 Street Closures. The applicant for a film permit may request that the City authorize a street closure on the film permit application. A short term encroachment permit shall be granted by the PublicUVorks Director. ~Crd. Na. 2510 N.S. §~~ 5-30,16 Pyrotech n ics. During the filming of any special effect or pyrotechnics or any material deemed hazardous, fireworks, open flames or explosives, the applicant the Fire Department. stunt requiring the use of including but not limited to must obtain a permit from 6 5-34.11 Permit Revocation or Suspension, Permit Revocation: The Planning & Building Director and or designee may revoke a film permit if the permittee or any agents, employees or contractors of the permittee fait to comply with the applicable requirements of this section or if the Planning & Building Director andlor designees} determines after the permit is issued that the permit application was false in any material detail. Notice of the grounds for revocation of the film permit shall be provided in writing by the Planning & Building Director andlor designee to the permit applicant or person in charge of the location of the filming activity. Appeals of~ the permit revocation shall be conducted in the manner set forth below, The Fire Chief, Police Chief, Public vvarks Director andlor Planning & Building Department Director andlor their designees} may suspend the film permit when the filming activity poses an immediate hazard to persons or property and the location manager will not or cannot prevent the hazard after being instructed to do so. Notice of the grounds for suspension of the film permit shall be provided in writing by the applicable Chief or Director andlor designees to ail other Department Directors and Ghief~s} with the authorization to suspend} and the permittee within one ~~ }business day of the suspension. Appeals of the permit suspension shall be conducted in the manner set forth below. 5-34.18 Appeals. Any person dissatisfied with a decision of the City or its representative may fife an appeal to the Alameda Film Commission AFC} within the time specified below. The appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the Permit Center not later than five ~5} days after the date written notice of the City decision is made. Failure to file a timely appeal shall result in a wavier to the right to appeal. The appeal shall state in detail the factual basis forthe a eal. pp The AFC or its designee may appoint a hearing officer to conduct the hearing, to receive relevant evidence, and to submit to the AFC findings and recommendations to be considered by the AFC. if appointed, the hearing officer shall hear the appeal and submit his or her findings and recommendations to the AFC, The AFC shall render its decision within seven ~l} working days from the date of the hearing, or in the event that a hearing officer has been appointed, within seven ~7} working days from the date the AFC receives the findings and recommendations of the hearing officer. The decision of the AFC shall be final. 5-30.19 Penalties. The violation of any provision of this section shalt constitute an infraction, 7 Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty ~30~ days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Officer ofthe City Council Attest: Laral~Jeisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda *~**~* I, 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 March, 2008 by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: 1N vvITNESS, v11HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of March, X008. Lara Vveisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda S CITY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: March 18, 2008 Re: Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution to Amend Section 2.5, "Retail Business and Services," of the General Plan to Add and Modify Policies as Recommended by the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report BACKGRGUND The proposed General Plan Amendment GPA} will amend Section 2.5, "Retail Business and Services," of the City of Alameda General Plan. The proposed amendments are intended to implement the recommendations of the 2004 Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report and reflect current Alameda resident priorities, values and goals for future retail development in Alameda. In March 2003, the City of Aiameda's Economic Development Commission and the City Council initiated a planning process to update the City's retail policies and strategies. Gne of the goals of the effort was to provide a set of recommendations for updating the retail policies in the City of Alameda General Plan and the Economic Development Strategic Plan. The effort included a series of four community engagement forums with Alameda residents, property owners, employees, and business people. The forums were widely advertised in the Alameda Sun and Alameda Journal. !n the spring of 2004, the City prepared the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy document. The report was accepted by the City Council in 2004, and a copy of the report was circulated to the Planning Board in 2004 and again on December 10, 2001 with the Planning Board packet. Gn December 10, 2007 staff began circulating the proposed GPA to the community and the Planning Board for review and comment. Gn January 14, 2005, the Planning Board reviewed and commented on the proposed GPA, and on January 1l, 2008 the Economic Development Commission reviewed and commented on the proposed GPA and a companion Zoning Amendment for large format retail stores. 4n January 28, 2008, the Planning Board adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed draft GPA, which is included with this report as Attachment 1. City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-A D3-18-08 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council DISCUSSIGN March 18, 2008 Page 2 of 3 The proposed amendments to Section 2.5, "Retail Business and Services of the General Plan," are included as Attachment 1, Proposed deletions to the existing General Plan text are shown in ~ text and proposed additions are shown in underline text. The proposed amendments are designed to: ^ Update the General Plan retail policies to reflect current community priorities, needs, and goals for retail development in Alameda; and ^ Incorporate appropriate recommendations and text from the 2004 Alameda Citywide Retail Policy into the General Plan. Specifically, the revisions provide improved, up-to-date policy direction for future City decisions regarding: ^ Architectural and site design. The proposed revisions are intended to ensure that future retail developments are designed in a manner that reflects Alameda's physical character and form and does not result in unattractive or poorly designed projects. ^ Mixed Use: A number of the revisions focus on the importance of mixed-use development within retail projects and districts as a means to revitalize and support retail uses and reduce automobile trips in Alameda. ^ West End: The proposed amendments include text to emphasize the need for expanded retail development and services on the west end of Alameda to support Vvebster Street, ensure a mixed use development at Alameda Point, and provide much needed goods and services for west end residents. ^ Sales Leakage: The amendments include language emphasizing the importance of facilitating new retail development that will complement and support existing retail development and reduce sales "leakage" to neighboring communities. The proposed amendments in combination with the proposed zoning amendments for large format retail uses can provide the basis for decisions to deny as well as approve certain types of large format stores. ^ Parking: Several of the amendments address the difficult issue of parking. The amendments provide guidance regarding the location and amount of parking that may be appropriate at future retail developments. BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT Adoption of the proposed amendment does not require or initiate any additional expenditure of public funds. Honorable Mayor and March 18, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3 MUNICIPALCODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed General Plan Amendment ~GPA} will amend Section 2.5, "Retail Business and Services," of the City of AEameda General Plan. The amendment updates and clarifies the policies of the General PEan that pertain to retail development. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEUU The project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ~GEQA} Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations and 15061 ~b}~3} Review for Exemption. The proposed General Plan amendment would not permi# or prohibit any land uses that are not currently permitted or prohibited under the General Plan or Municipal Code. As described above, the intent of the proposed amendments is to provide for greater policy direction about the design, location, and character of retail development that should be encouraged to locate in Alameda. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not have the potential to cause changes to the physical environment that could result in significant adverse environmental effects within Alameda or other jurisdictions. Consequently, the proposed amendments are Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the GEQA Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations; and Section 15061 ~b}~3}, Review for Exemption. RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution to amend Section 2.5, "Retail Business and Services," of the City of Alameda General Plan to add and modify policies as recommended by the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy Report. Respectfully submitted, Cathy IN ury Planning nd Building Director ,- By: drew Thomas Planning Services Manager AT: at Attachments: 1. Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Exhibi#A: Z,5 RETAIL BUSINESS AND SERVICES Convenient and pleasant shopping is important to residents. Because shopping districts are prominent visual features and major destinations, their appearance and quality influence how people feel about their community. Retail businesses are essential to the City's fiscal health. A Strategic Plan Committee appointed by the City Council in 1988 gave Alameda a "C" for retail shopping, and conducted a survey of issues that identified "improved shoppinglmore convenient shopping" as a major need and opportunity. A question is how much more business can be attracted to Alameda, which is out of the way for nonresidents and does not have a large enough population to support large department stores or high-volume discounters, Three sources of increased sales will be. new residents, nonresidents attracted to restaurants and boating-related businesses, and the rising per capita disposable income of existing residents. Improved merchandising can capture sales made to Alamedans at off Island locations. In an an-~oin~ effort to ensure the General Plan remains current, the City undertook a review of retail policies and strategies that included several community forums in 2003. The 2004 Ci wide Retail Policy Report recommended additions and_modifications to the General Plan to refine and expand existin~~y. The Report evaluated ex~sting_policy and su ested the- consideration of additional policies and implementing~olicies -around retail- deli and -development. In 2005, the General Plan was amended to incorporate the -major polio recommendations from the 2004 Citywide Retail Policy Report and amend the o~licies as ,necessary to reflect ,current Alameda oals and priorities for Alameda's retail business areas. .. If If > > ~ s > > > ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ , ~ ~ feel'"'"b' City Council Attachment to Public Hearing 3 Agenda Item #5-A 03-'! 8-DS 2.5. Guiding Policies: Retail Business and Services 2.5.a Provide enough retail business and services space to enable Alameda to realize its full retail sales potential and provide Alameda residents with the full range of retail business and services. . . . . ' ' . Many Alameda residents travel to neighboring jurisdictions to find the retail andbusinesses services they need. Phis results in a loss of retail sates tax to other cities that is needed to fund City o, f Alameda services and facilities, such as police, fire, and recreational services, and it results in additional traffic at the City's limited number of Estuary crossings. 2.5.b Revitalize Alameda's historic Main Street business districts on Park Street and Webster Street while maintaining their small-city scale and character. Phe Main Street Pusiness Districts on Park Street and yYebster Street provide the primary concentration of_specialt~ shops and a,wide ran~of retail sales, services and entertainment uses to meet,community_-wide market demands. , These,districts are pedestrian-oriented districts,with historical atterns o~development that limit building form_and limit the abilit~o individual businesses to provide o~treet parking Phe work of the Alameda Main Street Project is evident in both districts. Phe Park Street Historic District is on the National Register of Historic Places. 2.S.c Continue to su ort and promote Park Street as Alameda's downtown, the entertainment, cultural, social and civic center of the City, by providin a wide. variety of commercial, retail, cultural, professional and og vernmental services. 2.S.d Continue to support and promote Webster Street as the shopping, dining, entertainment, and community service center for present and future residents west of the West End, 2.S.e Discoura e Duet-pew offices from occupyin~ ground floor space suitable for retail within the Main Street business districts and the Neighborhood business districts. Interruptions to the continuity of retail frontage decrease pedestrian tragic and diminish the synergy essential to a successful retail district. However in same cases, .off~,r ice uses may be appropriate onside streets or in particular building's that are not able to success tdly_attract retail tenants._Currently, aconditional use permit is re~uired,~r any office use proposed on the ground f Ivor in the Main Street or Neighborhood business districts. 2.5.f Encourage continuing improvements to the Alameda Towne Center, formerlyknown as South Shore Center, and other shopping centers. 4 ~4lameda Towne Center attracts both ~4lamedans and customers from a larger trade area. The original design turned its back on the Bay and devoted little attention to landscaping 1Vew development should take advantage of Bay view, and landscaping should be appropriate to the scale of the buildings. 2.5 . g Maintain neighborhood business districts for small stares that attract mainly pedestrian traffic and can be acceptable neighbors far nearby residents, The 17 compact corner neighborhood business districts, 1 D of them at former Red Train stations, are important components of the City's traditional, historic, pedestrian-scaled ambience. They prrovide retail sales and personal services primariry,,, for the surrounding residential areas. The neighborhood districts usually have little or no off street parking, so neighborhood business district businesses must rely mainly on customers who walk from their homes. 2.5.h Consider amendments to the Municipal Code to encourage mixed use development including retention and addition of housing, childcare centers, and community meeting rooms and services in retail areas. ~~ . ,. ., .Housing provided above retail space or on the rear half of parcels can add patrons and expand housing opportunities, provided tenants accept an environment in which commerce has priority. The Business and Waterfront improvement Project ~~ can provide actions and f Wanting to ~ acilitate a f fordable housing -where ~a~ropriate in commercial districts. .. 2.5.i Support, encourage and foster new retail development to serve„the West End of Alameda. 2.5.E Maximize opportunities for retail development at Alameda Point to support creation of a mixed use, transit oriented community_at Alameda Point, as envisioned in the Alameda Point General Plan policies. 