Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2008-04-15 Packet
'~ T a Q' r~ , ~ ~ ~~ '~~~=`~~1~,~,~, ,~ CITY ~F ALAMEDA • ~ALIF~R I F' ~ ti~~ ~r ~pl '+r~S 1fR tia Q~ ~f6(/.1~'~f SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - -APRIL 15, 2008 -- - - 6; 30 P.M. Time: Tuesday, April 15, 2008, 6:30 p.m. Place: Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street AC'fAT1f~'~a 1. Roll Call - City Council 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only Anyone wishing to speak on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider: 3-A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Agency Negotiators; Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations: All Public Safety Bargaining Units 3-B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision fib} of Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment -~ City Council r~ Beverly h ayor '~-~ Housing Authority of the City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Avenue -Alameda, California 94501-21b1 -TEL: (510) 747-4300 -FAX, (510} 522-7848 - TDD: (510) 522-84b7 IF YOU IN1SH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: ~ . Please file a speaker's slip with the Executive Director, and upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Board of Commissioners meetings. AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BDARD GF COMMISSIGNERS DATE & TIME Tuesday, April 15, 2005,1:5 PM LOCATION City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Board on a enda items or business introduced b Commissi g y oners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL ~ Board of Commissioners 2. CONSENT CALENDAR ^ Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public. 2-A. Amendment of Budget for Fiscal Year 20D8 and Adoption of Budget for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010. The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of Commissioners: 1. Approve a revised FY2008 budget to allow for the transfer of Housing Authority-owned operating reserves of $150,000 to the Section 8 Program fund and approve additional conference travel for FY2008; 2. Adopt the proposed budget, including the Extraordinary Maintenance Projects and Capital Improvements line items, for fiscal years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; Special Meeting of the Baard of Commissioners Apri! 15, 2008 Page 2 3. Adopt the proposed resolutions for both budget years for Conventional Low-Rent Housing Program No. CA062 (Esperanza); and 4. Recommend to the City Council to waive the Payment in Lieu of Taxes for both fiscal years. 2-B. Awarding Contracts for Kitchen and Bath Cabinet Replacement and Roof Replacement at Anne B. Diament Plaza, and Amending the FY 08 Budget. The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of Commissioners: 1, Award a contract to F.K. Construction for an amount not to exceed $146,955 to replace kitchen and bath cabinets and countertops in 23 units at Anne B. Diament Plaza; 2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract with F.K. Construction; 3. Award a contract to MNJ Roofing Incorporated for an amount not to exceed $110,000 to replace the roof covering at Anne B, Diament Plaza; 4. Increase the FY 08 EMP Budget by $30,000 for the roofing contract and to; 5. Authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract with MNJ Roofing, INC. 2-C. Awarding a Contract for the Replacement of Seven Garbage Enclosures at Esperanza. The Chief Executive Officer recommends the Board of Commissioners: 1. Award a contract to US Home Center for an amount not to exceed $100,000 to replace garbage enclosures at Esperanza; and 2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract with US Home Center. 3. AGENDA None. 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non-Agenda (Public Comment) 5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS Communications from the Commissioners 6. ADJOURNMENT *~* Note: Sign language interpreters will be available on request, Please contact Carol Weaver, Secretary, at 747-4325 voice or 522-8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to request an interpreter. accessible seating for persons with disabilities ~inciuding those using wheelchairs} is available. Minutes of the meeting are available in large print. Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request. Please contact Carol Weaver at 747-4325 voice of 522-8467 TDD at least 72 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 OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC} TUESDAY - - -- APRIL 15, 2008 - - - 7:27 P.M. Location: Cit Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council/Commission on agenda items or business introduced by the Council/Camrnission may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before the Council/Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak. 1. ROLL CALL - City Council, CIC 2. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 2-A. Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project. Development Services} [CIC] 3. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Council/Commission or a member of the public 3~-A. Minutes of the Special Joint and Housing Authority Board March 18, 2008. City Clerk} Community Improvement Commission of Commissioners Meeting held on [CIC] 3-B. Recommendation to approve an addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; a Letter of Intent regarding property exchange by and among Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, Peralta Community College District and the CIC; a Right-of-Way Contract between the City of Alameda and Peralta Community College District far dedication of the Stargell Right-of-Way; and a Side Letter between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation for dedication of the Stargell Right- of-Way; and • Adoption of Resolution Approving Letter of Intent By and Among Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, Peralta Community College District, and the CIC and Authorizing the CIC to Accept the Deed to Property. Development Services} [City Council/CIC] 3-C. Recommendation to approve the first amendment to the Contract with City Design Collective in the amount of $G, 500 to include water color illustrations in the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District. Development Services ~ [CIC 4, AGENDA ITEMS None. 5. ADJQURNMENT -- City Council, CIC Beverly Jo s M or Chair, CIC .•~~;•. ~~ (~" .y P' .~ -~.., ~.~ ~~~'~ ~ r~ k~ x~,ga~~' ~~~ ~r~G1~~ CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three ~3~ minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. AGENDA ~- - - - - -- - - - REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY-----~--APRIL I5, 2008------7:30P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall, ~~~~.