2.5.k Pursue and- encourage new retail development that is consistent with the retail policies of the General Plan and Economic Development Strategic Plantprimarilyserves the community or addresses a high pxiorit~ local retail or service need; and will not have a si ificant lon,.,g_term deleterious effects on existin retail areas andlor the local economy. 2.51 New commerciallretail development along the waterfront should be consistent with best, practices for waterfront-oriented development includin providing waterfront public access, attractive architectural elevations facie the street and the water, and where possible, uses that will activate the waterfront and sup public access to the waterfront. Implementing Policies: Retail Business and Services 2,S.m Zm Iement the 2005 Webster Street Strate is Plan, ' The 2045 Webster Street Business District Strategic Plan inc"ludes a series of retail development, marketing, parking, and public improvement recommendations which serve as a guide for the revitalization of Webster Street, ' ~.~~- ~ , 2,5.n To maintain the historic urban farm and character of Park Street and Webster Street business districts, limit ~ building heights on ~ ~e Park Street and Webster Street ' to three stories above grade, measuring 3 5 to 40 feet, de endin on roof p g configuration. Parking structures are to be limited by height only, regardless. of the, number of arkin levels. See Policy 3,4.d and 3,3.h in the City Design Element, Current zoning (990) permits 1 DO foot buildings inconsistent with small-city character. Zoning text revisions should be written to avoid nonconforming status for the small number of existing buildings that would not conform to the new height limit, 2.5.0. Limit the size of stores in Neighborhood Business Districts in order to avoid traffic and parking demand inconsistent with residential character. To avoid transforming pedestrian-scale business districts into auto-oriented shopping centers, businesses that outgrow the existing small retail spaces should be encouraged to find sites elsewhere in Alameda where adequate off street parking can be provided, Where only small stores are permitted, a laver ratio of parking spaces to f loon area than is required in larger commercial areas may be reasonable. 2.5. To maintain the historic character of a retail district and su ort General Plan olicies encoura in tri reduction transit-first su ort for alternative modes of trans ortation and minimize overflow arkin in the nei hborhoods consider reduced off-street arkin re uirements for ro osed ro'ects or alternative methods of rovidin arkin on- and off site includin a went of in lieu fees for transit or the rovision of off-site ublic arkin . 6 ~'he Alameda ~Iunicz~al Code currently_re~uires a minimum o~;~ve o -street parking spaces or each 1, 000 square het o new retail space, which exceeds the recommendations ,o the Metropolitan Transom tation Commission, for urban shopping districts and the findings o the Institute o Transportation Studies. 2.5.q Plan for multilevel and shared parking to serve the intensively developed retail segments of Park and VLlebster streets. Encourage construction of multilevel parking and shared arp king,_in shopping centers where necessary to enable them to reach full potential. Provide retail uses in the front portion of the arkin structures' ground floors where necessary to provide continuity of ground floor retail uses or to connect such uses where they are naw separated. 2.S.r _Improve public transit service and transit facilities in retail areas. Transit use can be encouraged by providing bus shelters, by locating store entrances on the street with parking at the side and rear, and by charging for parking. pees paid in lieu ofproviding an-site parking, ro'ect related trans ortation demand mana ement miti ations and/or arkin meter revenue should be used or transit im rovements shopper shuttles, dial-a-ride, and/or infra-island shuttles. 2.5.s ..To facilitate edestrian, bicycle and transit modes of transportation to and within new retail develo mU ents, discoura a construction of new, lame surface parking_fields. ~f lame quantities of aff street parking, are required to serve the development, parking_should be woven throw howl the project, in smallex..~g,~pods. ,Parkin ods should not be located between the buildings and the public street. Parking,,,,pods should,,,locatedbehlndthe buildin sg . Locatin~parkin~ods adiacent to the building_and,,,adjacent _to_t_he street should be avoided, unless not other option is available. . . .. . 2.5.t Re4ure, ghat new retail proiec_ is bepedestrian-oriented and desi named in a manner that is architecturall aestheticall and o erationall harmonious with the communi and surroundin develo meat. Retail develo ments should include: 7 1. Wide sidewalks on both sides of the street and other im rovements to accommodate edestrian traffic and romote strollin window-sho in and sidewalk dinin , 2. Clearl~ked and well-desi~.,pedestrian paths and sidewalks with enhanced crosswalk avin and a minimum number of curb cuts. 3. Well desi ed arkin ods that allow for internal automobile circulation with a minimum of edestrian automobile interface. 4, Ma'or new internal roads which serve as ma'or ublic s aces and or anizin features of the development„should be,dedicated public roads maintained by the proiect with sidewalks on both sides and a minimum number of curb cuts. 5, Lar e- owin trees maintained in a manner that reserves and romotes natural form to shade parkin~and,pedestrian areas. 6. Street trees Ba Friendl landsca in edestrian scaled street li htin and street furniture such as benches, trash reueptacles~planters, newspaper vendingmachines, kiosks,-and bus shelters, 7. Facilities for bic,~clsts and transit users, such as bike lockers_and racks, bus transit centers and turnouts. S. Well-desi ned ublic si na a includin street si ns directional si s atewa markers street banners, and~edestrian~,oriented directories, 9. Varied buildin facades that are well articulated visuall a ealin at the edestrian scale and architecture that is site-s ecif c and into orates desi themes and features that reflect Alameda's uni ue character and histo . 10. New streets should enerall;~proyide on-street ,~arkin~ and ,.,.provide fora 150 to 40o foot lon~lock similar to the ical black len on Park Street and, Webster Street. In some . .. tXp ,_..,.. ~ ~s ._,.,,.....,._. ,..,.,_ locations with minimum thru traffic on-street arkin ma be removed if desired to improve or increase the pedestrian, realm, 11. Utlll boxes and trash enclosures should be screened from ublic view and should not be located ad'acent to the ublic ri ht of wa unless no other location is feasible or ossible. 2.5.u Pro'ects within the Main Street Business Districts and in the Nei hborhood Business Districts should be desi ed with attractive street fronta es that are leasant for edestrians with entrances and storefront windows directl on the street wherever ossible. Parkin should not be located between the buildin s and the ublic street. Parkin should be located behind the buildings. Locatin~,.parking„ad jacent to the buildin and ad'acent to the street should be avoided unless not other o tion is available. 2.5.v Develo a edestrian oriented town center at Alameda Point with communi retail sho sand services inclose roximi to transit fe and other trans ortation facilities. 2.S.w Com fete the new Park Street and Webster Street streetsca a ro'ects in order to im rove the pedestrian environment. 2,5,x Ex and the Ci 's technical assistance ro rams to su ort existin businesses in reachin their otential and meetin local demand. 2,5 Establish Green Buildin andlor Sustainable Desi n standards to be a lied to all new retail develo ments and ma'or retail additions and remodels. CITY GF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO, ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, PLNOl-O~ll AMENDING SECTIGN 2.5 RETAIL BUSINESSAND SERVICES GF THE LAND USE ELEMENT GF THE CITY GFALAMEDA GENERAL PLAN r~ L 0 a 0 a a WHEREAS, the Retail Policies General Plan Amendment is the result of a community planning process initiated by the City of Alameda City Council in 2003; and a WHEREAS, the City Council acce ted the Cit wide Retail Polic Re ort p y Y p in 2004; and WHEREAS, the Citywide Retail Policy Report recommended amending the 1991 General Plan Retail Business and Services section to reflect current City of Alameda community priorities and goals as articulated in the 2004 Citywide Retail Policy Report; and WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan amendment PLNOl-OOll i~as reviewed by the community, the Economic Development Commission, and the Planning Board; and WHEREAS, the proposed Retail Policy General Plan Amendment includes policies to guide the future development and improvement of retail business and services in manner consistent with the public welfare and the community's vision far the existing and future retail areas; and vvHEREAS, on January 14, 2008 and January 28, 2008, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda held public hearings on the proposed General Plan Amendment, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents in connection with the application; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2008, the Planning Board approved a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the proposed General Plan Amendments; and vIJHEREAS, the City Council has made the following finding regarding the California Environmental Quality Act: The project is Categorically Exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations and 15061~b}~3} Review for Exemption. The proposed General Plan amendment would not permit or prohibit any land uses that are not currently permitted or prohibited under the General Plan or Municipal Code, As described above, the intent of the proposed amendments is to provide for greater policy direction about the design, location, and character of retail development that should be encouraged to locate in Alameda. Therefore, the Resolution #5-Q 03.18-08 proposed amendments do not have the potential to cause changes to the physical environment that could result in significant adverse environmental effects within Alameda or other jurisdictions. Consequently, the proposed amendments are Categorically Exempt from environmental .review pursuant to the CEC~A Guidelines Section 15305, ~Ilinor Alterations in Land Use Limitations and Section 15051~b}~3}, Review for Exemption; and vVHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings relative to the General Plan Amendment; 1. The projectwill have no effect on the integrity of the General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment updates and clarifies the policies of the General Plan that pertain to retail development. ~ The proposed amendments are the resul# of a community process and are designed to reinforce and improve the General Plan's policy guidance regarding retail development in Alameda. The proposed General Plan amendments are consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan. The City's General Plan policies focus on five broad themes that strengthen awareness of the City's island setting, its small town feeling, respect for history, de-emphasis of the automobile, and retention of multi-use development. The proposed amendment is consistent with these themes. 7. The proposed amendment will have a posi#ive effect an the general welfare of the community. The proposed General Plan Amendment will have a positive effect on the general welfare of the community, as it will assist in the implementation of the community's vision and goals for retail development in Alameda. 3. The proposal is equitable. The proposal is equitable because it will apply to all areas of the cit with Y commercial land use designations. NGW, THEREFGRE, BE IT RESGLVED that the City Council of the Cit Y of Alameda hereby adopts General Plan Amendment, PLNO7-OOl7 as shown in Exhibit A. *~*~*~ Exhibit A: 2.5 RETAIL BUSINESS AND SERVICES Convenient and pleasant shopping is important to residents. Because shopping districts are prominent visual features and major destinations, their appearance and quality influence how people feel about their community. Retail businesses are essential to the City's fiscal health. A Strategic Plan Committee appointed by the City Council in 1988 gave Alameda a "C" for retail shopping, and conducted a survey of issues that identified "improved shoppinglmore convenient shopping" as a major need and opportunity, A question is how much more business can be attracted to Alameda, which is out of the way for nonresidents and does not have a large enough population to support large department stares or high-volume discounters, Three sources of increased sales will be: new residents, nonresidents attracted to restaurants and boating-related businesses, and the rising per capita disposable income of existing residents. rmproved merchandising can capture sales made to Alamedans at off Island locations. In an on- oin effort to ensure the General Plan remains current the Ci undertook a review of retail olicies and strate ies that included several communi forums in 2003. The 2004 Ci wide Retail Polic Re art recommended additions and modifications to the General Plan to refine and ex and existin olic . The Re ort evaluated existin olic and su ested the consideration of additional olicies and im lementin olicies around retail desi and develo meat, 1n 2008 the General Plan was amended to incor orate the major olic recommendations from the 2004 Ci wide Retail Poiic Re ort and amend the olicies as necess to reflect current Alameda oafs and riorities for Alameda's retail business areas. . . ~ i nnn~ar rr ~ tt~ / nrv~nr n ~~ . ~ ~ ~ > > ~ ~ , ~. , i ~~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ . Z.5. Guiding Policies: Retail Business and Services 2.S.a Provide enough retail business and services space to enable Alameda to realize its full retail sales potential and provide Alameda residents with the full range of retail business and services, . . ' Many Alameda residents travel to neighboring jurisdictions to f nd the retail and businesses services they need This results in a toss of retail sales tax to other cities that is needed to fund City of ~larneda services and facilities, such as police, f re, and recreational services, and it results in additional traffic at the City's limited number of Estuary crossings, 2,5.b Revitalize Alameda's historic Main Street business districts on Park Street and Webster Street while maintaining their small-city scale and character. The Main Street Business Districts on Park Street and Webster Street rovide the rima concentration o s ecial sho s and a wide ran e o retail sales services and entertainment uses to meet communi -wide market demands. These districts are edestrian-oriented districts with historical atterns o develo ment that limit buildin orm and limit the abili o individual businesses to rovide o -street arkin .The work of the Alameda Main Street Project is evident in both districts. The Park Street Historic District is on the rational Register of Historic Places. 2.5.c Continue to su ort and romote Park Street as Alameda's downtown the entertainment cultural social and civic center of the Ci b rovidin a wide varie of commercial retail cultural rofessional and overnmental services, 2,5.d Continue to support and promote webster Street as the shopping, dining, entertainment, and community service center for present and future residents west of the west End. 2.S,e Discoura e 'offices from occup,~g ground flour space suitable for retail within the Main Street business districts and the Neighborhood business districts, Interruptions to the continuity of retail frontage decrease pedestrian traff c and diminish the synergy essential to a successful retail district. However in some cases, o rce uses ma be a ro riate onside streets or in articular buildin s that are not able to success ull attract retail tenants. Currentl a conditional use ermit is re wired or an o ice use ro osed on the ound oor in the .Main Street or lei hborhood business districts. 