~. ~~a~~~ , corner of Santa Clara Ave and Oak S t ] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non-Agenda Public Comment} 7. Council 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 MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda Closed Session} SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 7:25 P.M. OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 7:27 P.M. AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3-A. Proclamation declaring April through June 200$ as Historic Preservation Season. Planning and Building? 3-B. Proclamation declaring April 19, 200$ as Earth Day. Public Works } 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 Regular City Council Meeting held on April 1, 2008 City Clerk} 4-B. Bills for ratification. ~Finance7 4-C. Recommendation to accept and authorize recordation of Notices of Completion for Bayport Fleet Industrial Supply Center/East Housing Residential Phase 2 Public Backbone Infrastructure Haile Sewer Pump Lift Station and Sewer Pump Lift Station No. 6 improvements. Development Services} 4-D. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Cyclic Sewer Replacement, Phase 5, No. P.W. 10-0 6-22 . ~ Public Works } 4-E. Recommendation to find the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental duality Act, adopt Plans and Specifications, and authorize Call for Bids for Fernside Boulevard Bike Path and Street Improvements, San Jose Avenue to North of Otis Drive, No. P.W. 03-0$-10. Public Works} 4-F. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $241,820, including contingencies, to RMC Water and Environment for hydraulic model analysis of Alameda Sanitary Sewer Collection System. Public Works} 4-G. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 2DD8--2009 Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Funding, in the Amount of $40,000 to Update of City's Bicycle Master Plan and Execute All Necessary Documents to Implement the Project. Public Works} 4-H. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and to Execute All Necessary Documents for Implement the Project. Public Works} 4-I. Adoption of Resolution Opposing the California Department of Food and Agriculture Aerial Spray Program to Eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth and Supporting Legislation to Place Restrictions on the Program. City Manager} 4-J. Final passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 3-53 ~Claims7 to Division VIII Refunds and Corrections} to Chapter III Finance and Taxation to Establish Uniform Requirements and Procedures Applicable to the Presentation and Processing of Claims for Money or Damages with the City of Alameda That Are Not Currently Covered by State Law or Other Provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code. City Attorney} 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A. Adoption of Resolutions Appointing Lola W. Brown and Gina M. Mariam as Members of the Recreation and Park Commission. 5-B. Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to adopt the Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Community Development Black Grant ~CDBG} Action Plan and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute related documents, agreements, and modifications. Development Services} 5-~C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's approval of a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development Amendment for reduced parking, and a tentative map for the construction of ten new office buildings located at 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway within the Harbor Bay Business Park in the Commercial Manufacturing and Planned Development zoning District ~C-M-PD}; and adoption of related resolution. Planning and Building? 5-D. Recommendation to review Charter Amendments for the November 2008 Ballot. City Attorney 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Public Comment} Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda 7. COUNCIL REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Cauncilmember may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item 8. COUNCIL CQMMUNICATIONS Communications from Council? Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting an any Conferences or meetings attended 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 747-4800 or TDD number 522-7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter. • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available far public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747-4$00 or TDD number 522-7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting. • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available. • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print. • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request. • Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting. _ • , -:nom -s~ -~ •s I-~o~]l~ln -_ . ~u~h~ri f o the ~ ~ o .~ ameba 7Q1 A#ianti~ Avenue -Alameda, Cali~~rnia X4501-2~5~ - TAI: ~5~0~ 147-43x0 -Fax: X510}522-7'88 - Tbb; ~5~0) 522-8457 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: Debra Kurita Chief Executive Officer Date: April 15, 2005 RE: Amendment of Bud et for Fiscal Year 2008 and Ado Lion of Bud et for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 BACKGROUND The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development THUD} requires public housing authorities to submit a budget to their Boards of Commissioners 90 days before the beginning of their fiscal year. The Housing Commission had the opportunity to review the proposed budget at its regular meeting on March 19, 2005. On April 2, 2008, the Housing Authority Section S Administrative fees to S6 retroactively to January 1, 2008. This ~FY2008} and the first half of FY2009. received notice that HUD would be pro-rating percent of program budget needs effective affects the second half of the current year DISCUSSION The recent HUD announcement that Section S Administrative Fees would be reduced to 86 percent makes it necessary to reduce expenses in the current fiscal year and to adjust the budget accordingly. Because there is very little time left in this fiscal year, staff recommends transferring from Housing Authority-Owned operating reserves an amount adequate to cover expenses this fiscal year. The anticipated amount needed is $150,000. Substantial expense reductions in the Section S Voucher budget fund are being recommended to cover this 14 percent reduction in HUD funding since the Housing Commission reviewed the proposed FY2009 and FY2010 budget. The Housing Authority's budget for housing program activities is consolidated into six funds. Exhibit A is the proposed budget for the next two fiscal years, July 1, 2008, to June 3D, 2009 ~FY2009~ and July 1, 2009, to June 3D, 2010 ~FY2010}. The comparison pages show both years next to the current fiscal year The proposed FY2DD9 budget totals $26,317,049, a 2.4 percent decrease from the current fiscal year. For FY201 D, the proposed budget totals $27,256,407, a 3.5 percent increase over FY2009. This modest increase is an assumption of the rate of inflation anticipated for most expenses. HABO~ Item #2-ACC 04-15-DS Honorable Chair and Members April 15, 2008 of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 8 OPERATING INCOME: Operating income is derived from a variety of sources, including: o Housing Assistance Payments for the Section 8 Program, an operating subsidy and federal grant funding Capital Fund Program} for Esperanza. o Rental income from residents and commercial tenants. o Interest income. o ether income, including a contribution from the Community Improvement Commission for Independence Plaza; management fees from the Filipino- American Community Services Agency ~FACSA} for managing two apartment complexes; land trust rents for the Regent Street and Santa Clara Avenue properties, and miscellaneous income from late fees, maintenance charges, and laundry commissions. The following chart demonstrates that the Housing Authority's major funding source is from the federal government at 85 percent. Just aver 12 percent comes from rents, 2 percent from the CIC, and 1 percent from other income sources and interest. INCOME CIC Rents 2% 12% ether 1 °/o Revenues are down from FY2008 primarily due to HUD changing its method of appropriating funds in calendar 2008. The Authority anticipates receiving $18,776,340, compared to the $19,528,524 budgeted last year, in Housing Assistance Payments that are offset by payments to Alameda's property owners. Federal Funds 85°/0 The Housing Authority also will receive $1,420,096 in fees to administer the Housing Choice Voucher program. This includes the 14 percent cut in administrative fees for the first half of the fiscal year. Reductions in expenses are primarily focused on the Administrative Salaries line item, which will result in reducing or eliminating part-time, temporary staffing for special projects. Part-time staff members have been assisting in the issuance of vouchers with the goal of reaching a 100 percent voucher allocation utilization rate. Increasing the Authority's utilization rate is critical to keep adequate funding far Housing Assistance Payments. Administrative fee funding levels for the second half of the fiscal year will not be known until HUD's funding bill is passed by Congress and signed by the President, which could occur after the November elections. These funds cover the costs to administer the program ~i.e., salaries and benefits for employees, office supplies, postage, etc.}. In prior years, the fees were based upon the Honorable Chair and Members April 15, 2008 of the Board of Commissioners Page 3 of 8 Housing Authority's total allocation of 1575 vouchers; the fees are now based on the number of Section 8 vouchers [eased with the pro-rating adjustment. The operating subsidy for Esperanza of $304,116 is formula based. The Capital Fund grant is budgeted at $215,100 approximately the same amount being received this fiscal year. This grant funding helps to cover some of the shortfall in operating costs at Esperanza. Federal funding is not adequate to meet Esperanza's increasing operating cost and modernization needs. overall, rental income is expected to increase slightly. Interest income is expected to decrease in FY2o09 due to the current lower interest rates environment. ether miscellaneous sources of income are expected to increase slightly in most funds. EXPENDITURES: The largest expenditure is for housing assistance payments to property owners participating in the Housing Choice Voucher ~HCV} program. These payments subsidize the rents paid by their tenants that have vouchers. This publiclprivate partnership works to house about 1,675 families in Alameda and contributes more than $18 million into the local economy every year. Due to a variety of factors, including lower payment standards and less than full voucher utilization, the Housing Authority has a substantial reserve for this program. In FY2009, HUD is requiring the. Housing Authority to use $2,185,392 of this reserve in the first half of the fiscal year. The balance of these reserves is expected to be $2,514,000 on December 31, 2008. of this amount, $1,233,000 ~?% of estimated annual expenditures} is to be retained as reserves; the balance approximately $1,341,000} may be required to be used in the second half of the fiscal year or may be recaptured. These reserves are restricted and may be used only for housing assistance payments; they may not be used to cover the amount lost from the pro-rated Administrative Fees.. operating Expenses make up 25 percent of the total Operating budget. This is the portion EXPENSES Expenses that enables the Authorit Y 25% to provide ongoing main- tenance and administer its managed housing and Housin Choice Voucher g Mortgage 1Reserves programs. No Capital EMPs~% Expenses are proposed in o~/o the budget for FY2009 or FY2010. ~ l2% Mortgage interest payments make up 3 percent of the budget. The Parrot Village and Eagle Village bonds are expected to save over $35,000 in 2009 due to the current low interest rate environment. As previously mentioned, the vast majority, ?2 percent, of the Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners April 15, 2008 Page 4 of 8 budget is used to pay Housing Assistance Payments to Alameda's landlords who participate in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. OPERATING BUDGET: Operating expenses are broken down into five broad categories. These include: 1. Administrative Ex enses: Salaries, legal expenses, and sundry are included in this category. The schedule of Authorized Positions is shown on page 6 of the proposed budget. The cost of employee benefits has risen due primarily to the cost of health insurance. The reduction in Administrative Fee income affects the ability to hire part-time help when needed to increase the number of vouchers issues and ultimately, the voucher utilization rate. Legal expenses are expected to remain unchanged next year. The sundry line item includes office supplies and equipment ~e.g., computers, printers}, travel and training, audit fees, telephone expenses, publications, and administrative contract costs. The Housing Authority has replaced nearly all of its computer equipment over the last few years with equipment that is capable of running modern programs. As such, only a few computers or printers may need to be replaced on an as-needed basis over the next two fiscal years. Contract costs, such as, maintenance contracts on office equipment, contracts for services with the City Manager's office, information Technology and Human Resources Departments, temporary labor, software maintenance are also included in this line item. Travel and training includes attendance at National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials NAHRO} conferences as well as other training. The following shows the out-of state training loco#ions and the number of persons proposed to attend: Summer NAHRO Conference Nashville, TN (FY2009)/ Portland, OR (FY2010) National NAHRO Conference San Antonio, TX ~FY2009} Washington, D.C. FY2010} NAHRO