2,5,f Encourage continuing improvements to the Alameda Towne Center, formerly known as South Shore Center, and other shopping centers. ~4lameda Towne Center attracts bath ~4lamedans and customers from a larger trade area. The original design turned its back on the Bay and devoted tittle attention to landscaping. New development should take advantage of Bay view, and landscaping should be appropriate to the state of the buildings. 2.S.g Maintain neighborhood business districts for small stores that attract mainly pedestrian traffic and can be acceptable neighbors for nearby residents. The ~ 7 compact corner neighborhood business districts,l Q of them at former Red Train stations, are important components of the City's traditional, historic edestrian-scaled ambience. The rovide retail sates and ersonal services rimaril or the surroundin residential areas. The nei hborhood districts usuall have little or no off street parking, sa neighborhood business district businesses must rely mainly on customers who walk from their homes. 2.5.h Consider amendments to the Munici al Code to encourage mixed use development including retention and addition of housing, childcare centers, and community meeting . rooms an services in retail areas. , n; . r , ~aa_nn~n~z,_fn r~nnfrrn:nfi.Y~ „n~, Housing provided above retail space or an the rear half of parcels can add patrons and expand housing opportunities, provided tenants accept an environment in which commerce has priority, The Business and Waterfront improvement Project ~- can provide actions and frnancing to acilitate a ordable housin where a ro riate in commercial districts. ~. a~i~t~. 2.5.i Su ort encoura a and foster new retail develo ment to serve the West End of Alameda. 2.S.j Maximize o ortunities for retail develo ment at Alameda Point to su ort creation of a mixed use transit oriented communi at Alameda Point as envisioned in the Alameda Point General Plan olicies. 2.5.k Pursue and encoura a new retail develo ment that is consistent with the retail olicies of the General Plan and Economic Develo ment Strate is Plan' rimaril serves the communi or addresses a hi h riori local retail or service need and will not have a si nif cant lon term deleterious effects on existin retail areas andlor the local econom . 2.5.1 New commerciallretail develo ment alon the waterfront should be consistent with best ractices for waterfront-oriented develo ment includin rovidin waterfront ublic access attractive architectural elevations facin the street and the water and where ossible uses that will activate the waterfront and su ort ublic access to the waterfront, Implementing Policies: Retail Business and Services 2.5.m Im lement the 2005 Webster Street Strate is Plan. ' 7'he .2005 Webster Street Business District Strategic Plan includes a series of retail development, marketing, parking, and public improvement recommendations which serve as a guide for the revitalization of YVebster Street. '' ' 2.5.n To maintain the historic urban form and character of Park Street and Webster Street business districts, limit ~ building heights on ~ ~ Park Street and Webster Street °°° ~;~+,.;,,+n to three stories above grade, measuring 35 to 40 feet, de endin on P g roof configuration. Parking structures are to be limited by height only, regardless of the, number of parking levels, See Policy 3.4.d and 3.3.h in the City Design Element, Current zoning (1990) permits 100 foot buildings inconsistent with small-city character. Zoning text revisions should be written to avoid nonconforming status for the small number of existing buildings that would not conform to the new height limit. . . . . . ., 2.5.0, Limit the size of stores in Neighborhood Business Districts in order to avoid traffic and parking demand inconsistent with residential character, To avoid transforming pedestrian-scale business districts into auto-oriented shopping centers, businesses that outgrow the existing small retail spaces should be encouraged to find sites elsewhere in Alameda where adequate off-street parking can be provided. Where only small stores are permitted, a lower ratio of parking spaces to floor area than is required in larger commercial areas may be reasonable. 2.5.p To maintain the. historic character of a retai~_district and support General Plan policies encoura in tri reduction transit-f rst su ort for alternative modes of trans ortation and minimize overflow arkin in the nei hborhoods consider reduced off-street arkin re uirements for ro ased ro'ects or alternative methods of rovidin arkin on- and off site, including,_pa.. m~f,in lieu fees for transit or the_provsion of off site ublic arkin , The Arameda Municipal Code currently requires a minimum o f ,eve o~,~treet parking spaces_for each 1, OOO,square~eet of new_retail space, which exceeds the recommendations othe Metro olitan Trans ortation Commission or urban sho in districts and the indin s o the Institute o Trans ortation Studies. 2.5.q Plan for multilevel and shared parking to serve the intensively developed retail segments of Park and Webster streets. Encourage construction of multilevel parking and shared parking_in shopping centers where necessary to enable them to reach full potential. Provide retail uses in the front portion of the arkin structures' ground floors where necessary to provide continuity of ground floor retail uses or to connect such uses where they are now separated, 2.5.r ~~mprove public transit service and transit facilities in retail areas. Transit use can be encouraged by providing bus shelters, by locating store entrances on the street with parking at the side and rear, and by charging for parking. Fees paid in lieu of providing on-site parking, project related trans~ortation_demand management miti ations .ands or_parking meter revenue should be used or transit im rovements T shopper shuttles, dial-a-ride, and/or infra-island shuttles. 2.5.s ..To facilitate edestrian bic cle and transit modes of trans ortation to and within new retail develo meets discoura a construction of new lar a surface arkin fields. If lar e uantities of off street arkin are re wired to serve the develo meet arkin should be woven throw bout the ro'ect in smaller arkin ods.. Parking_po,ds should not be,located between the buildin s and the ublic street, Parkin ods should located behind the buildin s. Locatin arkin ods ad'acent to the buildin and ad'acent to the street should be avoided unless not other o tion is available, . . . .. 2.S.t Require that new retail projects be pedestrian-oriented and„desi ned in a manner that is architecturally, aesthetically and operationally,barmonious with the community and, surrounding development. Retail developments should include: 1. Wide sidewalks on both sides of the street and other improvements to.~accommodate pedestrian traffic and promote strolling, window-shoppln and sidewalk..dinin . ..... __, ~. .. ._..._ ,_ g_ 2. Clearly marked and well-designed pedestrian paths .and sidewalks with enhan_c_ ed crosswalk payin;~ and a minimum number of curb cuts. 3. Well.designed_parkingpods that allow for internal automobile circulation with a minimum of pedestrian automobile ,interface. 4. Ma'or new internal roads which serve as ma'or ublic s aces and or anizin features of the develo meat should be dedicated ublic roads maintained b the ro'ect with sidewalks on both sides and a minimum number of curb cuts. 5. Large~growing frees maintained in a manner that preserves -and promotes natural form to shade parking and pedestrian areas. 6. Street trees, Ba, Fr~,~ndscapi~pedestrian scaled street lighting, ,and street furniture, such as benches, trash receptacles, planters, newspaper vending,machines, kiosks, and bus shelters. 7. Facilities for_bicyclists and transit users,, such as bike lockers and racks, bus transit centers and turnouts. W~ S. Well-designed public signag_e including street~signs, directional,,, signs away markers, street banners and edestrian-oriented directories. 9. Varied buildingdes that are.well articulated visually ap a~ealn~at, the pedestrian - - . ,. , ..... L..._, ...._, scale, and architecture that is,site-specific and incorporates design themes and_,_features that reflect,Alameda's.unique character and, history ~ r 10. New streets should enerall rovide on-street arkin and rovide for a 150 to 400 foot-long block similar to the typical,block lengths on Paxk Street and Webster Street. ~n some locations with minimum thru~traffic, on-street parkin~y be removed if d__esired to improve or increase the pedestrian realm. 11. Ut~~itY_ boxes and trash enclosures ,should be screened from public view,,, and should not be located adjacent to the public right of way unless no other location .is feasible or 05~? Slble• _. . 2.5.u Projects within the Main Street Business Districts and in the Neighborhood Business Districts should be desi ng_ed, with attractive street fronts e~ are pleasant for pedestrians with entrances and, storefront windows directl,~on.the street, wherever possible..Parkin should not be,located between the.buildings_and the.~public street. Parking.should be located behind the buildin s~Locating p_ ki_n~ j_acent to the ^ building and adjacent to the street,should be avoided, unless not other option is available. 2,S,v Develo a edestrian oriented town center at Alameda Point with communi retail shops and services in cl~roximity to transit,,fer and other transportation facilities, 2,5.w Complete the new Park Street and l~ebster Street streetsca~e.,,pro'ects in order to improve the pedestrian~environment. 2,S.x Expand the_CitY's technical assistance programs to support existin~sinesses in reachin their otential and meetin local demand. 2,5 y Establish Green,.Building andlorSustainable Design,_standards to be ap lp, ed to all new retail developments and major_retail additions,.and remodels. 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 ~ 8th day of March, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTInNS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, l have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2008. Lara Weisiger, City Cferk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAI~EDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: March 18, 2008 Re: Hold a Public Hearing and introduce an ordinance to Amend Various Sections of the Alameda Municipal Code Contained in Article I, "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Chapter XXX, "Development Regulations," Pertainin to Retail and Commercial Uses BACKGROUND At the July 1l, 2007 City Council meeting, members of the City Council noted that while the term "big box store" is used in various City documents, the City does not have a formal definition of this term. The Council directed staff to develop a definition and evaluate the potential need for additional regulatory tools to control the location and operation of large retail uses within the city. Staff evaluated conditions in Alameda and presented this information to the Planning Board during a series of public hearings occurring on October 22, 2007, December 10, 2007, January 28, 2008, and February 11, 2408. After reviewing existing conditions and a range of regulatory options, the Planning Board determined that an outright ban on large stores over a certain size was not warranted. Instead, the Board concurred with staffs recommendation to revise existing use permit and planned development regulations to provide a greater level of review and control over the location and operation of large stores. DISCUSSION A review of relevant literature shows that the terms "big box store" and "large-format retail" are often used interchangeably, and one universally accepted definition for big box or large-format retail uses does not exist. However, the basis for placing specific limitations on large stores is typically an effort to address one or more of the following concerns: urban sprawl, transportation and infrastructure impacts, adverse effects on existing local businesses, and site and architectural design that is not compatible with neighboring properties. Conditions in Alameda The following discussion summarizes existing conditions in Alameda. A more detailed background discussion and analysis is available in the October 22, 200?, Planning Board report. City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5.8 03-18-08 Honorable Mayor and March 18, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 2 of l In considering the opportunities and potential effects of large-scale retail development in Alameda, staff reached the fallowing conclusions: Urban Sprawl:, Uncontrolled growth into rural areas resulting in the loss of important farmlands or wildlife habitat is a common concern cited in su ort of rohibitin I r pp p gage retail development. As Alameda is surrounded by water and other urbanized cities, there is little or no potential for urban sprawl to occur in the city. Alameda is an island with minimal undeveloped land that cannot expand outward by annexing undeveloped rural lands. Areas that are potentially suitable for large-scale retail development consist primarily of previously developed industrial and retail properties and the former Alameda Naval Air Station. Trans ortation and Sales Leaka e: Related to urban sprawl are concerns over regional transportation impacts and adverse effects on existing local businesses. Alameda experiences significant "sales leakage" in the retail sector. In other words, Alameda residents do a large portion of their retail shopping outside of Alameda, which has negative sales tax and traffic consequences. For example, per-capita sales tax collection in the City of Alameda is less than in any other city in Alameda County, which indicates that the City is losing sales tax that could be used to fund city services and facilities. In addition, Alameda residents are driving across the already congested bridges and tunnels to do their shopping because they cannot find the products they want in Alameda. Retail leakage studies conducted for the City show that Alamedans spent approximately $268 million on retail goods outside of Alameda in 2005. Based on information in a recent retail market study prepared for a proposed Target store in Alameda, existing trips by shoppers leaving Alameda would be expected to exceed new trips into Alameda by about a two to one margin. Bringing additional retail opportunities to Alameda would be expected to result in shorter vehicle trips. Thus, traffic levels on regional roadways and total vehicle emissions would be expected to decline due to the shorter trips required to shop locally. However, there may be an increase in local traffic, particularly on streets near major retail centers in Alameda. Citywide retail leakage studies and project-specific economic studies prepared for the Alameda Landing and Alameda Towne Centre projects demonstrate that Alameda can currently support a large discount department store retailer such as Target. Further, these studies indicate that with the anticipated redevelopment of Alameda Point, Alameda will also be able to support at least one more community shopping center anchored by afull-service grocery store without significantly affecting existing local businesses. Historic Preservation: Through its General Plan, the Alameda Municipal Code RAMC}, and its City Budget, the City of Alameda has established historic preservation as a high community priority. Many potential development sites for large-scale retail development contain large buildings that are classified as important historic resources. The Del Honorable Mayor and March ~S, 2005 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 7 Monte Building is 250,000 square feet in size. The five Seaplane Hangers at Alameda Point are each approximately ~ 00,000 square feet in size. The three airplane hangers at the western edge of Alameda Point are each approximately 60,004 square feet in size. All of these buildings are either City monuments or contributors to a designated