Legislative Conference and Hsg. & Dev. Law Institute Annual Conference Washington, D.C. tFY2009 and FY2010} Affordable Housing Assn. of CPAs Las Vegas, Nevada (FY2009) Location to be Determined (FY2010) One Commissioner and one staff One Commissioner and one staff One Staff ~ n e Staff One Staff Housing Finance Workshop One Staff Labor Standards & Section 3 Workshop One Staff Locations to be determined ~FY2009 and FY2010} Honorable Chair and Members April 15, 2008 of the Board of Commissioners Page 5 of 8 Construction Specialist Institute Conference One Staff Las Vegas, Nevada (FY2008) Locations to be Determined (FY2009 and FY2010) Generally, many of these training sessions are held in Las Vegas or Reno, Nevada, because of lower facilities cast. Occasionally, these sessions are held in California. Staff also recommends approving travel in June of the current fiscal year to the Construction Specialist Institute Conference 2. Tenant Services: The salaries for program staff, resident managers, resident custodians, the Esperanza Youth Program and other tenant-related activities are included in this category. No salary increases are anticipated. This budget proposes continuing the Esperanza Youth Program at a modest level. The Boys and Girls Club generally is able to supplement this budget with grant funding. This program provides a valuable service for children and youth at Esperanza. Other activities include the Gutreach Program to Property Owners and Town Hall meetings. 3. Utilities: The amounts budgeted for utilities are based on actual utilities expenditures in the current fiscal year and anticipated changes. Electricity rates are budgeted to increase a modest 3 percent while gas rates are budgeted to increase by nearly 2 percent. 4. Maintenance: Maintenance expenditures include salaries for maintenance employees, maintenance materials and contract costs. The projected cost for maintenance materials is based on actual expenditures this year. The cost for maintenance contracts follows historic cast for each property. Turnover cost at Esperanza have been high so the budget has been increased to reflect current turnover patterns and associated cost. 5. General: This line item includes the cost of the community-policing program; property, liability, and workers' compensation insurance; employee benefits; and collection losses. Property insurance costs are expected to stay even with workers' compensation cost coming dawn due to changes in California state workers' compensation laws. Mart a e1HAP: This category includes mortgage interest payments for the various complexes and Housing Assistance Payments. The Housing Authority's mortgage interest payment costs are expected to decrease by more than $35,000 this fiscal year due to expected lower rates on the Parrot Village and Eagle Village refinancing bonds issued in 2005 under HA-Gwned properties. The Section S HAP expense of $18,776,340, which is the most significant expenditure, is offset by HAP income from HUD. Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners EMP's and CIP's April 15, 2008 Page6of8 Several Extraordinary Maintenance Projects EMPs} and Capital Improvement Projects CIPs}are proposed for the next two fiscal years. CIPs are distinguished from EMPs by the fact that they enhance the value of the property. EMPs include repairs, painting and seal coating parking lots. CIPs include more substantial projects, such as replacing roofs or building a new parking lot. In FY2009, the budget plans to continue with the kitchen cabinet and countertop replacement project on the 2~d floor of Anne B. Diament Plaza x$160,000 . At China } Clipper Plaza, a new project to demolish the cabana is proposed far FY2009 x$5,000}. All other projects were originally approved for the current fiscal year and then proposed for inclusion in the FY2009 budget. These carry-over projects include improving the drainage system x$80,000} and replacing the roll-up garage door x$5,000} at Anne B. Diament Plaza, improving the drainage and seal coating the parking lot at China Clipper Plaza x$28,500}, replacing windows at Stanford House x$5,400} and LincolnlWillow x$8,000} as well as the decorative roof shingles x$3,500} at LincolnlUlrillow. Finally, replacing sewer piping at Rosefield Village x$17,000} and the Independence Plaza parking lot project x$190,000} are proposed to be carried over. In FY2010, repainting all exterior buildings and fences at Parrot Village is proposed x$125,000}. Replacement walkway poles, lights and electrical upgrades are proposed for Rosefield Village x$17,500}. At Rosefield Village, the house at 746 Eagle needs a new central heating system x$10,000}and crawl space drainage for one of the duplexes x$25,000} is proposed. At Anne B. Diament Plaza, this budget proposes replacing the siding with fiber cement siding x$150,000}, which should substantially lower maintenance costs, and replacing the entryway and pole lights x$6,500}. Painting the perimeter fence at Independence Plaza is proposed for FY2010 x$65,000} and continuing to replacing shingle siding with fiber cement siding x$75,000}. This budget proposes dollar amounts by fund for EMPs and CIPs. Within each fund ~e.g., Esperanza, HA-awned} are individual projects. fiver the last five or six years, the Board of Commissioners has approved the concept of fungibility within each fund. In other words, the actual cost for each project may be higher or lower than the amount budgeted as long as the total for the fund is not exceeded without revising the budget. No project can be eliminated through this process and substantive changes would require Board approval. This budget proposes extending this concept to the CIPs as well. PiL~T The amount designated for the Payment In Lieu of Taxes ~PIL~T} in the Annual Contributions Contract for Esperanza is 10 percent of rent collected, less utilities and collection losses. The estimated amount for FY2009 is $47,467, of which approximately $12,721 would ga to the City of Alameda. For FY2010, PILOT is estimated to be $48,89'1, of which approximately $13,103 would go to the City of Alameda. The balance in each year would be distributed among local taxing agencies according to the same Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners formula as property taxes. April 15, 2008 Page l of 8 The City Council has the authority to waive PILOT. The savings estimated to be $96,945 for the upcoming two fiscal years would allow the Housing Authority to continue its contract with the City of Alameda Police Department for services. The amount budgeted for these services for FY2009 is $210,000. The Housing Authority also pays the direct and indirect costs for other services provided by the City, such as services provided by the City Manager's Office, City Attorney's Office, Human Resources, and Information Technology Departments. The Board of Commissioners has traditionally approved recommending that the City Council waive PILOT. Based on current practice, the budget proposes that the Board of Commissioners recommend to the City Council to waive PILOT for FY2009 and FY2010. DEVELOPMENT FUND The Development Fund is not included on the detail pages of the attached budget. There is only a small balance in this fund. The only income to the fund will be interest. The budget proposes using $36,944 fior development planning and administrative activities in FY2009. No other activity is anticipated and, therefore, no other expenses are expected or budgeted. FISCAL IMPACT If approved, the budget for FY2009 will total $26,317,049 in overall expenditures with revenues of $21,025,941 leaving $708,592, before depreciation the paper expense}. From this amount, principal payments of mortgages and contributions to replacement reserves are made, which appear on the Balance Sheet, as well as the cost of Capital Improvement Projects. The end result is an overall surplus of $43,911. Shortfalls in the Esperanza public housing program will be offset against operating reserves of $81,141 and a transfer in from the Housing Authority's general fund reserves. All other properties and programs are budgeted for surpluses. For FY2010, the budget will include $21,256,407 in overall expenditures with revenues of $27,846,963 leaving $590,555, before depreciation. After principal payments of mortgages and contributions to replacement reserves and Capital Improvement Projects, the end result is expected to be a surplus of $34,887. Because of the uncertainty about federal funding, it is likely that these numbers will need to be revised before the start of this second fiscal year. HUD requires the Board of Commissioners to adopt a resolution to approve the budget for Esperanza Conventional Low-Rent Housing Program, Project No. CA062}. Copies of the proposed resolutions for FY2009 and FY2010 are attached as Exhibits B and C. Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners RECOMMENDATION April 15, 2008 Page8of8 The Housing Commission and Chief Executive officer recommend the Board of Commissioners: 1, Approve a revised FY2008 budget to allow for the transfer of Hausing Authority- owned operating reserves of $150,000 to the Section 8 Program fund and approve additional conference travel for FY2008; 2. Adopt the proposed budget, including the Extraordinary Maintenance Projects and Capital Improvements line items, for fiscal years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010; 3. Adopt the proposed resolutions for both budget years for the Conventional Low-Rent Housing Program No. CA062 ~Esperanza}; and 4. Recommend to the City Council to waive the Payment in Lieu of Taxes for both fiscal years. Respectfully sub ' e , Michael T. Pucci Executive Director MTP:AJ~ Attachments: A. Budget B. Resolution (HUD-52574) for FY2009 C. Resolution (HUD-52574) for FY2010 Exhibi# A HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008 - 2009 AND FISCAL YEAR 2009 - 2010 FY2009 AND FY2010 BUDGET TABLE OF CONTENTS Description of Budget Funds ........................................................... ~ Budget Comparison Spreadsheets ~FY2008 vs. FY2009 and FY2010} TOTAL ~F ALL FUNDS ...........................................................2 general Fund ............................................................................3 Esperanza ... . ............................................................................ 3 Parrot Village and Eagle Village ...............................................4 Housing Authority~~wned .........................................................4 Independence Plaza ................................................................. 5 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher ..........................................5 Schedule of Authorized Positions ....................................................6 Schedule of Extraordinary Maintenance and Capital Improvement Projects ~FY20g9} ..........................................1 Schedule of Extraordinary Maintenance and Capital Improvement Projects ~FY2g~0} ..........................................8 Budget -~ Page ~ DESCRIPTION OF BUDGET FUNDS General Fund This fund is for operations not otherwise chargeable to other funds, including expenses related to legal services and housing development services. It also includes income and expenses related to the FACSA-owned properties located on Sherman Street and Lincoln Avenue and management of the Housing Assistance Payments contracts for Playa del Alameda and the Shelter Plus Care Program. Esperanza This fund is for the operations of the Esperanza complex, a conventional public housing complex, Parrot Village and This fund is far the operations of Parrot Village and Eagle Eagle Village Village, owned by the Housing Authority, where the majority of residents have Housing Choice Vouchers. This fund is maintained separately for the benefit of the mortgage holder. Housing Authority- This fund includes complexes where the residents are Gwned Housing Choice Voucher holders, including Anne B. Diament Plaza, Rosefield Village, and Parrot Gardens. It also includes the operations of the condominiums, the LincolnlVllillow complex, Stanford House, China Clipper Plaza, where some residents may have Vouchers, and any expenses related to land ownership of the Regent Street and Santa Clara properties. Independence Plaza This fund is for the operations of Independence Plaza. This fund receives tax increment funds under the Affordable Housing Agreement between the Authority and the Community Improvement Commission, which makes 128 of the 186 units available for very-low and low-income seniors. Housing Choice Voucher This fund is for the operations of the Housing Choice Program Voucher Section 8} and Moderate Rehabilitation Programs. Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Budget -Page 2 Operating Budget For the Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2070 Total All Programs Approved Prapased Proposed Budget Line Items 2005 2009 2010 OPERATING INCOME: HAPIOperating Subsidy 22,591,561 22,093,688 22,766,742 Rents 3,161,376 3,120,000 3,213,600 Administrative Fees 1,353,108 1,431,392 1,474,334 Interest 90,089 77,589 79,917 Other Income 292,746 303,272 312,370 TOTAL INCOME 27,488,880 27,025,941 27,846,963 OPERATING EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATIVE: Total Admin. Salaries 1,659,059 1,789,055 1,542,727 Legal 42,312 42,312 43,581 Sundr 432,095 431,362 444,303 TOTAL 2,133,469 2,262,729 2,330,611 TENANT SERVICES Salaries 61,440 67,505 69,530 Tenant Activities 34,500 36,200 37,256 TOTAL 95,940 103,705 106,816 UTILITIES: Water & Sewer 298,660 307,609 316,838 Electricity 120,794 124,417 128,150 Gas 62,151 63,394 65,296 TOTAL 481,605 495,421 510,283 MAINTENANCE; Salaries 868,540 898,209 925,155 Materials 192,979 192,979 195,768 Contract Costs 1,118,575 1,251,365 1,288,906 TOTAL 2,180,094 2,342,553 2,412,829 GENERAL: Police Services 210,000 210,000 210,000 Insurance 137,176 133,139 137,133 Claims Account 0 0 0 Employee Benefits 826,294 582,526 909,001 Collection Losses 28,433 28,433 29,286 TOTAL 1,201,903 1,254,098 1,285,421 TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES 6,093,011 6,458,505 6,645,961 MORTGAGEIHAP HAP 19,715,424 15,965,940 19,534,918 Mortgage Interest 847,968 800,260 798,477 TOTAL 20,566,392 19,766,200 20,333,395 OTHER EXPENSES: Extraordinary Maint. 