Historic District. if large-format retail users are prohibited from occupying these buildings, adaptive reuse, and potentially preservation opportunities, will be reduced. De_ sign: Big box or large-format retail is often associated with the proliferation of plain, monolithic architecture surrounded by wide expanses of asphalt parking lots. These types of developments are often not well integrated into the existing community fabric. Large retail projects are currently subject to Design Review approval. No changes to City Design Review standards or requirements are proposed at this time as part of the AMC amendments. In Alameda, most of the sites that have been identified as potential locations for large- format retail development -Del Monte Building, Alameda Landing, Alameda Towne Centre, and the former military hangers located along Seaplane Lagoon at Alameda Point -are all previously developed properties. With the exception of Alameda Towne Centre, a!I of these sites include historically significant buildings. Current plans for redevelopment of these properties rely on the reuse of these large, historically important buildings. Consequently, the typical design model for large-format retail stores, with the attendant design issues discussed above, would not be feasible at these locations. The Alameda Towne Centre and Alameda Landing are two large retail projects in Alameda. The Alameda Towne Centre, the only non-historic site mentioned above, is currently undergoing complete redevelopment. Both sites are subject to Design Review and Planned Development approvals. Consequently, plans for both projects include comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle access improvements, substantial new landscaping, public space and other improvements serving to integrate the center into the neighboring residential and adjacent waterfront areas. To address future design issues at the Alameda Landing project, the City adopted a Master Plan for the site, which included site-specific design guidelines. Alameda Zoning Code: The City has an existing framework for regulating development including large format retail stores. Projects are typically reviewed for compliance with General Plan policies, AMC regulations, the Historic Preservation ordinance, Design Review standards and the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}. However, there are potentially some deficiencies in this framework that should be addressed. For example, there is no Use Permit requirement for retail development in most commercial or manufacturing zoning districts. Under the current framework, a proposal for a new large format retail store in a M-2 zone or a C-M zone would not require a Use Permit. The City's discretion would be limited to design review. Furthermore, conversion of existing buildings would potentially be exempt from design review, and if the building is over ten years old, it may also be exempt from City parking requirements. Projects that do not require discretionary entitlements such as Use Permits and design review may also be exempt from CEQA. Design review is an appropriate tool for the regulation of a Honorable Mayor and March 18, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 7 building's design, height, architectural features, landscaping, and related site improvements. Design review is not intended to be used to evaluate or limit operational aspects of a project such as traffic, noise, odors, and hours of operation or to determine whether the proposed use is appropriate far the proposed location. The Use Permit or Planned Development is the proper regulatory tool for regulating operational aspects of a proposed use, or for deciding whether a proposed location is appropriate for the use. Proposed Amendments Proposed amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code RAMC} are included in the subject ordinance. The following discussion provides a summary of the proposed changes. A more detailed discussion of the process utilized in developing these amendments is available in the October 22, 2001, December 10, 2007, January 28, 2008, and February 11, 2008, Planning Board reports. Definition tither jurisdictions have utilized a broad range of sizes and other criteria in defining big box or large-format retail. After reviewing the size of existing stores and potential locations for large stores in Alameda, staff noted, in the December 12, 2001, Planning Board report, that local stores such as the Marketplace, T. J. Maxx, and Bed Bath and Beyond were all close to 30,000 square feet in size. Although these are not the largest stores in Alameda, they are representative of a typical large store in Alameda. Therefore, staff is recommending that AMC Section 30-2 Definitions be amended to include the following definition for large-format retail: Large Formal Refa~l: A single sand-alone sore or collection of retai! uses, developed and or managed within a single building or shopping center which individually or cumulatively include over 30, 000 square feet of retai! sales floor area. Zoning Districts Currently, retail uses are permitted in all commercial and manufacturing districts and are only subject to design review. To ensure that new large-format retail developments are located and operated in a manner that is compatible with adjacent and nearby land uses, consistent with the goals and objectives of the General Plan, as well as the economic vitality of the community, and operated and located in a manner that minimizes adverse effects to acceptable levels, a Use Permit would be required for large-format retail projects unless the project is subject to Planned Development BPD} or Mixed Use BMX} zoning requirements. Projects located in PD and MX zoning districts are subject to a broader range of requirements that serve largely the same purpose as a use permit. A Use Permit would also be required to expand an existing retail use to the point where the stores} would fall within the definition of large-format retail. Additionally, the Use Permit requirement would apply to the conversion of an existing building from anon-retail use to large-format retail. A single large-format retail use Honorable Mayor and March 18, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 5 of l permit would be required for shopping centers consisting of multiple buildings with 30,004 or more square feet of cumulative floor area, if they are not located in a PD or MX zoning district. Large-format retail uses approved as planned developments could be expanded pursuant to the requirements of AMC Section 30-4.13 Planned Development Combining District and 30-4.24 Mixed Use Planned Development. As proposed, the following zoning districts would be amended to add large-format retail to the list of Conditionally Permitted Uses. Retail uses of less than 30,000 square feet would continue to be permitted without a use permit. • Neighborhood Commercial District ~C-1} • Central Business District ~C-2} • Community Commercial ~C-C} • Commercial-Manufacturing ~C-M} • Intermediate Industrial ~M-1} • General Industrial ~M-2} Use Permit l Planned Development Requirements AMC Sections 30-4.13, 30-4.20, and 30-21.3 currently establish standards or findings that are necessary to approve Planned Development, Mixed-Use Planned Development, or Use Permits. To ensure that certain additional considerations and standards are met when reviewing projects, a revised set of findings is proposed. As currently proposed, these requirements would apply to all future use permits and planned developments, regardless of whether they include large-format retail uses. These revised fndings include all of the existing standard findings and some additional considerations, which are shown in the attached Draft ordinance in underlined text. Non-Conforming Use If the proposed amendments to the AMC zoning code and text amendments} are adopted, some existing larger stand-alone retail businesses in Alameda could become classified as nonconforming uses because they were established prior to the requirement for a use permit. Pursuant to AMC Section 30-20, nonconforming uses and buildings may not be expanded, structurally altered, or reconstructed. The strict enforcement of these regulations could result in unintended consequences. Under current zoning regulations, even building improvements that do not include a change in use or expansion of floor area could not be approved until a Use Permit is approved. Consequently, to avoid unnecessary hardships or problems for existing commercial property owners, it is also praposed that AMC Section 30-20.3 be amended by adding a new section that clarifies that existing retail uses that are othennrise conforming with development regulations would not be classified as nonconforming simply for lack of a Use Permit. Expansion of these existing retail uses would be subject to Use Permit approval. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FINDINGS March 18, 2005 Page 6 of 7 The City is required to make certain findings prior to adopting zoning code amendments. The required findings and documentation supporting adoption of the amendments are provided below. 1. The proposed zoning amendment does not affect the integrity of the Genera! Plan. The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with existing General Plan policies. Additionally, prior to considering this zoning amendment, the City initiated an update of General Plan retail development policies. Based on economic studies, input from the community and various City Boards and Commissions, new and revised citywide retail development policies General Plan Amendment PLNOl-OOl7} are being considered by the City at this time. This zoning amendment has also been considered in relation to these proposed General Plan policies. The zoning text amendment will provide a more effective means of implementing these General Plan policies, if adopted. 2. The proposed rezoning does not adversely affect the general welfare of the community. This zoning code amendment does not prohibit any specific type of use or allow new uses not already permitted. It does require additional review and provides an appropriate mechanism for regulating larger developments to ensure that these projects will be compatible with existing land uses and that potentially significant impacts will be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. 3. The proposal is equitable. This zoning tale amendment does not prohibit any specifc type of use or allow new uses not already permitted. It does require additional review and provides an appropriate mechanism for regulating larger developments to ensure that these projects will be compatible with existing land uses and that potentially significant impacts will be availed or mitigated to the extent feasible. Existing retail uses will not be classified as nonconforming solely far lack of an approved use permit. BUDGET C4NSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT Adoption of the proposed amendments does not require or initiate any additional expenditure of public funds. MUNICIPAL CGDEIPOLICY DGCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed zoning code amendments are consistent with existing and currently proposed General Plan policies. The proposed code amendments will apply to AMC Sections: 30-2 to add a definition of large-format retail; 30-4.5 through 30-4,12 adding Honorable Mayor and March 1S, 2005 Members of the City Council Page 7 of 7 large-format retail as a conditionally permitted use in commercial and manufacturing districts; 30-21.3 and 30- 4.13 adding additional standards for use permits and planned developments; 30-21.m adding a new planned development amendment requirement for the expansion of large-format retail uses; and 30-20,3 clarifying nonconforming status of existing large-format retail uses. ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIEW The proposed zoning text amendments would not prohibit any land uses that are currently permitted under the AMC or authorize any additional land uses currently not permitted by the AMC. As described above, the intent of the proposed amendments is to provide for greater review authority over the location and operation of retail uses that are currently permitted in Alameda. Therefore, the proposed zoning text amendments do not have the potential to cause changes to the physical environment that could result in significant adverse enviranmental effects within Alameda or other jurisdictions. Consequently, the proposed zoning text amendments are Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations; 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment; 15375, Project; 15061 ~b}~3} Review for Exemption; and Public Resources Cade ~PRC} Section 21065, Project definition. RECGMMENDATIGN Hold a public hearing and introduce an ordinance to amend various sections of the Alameda Municipal Code contained in Article !, "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Chapter XXX, "Development Regulations," pertaining to retail and commercia! uses. Respectfully submitted, Cathy W dbury, Plannin and Building Director ., By: Douglas Garriso r Supervising Planner CITY aFALAMEDA GRDINANCE NG, New Series a N 0 L ~. AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE I (ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS) CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) PERTAINING TO RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL USES ~ vIIHEREAS, on July 17, 2007, the City Council directed staff to develop a '~ big box l large format store definition and to evaluate the otential n p eed for additional regulato tools to control the location and o eration of lar ' ~ ry p ge retail ,~ uses; and ,.. ~a UVHEREAS, on October 22, 2007, December 10, 2007, January 28, 2008 and February 11, 2008, at publicly noticed hearings, the Planning Board evaluated various options for regulating large stores; and 1NHEREAS, after evaluating various regulatory options and accepting public comments, the Planning Board adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt proposed zoning text amendments that would include: 1 } a definition of large format retail; 2} establishing a use permit requirement for large format retail in specific zoning districts; 3} enhanced permit findings to ensure compatibility with existing land uses; and 4} establishing that existing retail uses would not be classified as nonconforming solely for lack of an approved use permit; and ~IVHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings relative to the proposed zoning text amendments: 1, The proposed zoning amendment does not affect the integrity of the General Plan. The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with existing General Plan policies, Additionally, prior to considering this zoning amendment, the City initiated an update of General Pfan retail development policies. Based on economic studies, input from the community and various City Boards and Commissions, new and revised city-wide retail development policies General Plan Amendment PLN07-0017} are being considered.by the City at this time. This zoning amendment has also been considered in relation to these proposed General Plan policies. The zoning text amendment will provide a more effective means of implementing these General Plan policies, if adopted. Introduction of Ordinance #5-B 03.18.48 2. The proposed rezoning does not adversely affec# the general welfare of the community. This zoning code amendment does not prohibit any specific type of use or allow new uses not already permitted. It does require additional review and provides an appropriate mechanism for regulating larger developments to ensure that these projects will be compatible with existing land uses and that potentially significant impacts will be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. 