305,348 55,400 239,000 Pre-developmentlAdmin costs 0 36,944 38,052 TOTAL 305,348 92,344 277,052 TOTAL EXPENSES 26,964,751 26,317,049 27,256,407 O eratin Income before De r. 524,132 708,892 590,555 reciation (uaoer expense 796,794 1 796,796 1 520.698 Operating Income after Depr. ~ X272,662} ~ (87,904} ~ X230,143} Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Budget -Page 3 Operating Budget For the Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2010 General Fund Esperanza Approved Proposed Proposed Approved Proposed Proposed Budget Line Items 2008 2009 2010 2008 2009 2010 OPERATING INCOME: HAPIOperating Subsidy 189,600 189,600 195,288 185,040 304,716 313,557 Rents 0 0 D 594,960 595,200 613,056 Administrative Fees 11,296 11,296 11,635 0 0 0 Interest 25,000 12,500 12,875 3,317 3,317 3,417 Other Income 8,016 8,016 5,256 237,382 245,508 255,963 TOTAL INCOME 233,912 221,412 228,054 1,023,699 1,151,741 x,186,293 OPERATING EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATIVE: TOtal Adrnin. Salaries 11,296 11,560 1.1,907 173,385 195,685 201,555 Legal 0 0 0 6,365 6,365 6,556 Sundr 0 0 0 55,129 54,152 55,776 TOTAL 11,296 11,560 11,907 234,$79 256,201 263,887 TENANT SERVICES Salaries 0 0 0 15,399 19,431 20,014 Tenant Activities 0 0 0 34,100 35,800 36,874 TQTAL 0 0 0 52,499 55,231 56,588 UTILITIES: water & Sewer 0 0 0 88,870 91,536 94,282 Electricity 0 0 0 13,430 13,833 14,248 Gas 0 0 0 3,000 3,060 3,152 TOTAL o 0 0 105,300 105,429 111,682 MAINTENANCE; Salaries 0 0 0 200,069 265,954 273,933 Materials 0 0 0 39,037 39,037 40,208 Contract Costs 0 0 0 273,748 366,845 377,850 TOTAL 0 0 0 512,854 671,836 691,991 GENERAL: Police Services 0 0 0 82,740 82,740 52,740 Insurance 1,603 1,078 1,111. 18,616 16,361 16,852 Claims Account 0 0 0 0 0 0 Employee Benefits 3,605 3,605 3,713 125,060 156,589 161,286 Collection Losses 0 0 0 12,103 12,103 12,466 TQTAL 5,208 4,683 4,824 238,519 267,793 273,344 TQTAL OPER. EXPENSES 16,504 16,243 16,731 1,144,051 1,359,490 1,397,792 MORTGAGEIHAP HAP 189,600 189,600 195,258 0 0 0 Mortgage Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1.89,600 189,600 195,288 0 0 0 OTHER EXPENSES: Extraordinary Maint. 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 Pre-developmentlAdmin costs 0 36,944 38,052 0 0 0 TOTAL 1,000 36,944 38,052 0 0 0 TQTAL EXPENSES 207,104 242,787 250,070 1,144,051 1,359,490 1,397,792 O eratin Income before De r. 26,808 21,375 22,016 120,352 207,749 211,499 De reciation a er ex ease 15,934 18,936 19,502 205,055 205,055 211,207 Operating Income after Depr. 7,874 (40,311} (41,518} (325,407) (412,804} (422,706} Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Budget -Page 4 Operating Budget For the Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2010 Parrot & Eagle Village HA Owned Bud et Line Items Approved 2008 Proposed 2009 Proposed 2010 Approved 2008 Proposed 2009 Proposed 2010 OPERATING INCOME: HAPIOperating Subsidy 1,064,796 1,149,072 1,183,544 993,588 1,004,412 1,034,544 Rents 572,208 512,016 527,376 752,916 749,184 771,660 Administrative Fees 0 0 0 0 0 0 Interest 330 330 340 60,000 60,000 61,800 Other Income 12,000 12,000 12,360 8,076 7,476 7,700 TOTAL INCOME 1,649,334 1,673,418 1,723,621 1,514,580 1,821,072 1,875,704 OPERATING EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATIVE: Total Admin. Salaries 141,007 1.69,551 174,637 212,641 240,306 247,515 Legal 4,080 4,080 4,202 13,153 13,153 13,548 Sundr 55,383 53,030 54,621 112,395 115,279 118,737 TOTAL 200,470 226,661 233,460 338,189 368,738 379,800 TENANT SERVICES Salaries 2,470 5,074 5,227 20,165 21,368 22,009 Tenant Activities 104 100 103 100 100 103 TOTAL 2,570 5,174 5,330 20,265 21,468 22,112 UTILITIES: Water & Sewer 71,595 73,743 75,955 78,744 81,106 83,540 Electricity 14,708 15,149 15,603 42,468 43,742 45,054 Gas 5,200 5,304 5,463 33,843 34,520 35,556 TOTAL 91,503 94,196 97,022 155,055 159,368 164,149 MAINTENANCE: Salaries 195,363 207,817 214,051 228,205 200,583 206,600 Materials 47,800 47,500 49,234 58,107 58,107 59,550 Contract Costs 260,098 282,274 290,742 302,297 335,682 345,753 TOTAL 503,261 537,890 554,027 588,609 594,372 612,203 GENERAL: Police Services 43,470 43,470 43,470 30,450 30,450 30,450 Insurance 45,925 38,861 40,027 19,863 16,553 17,049 Claims Account 0 0 0 0 0 0 Employee Benefits 108,141 124,485 128,220 147,132 150,465 154,979 Collection Losses 13,600 13,600 14,008 2,730 2,730 2,812 TOTAL 211,136 220,416 225,725 200,175 200,198 205,290 TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES 1,008,940 1,084,337 1,115,564 1,302,293 1,344,144 1,383,555 MORTGAGEIHAP HAP 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mortgage Interest 305,660 271,660 279,810 46,238 46,238 47,625 TOTAL 308,660 271,660 279,810 46,238 46,238 47,625 OTHER EXPENSES: Extraordinary Maint. 0 0 125,000 124,600 55,400 49,000 Pre-developmentlAdmin costs 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 125,000 124,600 55,400 49,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,317,600 1,355,997 1,520,373 1,473,131 1,445,782 1,480,180 O eratin Income before De r. 331,734 317,421 203,247 341.,449 375,290 395,524 De reciation a er ex ense 169,656 169,656 174,746 101,$98 101,898 104,955 Operating Income after Depr. 162,078 147,765 28,502 239,551 273,392 290,569 Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Budget -Page 5 Operating Budget For the Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 2009 and June 30, 2010 Independence Plaza Section $ Voucher Approved Proposed Proposed Approved Proposed Prapased Budget Line Items 2008 20D9 2010 2005 2009 2010 OPERATING INCOME: HAPIOperating Subsidy 626,713 669,548 699,878 19,52$,824 18,776,340 19,339,630 Rents 1,241,292 1,263,600 1,301,508 0 0 0 Administrative Fees 0 0 0 1,341,812 1,420,096 1,462,699 Interest 1,442 1,442 1,485 0 0 0 Other Income 19,752 19,752 20,345 7,520 7,520 7,746 TOTAL INCOME 1,889,199 1,954,342 2,023,216 20,878,156 20,203,956 20,810,075 OPERATING EXPENSES: ADMINISTRATIVE: Total Admin. Salaries 219,529 244,217 251,543 900,901 927,737 955,569 Legal 7,684 7,684 7,915 11,030 11,030 11,361 Sundr 67,160 66,393 68,385 142,031 142,508 146,784 TOTAL 294,673 315,294 327,843 1,053,962 1,081,275 1,113,714 TENANT SERVICES Salaries 20,406 21,632 22,281 0 0 0 Tenant Activities 100 100 103 100 100 103 TOTAL 20,506 21,732 22,354 100 100 103 UTILITIES: Water & Sewer 59,101 60,874 62,700 350 350 361 Electricity 42,648 43,927 45,245 7,540 7,766 7,999 Gas 19,635 20,028 20,629 473 482 496 TOTAL 121,384 124,529 128,574 8,363 8,59$ 8,856 MAINTENANCE; Salaries 242,730 223,555 230,571 2,173 0 4 Materials 43,775 43,775 45,088 4,260 4,260 4,385 Contract Costs 273,541 255,128 262,782 5,891 11,436 11,779 TOTAL 560,046 522,755 538,441 15,324 15,696 16,167 GENERAL: Police Services 24,570 24,570 24,570 28,770 28,770 28,770 Insurance 48,305 55,376 57,037 2,864 4,910 5,057 Claims Account 0 0 0 0 0 0 Employee Benefits 154,139 159,399 164,181 288,217 287,983 296,622 Collection Losses 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 227,014 239,345 245,788 319,550 321,663 330,450 TOTAL OPER. EXPENSES 1,223,623 1,226,958 1,263,030 1,397,599 1,427,332 1,469,289 MORTGAGEIHAP HAP 0 0 0 19,525,824 18,776,340 19,339,630 Mortgage Interest 493,070 452,362 471,042 0 0 0 TOTAL 493,070 4$2,362 471,042 19,525,824 18,776,340 19,339,630 OTHER EXPENSES: Extraordinary Maint. 