3. The proposal is equitable. This zoning code amendment does not prohibit any specific type of use or allow new uses not already permitted. !t does require additional review and provides an appropriate mechanism for regulating larger developments to ensure that these projects will be compatible with existing land uses and that potentially significant impacts will be avoided or mitigated to the extent feasible. Existing retail uses will not be classified as nonconforming solely for lack of an approved use permit. 4, Environmental Determination The proposed zoning text amendments would not prohibit any land use currently permitted under the AMC or authorize additional land uses currently not permitted by the AMC. Consequently, the amendments do not have the potential to cause changes to the physical environment that could result in significant adverse environmental effects within Alameda or other jurisdictions. Therefore, the proposed zoning text amendment is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15365, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations; Section 15061~b}~3}, Review for Exemption; and Public Resources Code Section 21065, Project Definition. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following definition to Section 30-2 Definitions}: Section 30-2 Large Format Beta!!; A single stand-alone store or collection of retail uses, developed and or managed within a single building or shopping center which individually or cumulatively include over 30,000 square feet of retail sales floor area. Section ~. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended b Y adding to Section 30-4,8.c ~C-1 Neighborhood Business District, Uses Requiring Use Permits} new Subsection 10 as follows: Section 30-4.8.c.10 Large Format Retail including conversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Section 3. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended b . Y adding to Section 30-4.9.c ~C-2 Central Business District, Uses Requiring Use Permits} new Subsection 16 as follows: Section 30-4.9,c.16 Large Format Retail including conversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}, Section 4. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended b y adding Large Format Retail to Section 30-4,9A.c,1 ~C-C Communit . Y Comrnerc~al, Uses Requiring Use Permits}. Large Format Retail will re lace p Laundry and Cleaning Establishments as Subsection 30-4,9.c.1~gg} as shown below. Laundry and cleaning establishments will become Subsection ~hh} and all subsequent uses, listed alphabetically, will be relabeled sequentially. 30-4,9A,c,1 ~gg~ Large Format Retail including conversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Section 5. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended b . Y adding to Section 30-4.10.c. ~C-M Commercial-Manufacturing, Uses Re uirin q g Use Permits} new Subsection 15 as follows: 30-4,10.c.15 Large Format Retail including conversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Section 6. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by addin g to Section 30-4,10.c ~C-M Commercial-Manufacturing, Uses Requirin Use . 9 Permits} new Subsection 15 as follows: 3~-4.10,c .15 Large Format Retail including conversion of existing .multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding to Section 30-4.11.c. ~M-1 intermediate industrial District, Uses Requiring Use Permits} new Subsection 14 as follows: 30-4.11.c.14 Large Format Retail including conversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Section 8. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding to Section 30-4.12.c. ~M-Z General Industrial District, Uses Requiring Use Permits} new Subsection 19 as follows: Section 30-4.12.c.19Large Format Retail including conversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Section 9. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying Section 30-21.3.b, Use Permit Standards. New text is underlined. Section 30-21.3.b. 1. The location of the proposed use is compatible with other land uses in the general neighborhood area and the,.project design and size is architectural) aestheticall and o erationall harmonious with the communit and surroundin develo ment. ~. The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and service facilities includin edestrian bic cle and transit facilities. 3. The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity and will not have substantial deleterious effects on existing business districts or the,,, local econ,omy_ 4. The ro~ osed use relates favorabl to the General Plan. Section 10. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by modif in Yg Section 30-4.13.a, Planned Development Combining District, Statement of Pur ose. . p Deleted text ~s shown in strikeout and new text is underlined: 30-4.13.a The purpose of the Planned Development District is #o provide more flexibility in - site design, development ~ standards and„__,,~pes of land uses than would otherwise be allowed in the under) in zonin district to ensure y9 g , ,project compatibility„ with surrounding_„uses; and_, to ensure that adverse environmental effects are reduced or avoided to the maximum extent feasible. Section 11. Section 30-4.13.d, Uses Permitted in Planned Developments The Alameda Municipal Cade is hereby amended by adding the following new Subsection to Section 30-4.13.4, Uses Permitted in Planned Developments: Section 30-4.13.d 2 ~d~ Large Format Retail Section 12. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying Section 30-4.13.f.3, Planned Development Procedures and Standards, and addin g new Subsections a and b to Section 30-4.13.f: 30-4.13.f.3 The Planning Board ~ mad approve a PD application only if it determines: ' . .. 34-4.13.f. a The development is a more effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for which the PD district is combined, and; 30-4.13.E b The project meets the requirements of AMC Section 30-21.3.b. Use Permit Standards, Subsections 1, 2, 3, and 4. Section 13. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying subsection 30-4.13:m.2~d} and adding new subsec#ion 30- 4.13,m.2~f}: 30-4.13.m.2~d~ Additions to commercial or public uses which involve more than atwenty-five ~25q/o} increase in the floor area of existing structures associated with the use; ef;. The Planning. Board ma~place additional._requ,irements on individual Planned Development projects that _estabiish s ecific criteria for evaluatin the need for an amendment. These may be,.in addition to or may modify the standard established in this section. ~~~~~ 30-4.13.m.2~f~ Conversion of existing multiple tenant retail spaces to a single retail space greater than 30,000 square feet; unless, said conversion is allowed by the existing Planned Development approval. Section 14. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new Subsectian 7 to Section 30-20, Nonconforming Buildings and Uses: 1. Large Format Retail Section 3o-2o.a Existing large format retail uses, constructed and in use prior to March, 2008, that are located in commercial, manufacturing, Planned Development or M~X zoning districts where large format retail is allowed and that comply with the development standards of the zoning district shall nat be classified as nonconforming. Section ~ 5. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty X30}days from the date of its final passage. Section 16. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Section 1l. The above amendments shall be known as and referenced to as Reclassification and Rezoning Amendment No. to Ordinance No. 1217, N.S. ****** Presiding Officer of the Council Attest: Lara V1leisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda I, the undersigned, hereby certify thatthe foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council ofthe City of Alameda in regular mee#ing assembled an the day of , 2448, by the fallowing 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 , 2448. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: March 18, 2008 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider a Master Plan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan to Allow the Marina Village Shopping Center to Permit up to 25% for Gffice Use and Allow Future Additions, Not to Exceed 6,300 Square Feet, and Adopt a Resolution Amending the Marina Villa a Master Plan BACKGRGUND At its regular meeting of February 11, 2008, the Planning Board recommended adoption of a Master Plan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan that would allow the Marina Village Shopping Center to permit up to 25°/a as office use with an amended list of permitted uses. However, a motion for approval that would allow future additions to the shopping center failed in a split Board vote of 3-3. Some members of the Planning Board were concerned about the potential loss of open space, the use of the structures, parkicularly for drive-through service, and the design. DISCUSSIGN Office usP Approximately 1l% of the space in Marina Village Shopping Center is currently leased for office and financial service uses. The present Master Plan for this area appears to permit only general retail and restaurant uses. The recommended Master Plan Amendment would allow legalization of the existing office and financial uses, and would permit the leasing of up to 25% of the shopping centerfor similar uses. At its meeting of February 11, 2008, the Planning Board expressed concern about losing retail opportunities. However, the Board recognized that additional retail has been approved at Alameda Landing and will be part of any development scenario adopted for Alameda Point. Additionally, the Board acknowledged that the revitalization and continued redevelopment of nearby Vllebster Street has been an important component of the City's retail policies. The Planning Board revised the proposed scope of Administrative-Professional ~A-P} uses that would be permitted in the Marina Village Shopping Center by requiring a Use Permit for nursing and convalescent homes, rest homes and sanitariums. City COU11Ci~ Public Hearing Agenda Item ~5-C ~3-'18-08 Honorable Mayor and March 18, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 Ex ansian of the Sho in Center The applicant, David Hidalgo Architects, Inc. for ~IUestwood Financial Group also proposed three future additions consisting of a 5,000 square-foot building pad, an 800 square-foot kiosk, and a 500 square-foot kiosk. The shopping center would be 130,129 square feet when fully developed. The time frame for development of the additional square footage is unknown at this time, but likely would not occur until retail demand substantially increases. The larger building pad would be located in a vacant area behind the existing shopping center, while the two small kiosks would be located along the walkway from the shopping center to the large office buildings on Marina Village Parkway. As detailed in staff s report to the Planning Board Attachment 1 }, there is adequate parking to support an additional 6,300 square feet of development. A Master Plan is intended to guide the development of the site over a long period of time. In fact, the last Master Plan Amendment for the shopping center occurred in 1984. A Final Development Plan, which would be reviewed by the Planning Board, would be required for any new development in the shopping center, and the issues of open space and use would be considered at that time. Additionally, any new development would need to be presented to the Planning Board for Design Review and meet the Master Plan design standards, which require landscaping and integration with the existing development. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the future additions. The Planning Board's Resolution and Draft Minutes are included as Attachments 2 and 3. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT No additional funding is necessary related to planning activities for this project. MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The Master Plan Amendment resolution references both the Administrative-Professional and Central Business District ~C-2} Zoning Districts for uses within the shopping center, but does not amend the Zoning Ordinance in any way. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEUU The project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from CEQA Guidelines under Section 15332~c} -Urban Infill, which exempts in-fill development that is: 1 } Consistent with the General Plan policies and zoning designation; The proposed new commercial pads are consistent with the Community Commercial General Plan designation and the Mixed Use ~M-X} zoning district. 2} Less than five acres in size; Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council March 18, 2x08 Page 3 of 3 The proposed additional new development within the shopping center will not cover more than five acres. The proposed additional development will not exceed 6,300 square feet. 3} Does not contain rare or endangered species habitat; The site is an existing commercial shopping area that contains no rare or endangered species habitat. 4} There would be no significant traffic, noise, air quality or water quality impacts; The commercial project will not generate noise, air quality or water quality impacts. The project will not create sufficient trips to lower the level of service on any Alameda intersection below level of service "D". 5} The site can be served by adequate utilities and facilities. There is adequate water, wastewater, and sewer services to serve this proposed development. RECOMMENDATl~N Hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution amending the Master Plan to allow the Marina Village Shopping Center to permit up to 25% office use and to allow the future additions, not to exceed 6,304 square feet. Respectfully submitted, li(/~ Cathy bury Plannin & Building Director ~_ By: Cynthia Eliason Supervising Planner Attachments: 1. Planning Board Staff Report 2. Planning Board Resolution PB-OS-03 3. Planning Board Draft Minutes for February 11, 2008 CITY GF ALAMEDA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPGRT ITEM NG.: ' APPLICATION: PLNOl-0122 Master Plan Amendments -David Hidalgo Architects, Inc. for Westwood Financial Group - 801 #hrough 951 Marina Village Parkway. The applicant requests a Master Plan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan to allowthe Marina Village Shopping Center to permit up to 25°/° office use ~a maximum of 31,x10 square feet} and to allow the future addition of a 5,000 square foot building pad, an 800 square foot kiosk and a 500 square foot kiosk. The shopping center at build out will be 130,129 square feet. The site is located within an M-X, Mixed -Use Zoning District. GENERAL PLAN: Community Commercial ENVIRONMENTAL „ DETERi~INATIGN: Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines Section Section 15332, lnfill Development Projects. STAFF PLANNER: Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner RECGMMENDATIGN: Recommend to the City Council adoption ofthe~Master Plan Amendment ACRONYMS: AMC -Alameda Municipal Code A-P Administrative -Professional Zoning District C-2 -Central Business Zoning District C-C Community Commercial Zoning District . M-X -Mixed -Use Zoning District ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution .. .~ . . , 2. Vicinity Map 3.. Marina Village Shopping Center Use Dia ram g 4. Excerpts from the AMC -A-P and C-2 Zoning Districts Alameda Plan ' Board Staff Re 9-A Me ' g of February 11, 2008 City Council Attachment 1 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-C o3-~s-os I. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant requests a Master Plan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan to allow the Marina Village Shopping Center to permit up to 25°/a office use ~a maximum of 31,010 square feet and to allow the future addition of a 5,000 square foot building pad, an 890 square foot kiosk and a 500 square foot kiosk. The shopping center at build out will be 130,129 square feet. ll. BACKGROUND A. Existin Site Conditions The Marina Village Shopping Center is a fully developed commercial shopping center of 124,429 square feet located on Marina Village Parkway. The shopping center is anchored by an Albertson's and a Long's Drug store. Smaller shops flank these anchor tenants. There are also three commercial pads along Marina Village Parkway. In total there are 40 tenant spaces and 65l parking stalls. B. Surroundin Land Use North -Office Buildings West- Constitution Vl~ay and parkland South- Off cel R &D East- Residential and Office) R &D C. Permit History Original approvals in the 1970's for the shopping center permitted up to 10,940 square of office use within the shopping center. The shopping center was part of the Marina Village development, which included officelR &D, residential and recreational development. Recent changes in the ownership of the shopping center and office park have led to an interest in clarifying the permitted uses. Several Zoning Compliance Determinations for medical uses prompted staff to research the shopping center approvals. Research uncovered that in 1984, a Master Plan Amendment was approved which appears to have removed the 19,009 square feet of office use. This amendment did not explain why the office was removed, what was to occur with spaces that were already used for offce or whether existing office uses could be relocated to other commercial spaces in the shopping center. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report 9-A Meeting of February 11, Zoos 2 In.the intervening years, the shopping center has had a number of tenants, some of which may have conveyed formerly retail spaces to office use and vice-a-versa. Tenant improvements and business licenses have also been granted far a number of the spaces. The intent of #his amendment is to more clearly establish the permitted uses. This is especially important since there are more Zoning Districts that may be used to implement the Community Commercial designation with the creation of the C-C Community Commercial} Zoning District. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~IV The project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from CEQA Guidelines under Section 15332~c} --Urban Inf Il, which exempts in-fill development that is: 1 ~ Consistent with the General Plan policies and zoning designation; The proposed new commercial pads are consistent with the Community Commercial General Plan designation and the M-X Mixed Use zoning district. 2~ Less than fve acres in size; The proposed additional new development within the shopping center will not cover more than five acres. The proposed additional development will not exceed 6,344 square feet. 3~ Does not contain rare or endangered species habitat; The site is an existing commercial shopping area that contains no rare or endangered species habitat. 4~ There would be no significant traffic, noise, air quality or water quality impacts; The commercial project will not generate noise, air quality or water quality impacts. The additional development will not create sufficient trips to lower the level of service on any Alameda intersection below level of service "D". Qverall, traffic generated by this shopping center may be reduced by the office development despite the increase in square footage as typically office use generates less trips than retail. 5~ The site can be served by adequate utilities and facilities. There is adequate water, wastewater, and sewer services to serve this proposed development. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report 9-A Meeting of February 11, 2008 3 V. STAFF ANALYSIS Clari in Permitted Uses The shopping center was developed at a time when the C-2 Central Business District} Zoning District was the only Zoning District to implement the Community Commercial Designation. Since that time the C-C Community Commercial} District was created for Park and Webster Streets. Although these zones are similar, the Master Plan Amendment should specify which zoning district should be consulted to assist the City in making determinations of the appropriateness of uses since the present M-X Zoning does not specify and reties upon the Master Plan to set uses. To that end, it is recommended that that C-2 Zoning District be considered the list of allowable uses for the shopping center and that a caveat be added for the Planning and Building Director to make a determination regarding the appropriateness of additional uses. ~fi ice Use Whatever rationale was used in 1984 to remove the ability of the shopping center to suppor# limited office uses should be re-examined with regards topresent-day market position. Indeed, the shopping center should have some flexibility in providing small- scale office, banking and medical services that support the retail center and surrounding office, residential and research and development uses. office use is currently interspersed with the existing retail and commercial uses. The present office uses consist of medical, dental and chiropractic offices, f nancial offices and banks and credit unions. In total, the existing square footage of office is 21, 444, which represents approximately 1l °lo of the shopping area. In order to eliminate any issues of non-conformity and to provide flexibility in the programming of the proposed future building pad and vacant lease spaces, staff recommends the shopping center be allowed to contain up to 25°/0 off ce and banking services. New Develo meat The applicant has indicated three areas where additional square footage could be created in the shopping center. one of these areas is a potential 5,040 square foot pad that could be attached to or be created behind Parcel 1 by Constitution Way. There are also indicated two locations along the pedestrian corridor where 504 square feet and 804 square feet of smaller, kiosk-style retail could be added. These future additions will add 6,3x0 square feet, bringing the total square footage of the shopping center to 130,129 square feet. Since a Master Plan Amendment is at a programmatic level, it is not necessary to have schematics of the additional square footage and a general location of the additional space will suffice at this time. When the property owner is ready to construct the additional areas then at that time a Final Development Plan consisting of a detailed site plan and Design Review will be required. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report 9-A Meeting of February 11, 2008 4 Parkin The shopping center presently has 65l parking stalls. No additional parking is proposed. Based on the present zoning regulations, there will be adequate parking and no additional spaces would be required for the future buildings. Based on a total build- out of 130,729 square feet, the parking ratio will be approximately 5 per 1000 as required by the Zoning ordinance and which exceeds the 4 per thousand recently approved at Alameda Towne Centre and Alameda Landing, Under the present parking regulations, office use requires less parking than general retail. Banks, which have been included by the applicant in the office designation, are calculated at the same rate as general retail. Nevertheless, permitting office uses should have a positive effect on the shopping center's parking ratio. Conclusions: The proposed Amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Marina Village Master Plan to provide a variety of commercial and office uses, and the proposed amendment will provide clear direction for the property owners, current and future tenants of the commercial center, and staff regarding the specific type and amount of commercial and office use that is permissible within the Marina Village Shopping center. V. REC~MMENDATI~N Recommend to the City Council approval of the Master Plan Amendment. Alameda Planning Board Staff Report 9-A Meeting of February 11, 2008 5 '1 CITY GF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD RESGLUT~GN Na. PB-08-03 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT, PLN07-0122 TO ALLOIIII THE MARINA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER TO PERMIT UP TO 25% OFFICE USE WHEREAS, the Marina Village Mater Plan was originally adopted in 1979 and permitted the construction of a commercial shopping center as part of a project incorporating residential, commercial, recreational, office and open space uses; and WHEREAS, in 1984, the Marina Village Master Plan was amended to eliminate the 10,000 square feet of office use permitted in the shopping center; and WHEREAS; the 1984 Master Plan Amendment set the maximum square footage at 125,000 square feetforthe shopping center; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests a Master Plan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan to allow the Marina Village Shopping Center to permit up to 25°/° office use ~a maximum of 31,070 square feet} and to.allow the future addition of a 5,000 square foot building pad, an 840 square foot kiosk and a 500 square foot kiosk; and VIIHEREAS, the property is designated Community Commercial on the General Plan: and WHEREAS, the property is zoned M-X Mixed Use}; and WHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from CEQA Guidelines under Section 15332~c} -- Urban Infill, which exempts in-fail development that is: 1 } Consistent with the General Plan policies and zoning designation; The proposed new commercial pads are consistent with the Community Commercial General Plan designation and the M-X Mixed Use zoning district. 2} Less than five acres in size; The proposed additional new development within the shopping center will not cover more than five acres. The proposed additional development will not exceed 6,300 square feet. 3} Does not contain rare or endangered species habitat; The site is an existing commercial shopping area that contains no rare or endangered species habitat. City Council Attachment 2 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-C 43-'! 8-08 - - 4} There would be no signif cant traffic, noise, air quality or water quality impacts; The commercial project will not generate noise, air quality or water quality impacts. The project will not create sufficient trips to lower the level of service on any Alameda intersection below level of service "D". 5} The site can be served by adequate utilities and facilities. There is adequate water, wastewater, and sewer services to serve this proposed development; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan Amendment will legalize non-conforming office uses presently existing at the shopping center; and WHEREAS, the proposed percentage of office and banking uses permits additional flexibility in leasing ofthe shopping center; and WHEREAS, on a 3-3 vote the Planning Board motion to approve the requested expansion of the shopping center failed; NSW, THERE1=aRE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan as follows: Land Use Parcel A Parcel A constitutes the 13-acre Marina Village Shopping Center. Uses permitted include general retail and restaurants consistent with the C-2 Central Business Districts Zoning District or other uses which the Planning and Building Director finds similar and consistent with the retail intent of the shopping center. No more than 25°/a of the shopping center may be devoted to the following uses: 1 } Medical, dental or professional offices as specified as Permitted Uses in the A-P, Administrative-Professional District, with the exception of nursing and convalescent homes, rest homes and sanitariums, which would be conditionally permitted. 2} Banks, savings and loans and other financial institutions, and 3} ether uses which the Planning and Building Director f nds similar and consistent with the A-P, Administrative-Professional District. L PASSED AND ADAPTED this 11th day of February 2008 by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda by the following vote: AYES: ~5} Cook, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, McNamara NOES: ~1} Kohlstrand ABSENT: ~0} ATTEST: l~ndrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board *****~ Draft Minutes of the Regular Planning Board Meeting Monday, February 11, 204$ 1. CONVENE: 7:04 p.m. 2. FLAG SALUTE: Board member Curuvngham. 3. ROLL CALL: President Caok, Vice President Kahlstrand, Board Members Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft, Lynch, and McNamara. Also present were Planning Services Manager Andrew Thomas, Assistant City Attorney Farimah Faz, Supervising Planner Cynthia Eliason; Supervising Planner Doug Garrison, Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer; Obaid Khan, Public works. 4. MINUTES: a. Minutes far the meeting of November 13, 2007 knot available. These minutes will be considered on February 25, 2008. b. Minutes for the meeting of December 10, 2007. Vice President I~ohlstrand noted that under Item 6 Future Agendas}, the last paragraph on page 1 should be changed to read, "In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezz,~ Ashcraft when staff estimated a green building ordinance to be put on the ,books in Alameda..." Vice President Kohlstrand noted that with respect to that time, she recalled that there was a discussion about staff being able to implement a straightforward application process, and would like that section of the tape to be reviewed and inserted into the minutes. Mr. Thomas recalled that conversation, and noted that the project submittal checklist for sustainable elements had been discussed. Board member Cunningharri noted that on page 9, Strategy 3 discussed the lack of space for larger functions in the City, and should be changed to read, "She was concerned that the large civic events tike the annual fundraiser for the boys and girls club have to meet in Oakland because there were not large enough facilities to accommodate them in Alameda. " Vice President Kohls~and moved to adopt the minutes for December 10, 2007, as amended. Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote -- 5. Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain --1 Cunningham}. The motion passed. City Council Attachment s to Pa e 1 of 13 Public Hearing g ~ A enda Item #5-C g 03-1SN08 c. Minutes for the meeting of January 14, 2008. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the bottom of page 3 read, "Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it was important to keep the guiding nature of the General Plan Amendment in mind throughout the process." She recalled that there was a discussion about whether the Plarming Board should be very prescriptive in the guidelines, and she stated that if they were to do that, that the General Plan was the appropriate document to do it in, since it set the guiding principles for the City. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that in the middle of page ~, the following language should be changed to read, "Vice President Kohlstrand noted that the second sentence of the last item on page 4 should introduce the idea of shared parking, in addition to mult~'level p~~g~} Vice President Kohlstrand noted that page 7, paragraph 7, should be changed to read, "She wished to avoid using the streets ~ as a circulation aisle for the parking lot..." Board Member Lynch advised that page 7, paragraph 4, should be changed to read, "The University Village was an outstanding shopping experience that has a mix of very small and range stores. " He added that there was atwo-story Crate & Barrel store in that center. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft moved to adopt the minutes for December 10, 2007, as amended. Board member McNamara seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain --1 Cunningham}. The motion passed. d. Minutes for the meeting of January 2$, 2008. Board member Cunningham noted that with respect to the resolution for Item 9 referencing Item 2.5.u.3} on page 11, the Planning Board had discussed adding language referring to control of the location of utility trash recycling enclosures being located out of the public path, which had been mentioned in the previous minutes; he would like that wording included in the resolution. Board member Cunningham noted that on page 15 Climate Protection Task Force} should be changed to read, "Mr. Thomas presented an update of the last Board meeting. Board member Cunningham noted that they divided the recommendations into two tiers. 2'he first tier had dive items as listed below, and the remaining items were consolidated into Tier 2. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that page 4, paragraph 3, should be changed to read, "Because staff was unable to make the findings for a variance and design review approval, he recommended the Planning Board deny the proposed variance application." Page 2 of 13 Board member Ezzy Ashcroft noted that the language in the middle of page 7 should be changed to read, "Board member Ezzy Ashcroft noted that some of the nicest homes she has seen in applicants' neighborhood had some kind of renovation..." Board member Ezzy Ashcroft noted that page 7, paragraph 5, should be changed to read, "She supported people being able to improve their properties, and believed there should be same reward for undertaking a project such as this." President Cook noted that with respect to the language at the top of page 7, "President Cook suggested that the dividing line between a boat house and an actual dwelling..." she had intended to state that the boat house in this case was larger than many dwellings in Alameda, and so perhaps the square footage should be examined more carefully. She noted there was a fine line between a boat house and a residence. President Cook noted that the language halfway down page 8 should be changed to read, "She believed the issue of height was more critical than the number of floors, and it occurred to the applicants to stay within the height limits", In addition, the following change should be made, "She noted that the issues of density and the public right to the waterfront were important issues to be looked at if Zoning Code amendments are considered. " Board member Cunningham moved to adopt the minutes for December 10, 2007, as amended. Board member Ezzy Ashcroft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote -- 4, Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain ~- 2 Lynch, McNamara}. The motion passed. 5. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION: President Cook noted that a request had been received to remove Item 8-A from the Consent Calendar and place it on the Regular Agenda. She noted that two requests to go first had also been received. She suggested that the items be heard in the following order: ~-B, 9-A, 8-A, and that Staff Communications be heard at the end of the meeting. 9. REGULAR AGENDA rTEMS: 9-B. BroadwaylJackson Phase II. A presentation and update on work being completed by the City of Alameda, City of aakland, California Department of Transportation, and Alameda County Transportation Improvement Agency ~ACTIA} to improve automobile, transit, ,and pedestrian connections and mobility between the Webster and Posey Tubes and the 1-880 Freeway. Barbara Hawkins, Alameda Public Works Department, will make the presentation. The Planning Page 3 of 13 Board will take no action on this item at this meeting. This presentation is for informational purposes only. ~ATIBH} Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she would recuse herself from this item because the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority was one of her clients, and her business partner worked on this project. She stepped down from the dais. Ms. Barbara Hawkins, City Engineer, summarized the staff report, and displayed the various options on the overhead screen. The public hearing was opened. There were no speakers. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. with respect to the slide depicting the preferred option, Board Member Lynch inquired how the project would be funded, Ms. Hawkins replied that it had started with S.T.I.P. funds, which paid for the CalTrans environmental work and the design. Measure B funding paid for the feasibility study and the current PSR. ~n response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch whether MTC was involved with any of the funding decisions, Ms. Hawkins replied that all funding went first through the CMA far the County, then MTC for all the counties, and finally to the CTC. The City of nakland was also involved as an active partner, originally by the Planning branch and recently by the engineers. Board Member Lynch strongly urged the organizations working on this project to send a letter to the City of Dakland, and he believed it was reprehensible that one branch of their city government was not aware or supportive of what another branch was doing of a project this nature. He noted that to think an applicant would move forward in their Planning Department with entitlements of such a major project showed a lack of leadership from their most senior elected individuals, as well as their Planning Department. He would like to have a response with respect to that's situation, and he believed that from a planning perspective, Alameda tried to encourage the ability to work together. As a taxpayer, he found the situation reprehensible and noted that there were significant public dollars at work. He believed that the City of Oakland's objectives with respect to this planning process must be made clear to the public. otherwise, he would not support moving forward if the City of Oakland was not clear about their obj ective. Ms. Hawkins noted that at the joint meeting between the Alameda and Oakland Councilmembers, Qakland Public works and Planning had attended, and that everyone was supportive of the prof ect. She added that they were aware that it was critical that this project remain open. She suggested that the City of Alameda send a letter stating its belief that it be continued, to ensure that the differences were being communicated. She Page 4 of 13 was not sure whether the new planner had read the feasibility study, which was being refined, Board Member Lynch encouraged the City Attorney's office in Oakland to offer its thoughts, because he believed that it was nat a takings case, but the applicant may suggest that it was. He noted that he would not support any motion moving forward, if the City of Oakland's Mayor's Office, City Attorney, and Planning Director were not in favor of this; he believed these decision-making bodies must be involved in an entitlements case. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft expressed frustration that so many options had been eliminated. She inquired whether it would be possible to have a written mutual agreement of understanding, and whether it would be necessary to have a stronger inst~ment than meetings between Councilmembers. She believed that the Tube backups were a regional problem, and that Oakland held considerable influence in the entitlement process. She noted that there were limited options remaining. Ms. Faiz replied that a cooperative agreement was a possibility, and added that the City Attorney's off ces in Alameda and Oakland were not involved in policy decisions; they only gave legal advice. Ms. Hawkins agreed that a cooperative agreement would be a good idea, and that she and Mr. Thomas may be able to work with the City Attorney's office in that regard. No action was taken. Vice President Kohlstxand rejoined the Planning Board on the dais following this item. 9-A. PLN07-1022 ~1Vlaster Plan Amendment} -David Hidalgo Architects, Inc. for Westwood Financial Group - 801 through 951 Marina Village Parkway. The applicant requests a Master Plan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan to allow the Marina Village Shopping Center to permit up to 25% office use ~a maximum of 31,070 square feet}, and to allow the future addition of a 5,000 square foot building pad, an S00 square foot kiosk, and a 500 square foot kiosk. The shopping center at build out will be 130,729 square feet. The site is located within an M-~, ~ Mixed-Use Zoning District. SCE} Ms. Eliason summarized the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item. In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcroft regarding staff s sense of the kinds of retail businesses that were needed in the kiosks, Ms. Eliason replied that the small kiosks could house a small coffee stand or another business that would serve the office development. She noted that they did not know what the square footage would be yet. She noted that these locations would not supportdrive-through businesses. Page 5 of 13 Zn response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft whether there would be any concerns relating to the proximity to the day care center, Ms. Eliason noted that the uses would be examined at a f nal development plan or design review stage. At that point, the Board would have a better idea of the uses. In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether the location would be appropriate for fast food, Ms. Eliason replied that while it would not be appropriate fordrive-through uses, she could not say whether a fast food use would be placed there. In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether a restriction against fast food uses could be placed on this use, Ms. Eliason replied that the percentage of fast food uses could be restricted, or that there would be no additional fast food uses. She noted that "fast food" must be defined in that case, and she did not believe that "fast food" was defined in the Zoning ordinance. Board member Cunningham noted that the Webster Street guidelines may provide some direction regarding a definition of fast food, and asked staff to provide further def nition of the types of office spaces for the prof ect. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she supported some flexibility for the manager of the shopping center, but was troubled by the proposal in that the development originally was allowed to have 10,000 square feet of office. She noted that was eliminated, but that the Board did not have any history on that action. She expressed concern that 17,000 square feet of off ce had been added, but she understood that na offce was allowed under the current regulations. She was also concerned about the increase to 25% for office, and noted that there was not much discussion regarding that expansion. She would like more information regarding what would be allowed in the shopping center, and would like to limit any further drive-through uses. Board member McNamara noted that she drove around the site, and while she did not have a problem with the 5,000-square-foot pad site, the current site for the two proposed kiosks was the site for the only green grass on the site. She would like that space to be a more pedestrian-friendly environment, and believed it was too intensive a use for that specific area. She would like that area to remain as a green space. Board Member Lynch noted that the amount and type of retail, as well as the amount and type of off ce space was important, as was the grade of off ce space. He believed this was an interesting site for retail, but did not consider this to be an ideal site far retail. He believed this space was evolving from one use to the other. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she had gone to that shopping center, and that she did not consider it to be optimal for retail because it resembled a glorified strip mall. She noted that a shopper may be tempted to drive from one end to the other. She recalled that a cigarette store had been located there, which she did not consider to be a desirable use. She was comfortable increasing the percentage of office space from 17% to 25%. She would like to see uses that enliven the walkways, and noted that this may not be the kind of place where the Board's energies should be focused on increasing the retail Page b of 13 because there were some exciting possibilities. She would like to see more attention paid to Webster Street. President Cook noted that the location of retail in the Citywide retail strategy was very important. She had used the center before, and found that she was usually glad to be done driving around the area. She noted that many people used the back area of the center to get around quickly. She noted that there were many planning issues embedded in it, and she was hesitant to say yes to it. She agreed with Board member McNamara's concerns about the lack of green space. Mr. Thomas noted that staff recommended approval of this project. He added that the City Council had commissioned a series of retail studies. The studies found that there was capacity and demand for between 500,000-600,000 square feet of retail on the west end. The Council then said that Alameda Landing would be limited to 300,000 square feet. He noted that the City wished to preserve some of that capacity for Webster Street, which was a priority for the City, as was Alameda Point and Alameda Landing. He recalled that a business license for a medical office had been turned down; prior to that, the City had been approving the business licenses until an intern discovered the amendment from 1984. He noted that there had been demand for office space, and that there had been applications for use permits to put office space in residential zoning districts. He noted that there had been a demand for the service-related medical offices. He noted that the last page of the resolution contained the amendment for the Master Plan, and added that it could be amended to read "no drive-throughs," which would be amenable to the applicant. Board Member Lynch would support .that addition, and did not see this as a retail site. He noted that this might be a good location for a dental or urgent care medical office, which was a growing demand. He would support the amendment, and would not want to tamper with the plan because the market has determined what has happened on this site over the years. Board member Ezzy Ashcroft requested that staff address Board member McNamara's concerns about the green space. Mr. Thomas noted that the Board had the option to allow the expansion of the center up to a certain amount of square feet, leaving the decision about the actual location of kiosks up to the development plan approval, similar to Alameda Landing. He noted that this was a Master Plan amendment, and that the details of the landscaping, parking and other specific issues may be examined at that time. He noted that the Board may specify that the existing amount of landscaped area should be maintained in all future configurations. President Cook noted that she understood the flexibility argument, but did not see why it should be expanded. Mr. Thomas noted that the priority for the applicant at this time would be to resolve the percentage of office use first; the second priority was the expansion. The public hearing was opened, Page 7 of 13 Mr. David O'Donegal, O'Donegal Architects, project architect, noted that the applicant purchased this property in 2004, understanding that the site was a thriving shopping center at that time. He noted that there had been some turnover and vacancies since that time, He echoed Board Member Lynch's comment in that they were seeking service-type users, such as real estate and medicalldental outpatient uses that had to be turned down because of the current situation. He noted that in October 2007, he and staff had reviewed the history of this property, and identified some options and opportunities. His goal was to have at least 25% office use for the center, which they needed to be able to function and reduce the vacancy of approximately 3,400 square feet. They had leases they wished to pursue to occupy those spaces. He noted that retail did not work in the back portion of the center, and requested that the office use be permitted. Board member Cunningham noted that the current parking was 5 per 1,000, and suggested reducing it ~ to increase green space. Mr. O'Donegal agreed with that suggestion, and added that they had not experienced any parking problems. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft agreed that the parking ratio be reduced The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested that the additional language include "medical, dental or professional offices, and other service-oriented businesses." Board member Cunningham noted that the portion of the Code submitted by staff identified professional nature offices as including accountants, architects, artists, attorneys, authors, doctors, dentists, and engineers. President Coak inquired about the appropriateness of medical clinics, medical labs, rest homes and sanitariums. Ms. Eliason advised that all the permitted uses listed under fib} would be included. President Cook noted that list was too broad for her preference, and inquired whether there was existing language that has worked in the past. Mr. Thomas noted that staff could return with revised language at another meeting. He noted that the resolution could be amended to read, "The AP Administrative Professional} District, with the exception of or not including..." and then delete D through H medical laboratories through sanitarium}. Board member Cunningham would like people to be encouraged to get out and use the center. President Cook noted that the Board seemed to agree on B-1 ~a} through L, and B-2~a} through D. Page S of 13 Board Member Lynch would not delete (F) (radiology), and noted that everything was done by computer now. President Cook suggested that B, E, G and H should be included as conditionally permitted uses. The Board generally agreed. President Cook was not in favor of the expansion at this point. Board Member Lynch did not object to the expansion. President Cook moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Master Plan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan to allow the Marina Village Shopping Center to permit up to 25% office use ~a maximum of 31,070 square feet}, to included the permitted uses as discussed under AP Zoning District, with the conditionally permitted exceptions of B, E, G and H. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote -- 6. Noes: 0 Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion passed. Board Member Lynch moved to adapt Planning Board Resolution to approve the future addition of a 5,000 square foot building pad, an 800 square foot kiosk, and a 500 square foot kiosk. The shopping center at build out will be 130,729 square feet. The following modifications would be included: 1. The current amount of landscaping would be preserved; and 2. No drive-through uses would be permitted. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 3. Noes: 3 Cook, Kohlstrand, McNamara} Absent: 0; Abstain - 0. The motion failed. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. $-A. Large Format Retail Store Zoning Tegt Amendments -Applicant -City of Alameda. The Planning Board will consider proposed zoning text amendments to the Alameda Municipal Cade related to large format retail stores and the location of retail uses throughout Alameda. The proposed text amendments include a definition of large format retail store and proposed provisions requiring a use permit for different types of retail uses in certain zoning districts. The proposed amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and mixed use zoning districts. ~DG} Continued from January 28, 2408. Mr. Garrison presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of this item. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that at the last hearing, Michael Corbin had raised some issues, and inquired whether he had a chance to look at the revised language. Mr. Page 9 of 13 Garrison replied that he had, and that the email received from Mr, Corbitt the previous Friday stated that it had been reviewed by their management and attorney, and that they were in agreement with the current language, Mr. Garrison noted that under the existing entitlements at South Shore, there were limitations regarding the number of large stores that would be allowed by square feet. He noted that additions such as new loading docks would trigger a design review, and staff would still look at it to determine whether it would affect traffic flow in the shopping center. Board Member Lynch suggested that this section be reworded for clarity. In response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the applicant must work through the Planned Development structure, and that if they combined their space to exceed 30,000 square feet, they must come before the Planning Board, Mr. Thomas confirmed that was correct. He suggested that the large format language remain as written by Mr. Garrison, and that a commercial PD would be automatically triggered. He suggested the fallowing language: "Conversion of existing multitenant retail space to a single retail space greater than 30,000 square feet." Board Member Lynch believed that language was close, but was concerned that a tenant may buildup to 29,000 square feet to avoid the trigger. Board member McNamara noted that 2-B should be changed to "30,000 square feet." Mr. Garrison suggested additional language added to the end of the text discussed by Mr. Thomas, which stated, "This shall require a PDA," that would state "unless specifically allowed in an approved planned development." He believed there should be more comprehensive planning up front, and believed that should be addressed the first time through. Board Member Lynch agreed with Mr. Garrison's assessment. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to approve proposed zoning text amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code related to large format retail stores and the location of retail uses throughout Alameda. The proposed text amendments include a def nition of Iarge format retail store and proposed provisions requiring a use permit for different types of retail uses in certain zoning districts. The proposed amendments would affect all properties in non-residential zoning districts and mixed use zoning districts. The resolution shall be amended as detailed by staff. Board Member Lynch seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 6. Noes: 0 Absent: 0. The motion passed. 6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS: Page 10 of l3 a. Future Agendas Mr. Thomas provided an update on future agenda items. Board Member Lynch inquired about the outcome for the Harbor Bay Village ruling. Ms. Faiz replied that the judge ruled that the settlement agreement did not mean the project had been approved, and that it must return to the Planning Board and go through the process. Mr. Thomas noted that if the General Plan Zoning Amendment is approved, the housing could proceed under the terms of the original development agreement. In response to an inquiry by Board Member Lynch what would happen if the Planning Board did not certify the EIR, Mr. Thomas replied that the Planning Board was not the final decision-making body, and that the recommendation to the City Council would be to not certify. Board Member Lynch inquired about possible administrative remedies if the City Council decided not to certify the EIR. Mr. Thomas replied that if the Council determined it could not certify the EIR, they would have to identify the issue with the EIR. It would be incumbent upon the City to work to rectify that information. He noted that more analysis would be required. There would be a certain point where the Council would have to determine the EIR was sufftcient, at which point the merits of the proposal would be discussed. Board Member Lynch suggested that questions along those lines would be directed to the Board from the public. He noted that petitions had been circulating, and that it was important to be aware of the procedural issues. In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the EIR certification, Mr. Thomas confirmed that an EIR may be certified, but the project could be denied. Regarding the smog check item, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the description of the application was not specific enough in the report, and that the name of the business and further detail would be helpful to the public. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed there were some exciting prospects of improving the stretch of Park Street from Lincoln Avenue to the Park Street Bridge, making it a more welcoming, attractive entrance to the City. She would have liked to have seen this item come before the Planning Board, and would like the City to pay special attention to that section of Park Street. In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the City's choices, Mr. Thomas replied that the use permit for the auto use could be denied, which would not allow them to expand, and that the expansion would be completely inside the building. Page 11 of 13 Landscaping along the perimeter would be added, and the sidewalk would be rebuilt around that half of the block, closing up curb cuts to add on-street parking. In response to an inquiry by President Cook whether they were currently out of compliance with their use permit, Mr. Thomas replied that they were not out of compliance. They were out of compliance with the sign program, and a condition was added in that regard. Vice President Kohlstxand requested that any future changes or expansions of the auto- orienteduses be brought before the Planning Board. b. Zoning Administrator Report Mr. Thomas provided the Zoning Administrator report. 7. ORAL CO CATION: Mr. Bill Smith discussed the 2S2-unit townhome project prospectus, as well as the Base procedure. l o. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: 11. BOARD COMMUNICATIONS: 11-A. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Point Advisory Task Force Board Members CooklKohlstrand} President Cook noted that there had been no further meetings, and that the Task Force has been postponed for a short while. Mr. Thomas noted that the developer had requested an extension in order to move the internal milestones. The development concept was to be presented in March, and the EIR was to start in May, and the developer requested asix- month extension. 11-B. Oral Status Report regarding the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee Board Member McNamara} Board member McNamara noted there was nothing to report. 11-C. Oral Status Report regarding the Transportation Subcommittee Board Member Kohl strand} Vice President Kohlstrand noted that there had been no further meetings since her last report. 11-D. Oral Status Report regarding the Alameda Climate Protection Task Force Board Member Cunningham} Page IZ of 13 Board member Cunningham noted that there had been no fi~rther meetings since his last report. The report was presented to City Council the previous week, and they had asked staff to reconsider the format of the next committee. The action plan had been approved. Mr. Thomas noted that the Council would consider whether to set up a permanent Board or Commission for Climate Protection, and that it would have to be reconstituted with different members. Mr. Thomas added that Mayor Johnson had not yet made a nomination for a replacement Planning Board member. 12. ADJOURNMENT: 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Andrew Thomas, Secretary City Planning Board This meeting was audio and video taped. Page 13 of 13 CITY gFALAMEDA RES4LUTIgN Nq, E L 0 0 y v c~ ~. APPROVING MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT, PLN07-0122 TO ALLOW THE MARINA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER TO PERMIT UP TO 25% OFFICE USE (A MAXIMUM OF 31,070 SQUARE FEET) AND TO ALLOW THE FUTURE ADDITION OF A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING PAD, AN 800 SQUARE FOOT KIOSK AND A 500 SQUARE FOOT KIOSK i] WHEREAS, the Marina Village Master Plan was originally ado ted in , p 1979 and permitted, the construction of a commercial shoppin center as art of g P a project incorporating residential, commercial, recreational, office and o en p space uses; and WHEREAS, in 1984, the Marina Village Master Plan was amended to eliminate the 10,000 square feet of office use permitted in the sho in center pp 9 , and WHEREAS; the 1984 Master Plan Amendment set the maximum s uare q footage at 125,000 square feet for the shopping center; and WHEREAS, the applicant requests a Master Plan Amendment to the Marina Village Master Plan to allow the Marina Village Shop in Center to p9 permit up to 25°/0 office use ~a maximum of 31,070 square feet} and to allow the future addition of a 5,000 square foot building pad, an 800 square foot kiosk and a 500 square foot kiosk; and V1lHEREAS, the property is designated Community Commercial on the General Plan: and WHEREAS, the property is zoned M-X Mixed Use}; and UVHEREAS, the project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption from California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} Guidelines under Section 15332~c} -Urban Infill, which exempts in-fill development that is: 1 } Consistent with the General Plan policies and zoning desi nation; g The proposed new commercial pads are consistent with the Communit . Y Commercial General Plan designation and the M-X Mixed Use zonin district. 9 2} Less than five acres in size; The proposed additional new development within the shop in center will . pg not cover more than five acres, The proposed additional development will not exceed 6,300 square feet, 3} Does not contain rare or endangered species habitat; Resolution #5-C 03.15-48 The site is an existing commercial shopping area that contains no rare or endangered species habitat, 4} There would be no significant traffic, noise, air quality or water quality impacts; The commercial project will not generate noise, air quality or water quality impacts. The project will not create sufficient trips to lower the level of service on any Alameda intersection below level of service "D." 5} The site can be served by adequate utilities and facilities. There is adequate water, wastewater, and sewer services to serve this proposed development; and WHEREAS, the Master Plan Amendment will legalize non-conforming office uses presently existing at the shopping center; and WHEREAS, the proposed percentage of office and banking uses permits additional flexibility in leasing of the shopping center; and WHEREAS, the addition of 6,300 square feet at the shopping center will provide additional retail opportunities to the development; and WHEREAS, the addition of 6,300 square feet at the shopping center will not adversely affect the parking standards. WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on February ~ 1, 2008, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, on a 3-3 vote, the Planning Board motion to approve new square footage at the shopping center failed and the Planning Board approved a resolution recommending approval of only the 25°/0 office uses. THEREFGRE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda determines that the project is Categorically Exemption from CEGA Guidelines under Section 15332~c} --Urban Infill, BE IT FURTHER RESGLVED that the City Council hereby approves a Master Plan Amendmentto the Marina Village Master Plan as follows: Land Use Parcel A Parcel A constitutes the 13-acre Marina Village Shopping Center, The maximum build out for this center is 130,129 square feet. Uses permitted include general retail and restaurants consistent with the C-2, Central Business District, Zoning District or other uses which the Planning and Building Director finds similar and consistent with the retail intent of the shopping center, No more than 25°/~ or 31,010 s ware feet of the sho in q pp g center maybe devoted to the following uses: 1 } Medical, dental ar professional offices as specified as Permitted Uses in the A-P, Administrative-Professional District, with the exception of nursing and convalescent homes, rest homes and sanitariums, any of which .would require a Use Permit. 2} Banks, savings and loans and other financial institutions, and 3} ether uses which the Planning and Building Director finds similar and consistent with the A-P, Administrative-Professional District. ***~*~ 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 ~ 8th day of March, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2008. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CURRENT APPLICATIONS PUBLIC ART COMMISSION ONE VACANCY (FULL TERM EXPIRING JUNE 30, 2011) Jeff Cambra Elizabeth A. Candelario Pat C. Calburn Monetha Hatcher Andrea M. Leal Dian McPherson John G. Sanchez Re: Agenda Item #8•A 3.8.08