179,748 0 65,000 0 0 0 Pre-developmentlAdmin casts 0 0 0 D 0 0 TOTAL 179,745 0 65,000 0 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,596,441 1,709,320 1,799,072 20,926,423 20,203,672 20,808,919 0 eratin Income before De r. 7,242 245,022 224,144 48,267 284 1,155 De reciation a er ex ense 301,103 301,103 310,136 148 148 152 Operating Income after Depr. (308,345} (56,081} (55,992} (45,415) 136 1,003 Budget Page 6 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS -- FY2009 and FY2010 Proposed Approved FY2009 and FY2010 ADMINISTRATION Executive Director Operations Manager Executive Assistant FINANCE DIVISION Finance Manager Accounting Officer Senior Account Clerk Account Clerk HOUSING ASSISTANCE DIVISION Housing Assistance Manager Housing Specialist III Housing Specialist II Housing Specialist I Intermediate Clerk HOUSING MANAGEMENT DIVISION Managed Housing Manager Housing Manager Intermediate Clerk Resident Manager Assistant Resident Manager Resident Custodian MAINTENANCE AND FACILITIES DIVISION Maintenance and Facilities Manager Reconstruction Specialist II Office Assistant Senior Clerk Maintenance Team Leader Maintenance Worker II Maintenance Worker I Laborer Custodian TOTAL ADMINISTRATION TOTAL HOUSING SERVICES TOTAL MAINTENANCE AND FACILITIES 1,0 1,0 1.0 Sub-total 3,0 3.0 1,0 1.0 1,0 1.0 Sub-tota I 4.0 4.0 1,a 1.0 3.0 4.0 l.0 Sub-total 16.0 16.0 1.0 2.0 1,0 3.0 0,5 ~~ 1.2 ** Sub-total S.7 8.l 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,0 1.0 4,0 2.0 1,0 1.0 Sub-total 13.0 13.0 7,0 7.0 24.1 24.1 13.0 13.0 TOTAL 44.T 44.1 * Two positions are currently being held vacant. ** Resident employees are required to reside on-site at assigned Housing Authority comple. Each employee has an individual employment contract. 4/x/2445 Budget Page 7 PROPSED SCHEDULE OF EMP AND CIP PROJECTS JULY 1, 2008 -JUNE 30, 2009 (FY2009) APPROVED Proposed Proposed EMP &CIP EMP CIP FY2008 FYZ009 FY2009 HgUSING AUTHGRITY GENERAL FUND PR~P~SED TGTAL* $ 1,000 $ - ESPERANZA Replace approximately half of the exterior ESP4-07 light fixtures - PROPGSED TGTAL $ 100,000 $ - EAGLEVILLAGE AND .PARROT VILLAGE PR4PGSED TGTAL* $ 490,200 $ - HGUSING AUTHORITY-41NNED. ABD1-Ol Install drainage system rear of building $ 80,000 ABD6-08 Replace garage door ....... ........................................... 5,000 ................................................................... - ..................................................................... Replace kitchen cabinetstcountertops, repaint and change flooring as needed - 2nd floor ABD1-09 units „ ,,,,, ........................................................ 160,000 .......",,.,............,,....,..,.,......,,,.,.,.,..,.....,,,,,... Cutlpatch and seal coat deteriorated asphalt paving in parking lot and improve drainage by CC4-OS rear unit 28,500 CC1-09 Demolish cabana 5,000 LVIl2-OS Replace windows , ... 8,000 ................................... , ............ ....... ... .....,,, ,....... .,., ,,, . ,,, LW3-OS Replace decorative roof shingles ....,,.... 3,500" .......................................................... . . .,,,,,,,., , , , ,, ,, .. . .. . . ...... ........... .. ,,, RV2-OS Repairlreplace sewer pipe . . . . . . .. 1,000 SH3-08 Replace remaining windows 5,400 PROPOSED TGTAL* $ 599,700 $ 55,40D $ 251,000 INDEPENDENCE PLAZA IP1-07 Build new parking area for 20 cars 190,000 PROPGSED TGTAL* $ 369,148 $ 190,000 PROPGSED GRAND TGTAL $ 1,560,648 $ 55,400 $ 441,0DD Changes to totals or eliminatiion of projects require approval by the Board of Commissioners. Minor changes may be made within each fund for individual projects without requiring a budget revision. Budget Page 8 PROPSED SCHEDULE OF EMP AND CIP PROJECTS JULY 1, 2009 -JUNE 30, 2010 (FY2010) Proposed Proposed Proposed EMP & CiP EMP CIP FY2009 FY2D10 FY2010 HQUSINGAUTHQRITYGENERAL FUND PRQP~SED GF TQTAL* $ . $ $ _ ESPERANZA PRQPOSED ESP T4TAL* $ $ $ _ EAGLE VILLAGE AND PARRQT VILLAGE PV1-10 Repaint exterior of all buildings and fences $ 125,DD0 PR4PQSED EV1PV TQTAL* $ 125,000 $ HQUSING AUTHQRITY~O'WNED - ABD1-1D Replace entryway and pole lights ...........................................w,,,,,,...................,.......................................,..................................................,...................,........,,.,...... ......~,,,,........,,.,,,.,.........,,,,,~~.~..~,,,,,~,,,,..,,,.,..,,...................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,.,,~,,,,,,,,. .,..... . $ 6,500 ABD2-,10 Replace siding with fiber cement siding ...... ............................ .......... .....................................u,,.,...........,,,.......,,.,,,,,,,.. ,,,,w.....................................,,,,...,,,,,,,,,,,,.......,.. ... . .,,,......,,,..,...,,,,,,,.....,,....,..... ...,,,,......,.,,,,,,.,,,,,,,...,,..................,.,,,.,,,,,,,,, ............, ,,,........,....,............,.,......,,,,,~...,~,,,,,.,,,., ,......,,,,.,, ,,,..................,....,............,, .....,.,,,,,,.,.... 150 000 ~ Replace pole walkway} iightslupgrade ,,,,,,,.,, ...,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,.................. ,,,,,.,.... ......,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,...,,....,.,. ,,,,,.,,,.,,,.....,,, RV1-10 electrical 1 1, 500 ,RV2-1,0 Replace central heat system at 146 .Eagle 1 D,DOD RV3-1D Add crawl space drainage to duplex 25,DDD PROPQSED HAQ TQTAL* $ 312,400 $ 49,400 $ 160,000 INDEPENDENCE PLAZA l,P3~D8 Repaint perimeter fence . . . ..... ........................... .. .. $ 65 DOD Continue siding replacement with f fiber . ... ... ........... ........................................................ .......... .......................................................... IP1-10 cement siding l5,DD0 PRQPOSED IP TOTAL* $ 190,000 $ 65,000 $ 15,000 PRQPQSED GRAND TaTAL $ 502,400 $ 239,000 $ 235,000 Changes to totals or eliminatiion of projects require approval by the Board of Commissioners. Minor changes may be made within each fund for individual projects without requiring a budget revision. Exhibit B PHA Board Resolution U.S. Department of Housing OMB No. 2517-Qa26 Approving Operating Budget and Urban Development (exp. ~013t12a09~ Office of Public and Indian Housing - Real Estate Assessment Center (P!H-REAC) Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1D minutes per response, including the time far reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information, This agency may not collect this information, and you are not required [o complete this form, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, This information is required by 5ectian 6(c)(4y of the U.S. Housing Ac[ of 1937. The information is the operating budget for the iaw-income public hauling program and provides a summary of [he propasedjbudgeted receipts and expenditures, approval of budgeted receipts and expenditures, and justification of certain specified amounts. HUD reviews the information to determine if the operating plan adopted by the public housing agency (PHA) and the amounts are reasonable, and that the PHA is in compliance with procedures prescribed by IUD. Responses are required to obtain benefits. This information does not lend itself to confidentiality, PHA Name: Housin Authorit of the Cit of Alameda PHA Code; CA-062 PHA Fiscal Year Beginning: July 1, 2008 Board Resolution Number: Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the above-named PHA as its Chairperson, I make the following certif cations and agreement to the Department of Housing and Urban Development THUD} regarding the Board's approval of check one or more as applicable}: DATE Q Operating Budget approved by Board resolution on: ^ Operating Budget submitted to HUD, if applicable, on: ^ Operating Budget revision approved by Board resolution on: ^ Operating Budget revision submitted to HUD, if applicable, on: l certify on behalf of the above-named PHA that: 1. All statutory and regulatory requirements have been met; o~i~~lzoa8 Z. The PHA has sufficient operating reserves to meet the working capital needs of its developments; 3. Proposed budget expenditure are necessary in the efficient and economical operation of the housing for the purpose of serving law-income residents; 4. The budget indicates a source of funds adequate to cover all proposed expenditures; S, The PHA will comply with the wage rate requirement under 24 CFR 968.1 10~c} and ~~; and 6. The PHA will comply with the requirements for access to records and audits under 24 CFR 968.1 IO~i}, I hereby certify that all the information stated within, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, if applicable, is true and accurate. V~arning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal andlor civil penalties. ~1$ U.S.C. 1001, 10Io,1012.31, U.S.C. 3729 and 3802) print Board Cl~airperson's Name: Signature: Date: Previous editions are obsolete farm HUD-5Z~74 (081200) ExhibitC PHA Board Resolution U.S. Department of Housing OMB No, 2517-026 Approving operating Budget and Urban Development exp. ~~13t12ppgy Office of Public and Indian Housing - Reai Estate Assessment Center {PIH-REACy Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 10 minutes per response, including the time tar reviewing inslructians, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information, This agency may not collect this information, and you are not required to complete this form, unless it displays a currently valid QMB control number. This information is required by Section 6(c)(~~ of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, The information is the operating budget for the iow-income public housing program and provides a summary of the proposedlbudgeted receipts and expenditures, approval of budgeted receipts and expenditures, and justiticatian of certain specified amounts. HUD reviews the information to determine if the operating plan adapted by the public housing agency (PHA) and the amounts are reasonable, and that the PHA is in compliance with procedures prescribed by HUD, Responses are required to obtain benerlts. this information does not lend itself to confdentiality. PHA Narne; Housin Authorit of the Cit of Alameda PHA Code: CA-062 PHA Fiscal Year Beginning: July_~, 2009 Board Resolution Number: Acting on behalf of the Boa~~d of Commissionez~s of the above-named PHA as its Chairperson, I make the following certifications and agreement to the Department of Housing and Urban Development THUD} regarding the Board's approval of check one or more as applicable}: DATE Q Operating Budget approved by Board resolution on: ^ Operating Budget submitted to HUD, if applicable, on: d Operating Budget revision approved by Board resolution on: ^ Operating Budget revision submitted to HUD, if applicable, on: 041 ~ 512008 I certify on behalf of the above-named PHA that: 1, All statutory and regulatory requirements have been met; 2, The PHA has sufficient operating reserves to meet the working capital needs of its developments; 3. Proposed budget expenditure are necessary in the efficient and economical operation of the housing for the purpose of serving low-income residents; 4, The budget indicates a source of funds adequate to cover all p~~oposed expenditures; 5. The PHA will comply with the wage rate requirement under 24 CFR 968.11 O~c} and (f}; and 6. The PHA will comply with the requirements for access to records and audits under 24 CFR 968.110~i}. I hereby certify that all the information stated within, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, if applicable, is true and accurate. V~arning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal andlor civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, Ix12.31, U.S.C. 3729 and 3802} Print Board Chairperson's Name: Signatu~•e: Date: Previous editions are obsolete form HUD-5274 (0812005 ~~~ •a- I-~ou~1n ~ . ~.u~~~ri f t~.~ i t ofd ~ ~r~da ~n1 Atlanti~Avenue -Alameda, California ~4~q~-21fi~ -Tel: X510} 747-43~~ w Fax: ~6~0~5~2y7844 - TDD: {61~~ 5~2-8467 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: Debra Kurita Chief Executive Officer Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Awarding Contracts for Kitchen and Bath Cabinet Replacement and Roof Replacement at Anne B. Diament Plaza, and Amending the FY 08 Budget BACKGROUND This year's Extraordinary Maintenance Project (EMP) budget includes the following two projects at Anne B. Diament Plaza: The replacement of kitchen and bath cabinets in at least 10 (ten) units on the third floor and the complete removal and replacement of the roof. DISCUSSION On January 31, 2008, the Housing Authority issued an Invitation for Bids ~IFB} for the replacement of kitchen and bath cabinets and countertops at Anne B. Diament Plaza. A public notice was placed in the Alameda Journal and on the Housing Authority's website. In addition, all companies that have requested placement on the Housing Authority's list of potential contractors for this type of work and all Alameda contractors with a relevant business license were contacted about the IFB. Cabinet Replacement On February 28, 2008 bids were publicly opened and the results are as follows: Contractor Unit Cost F.K. Construction $5,808.50 Ba Cities Construction $7,000.00 U.S Home Center $8,280.00 B. Bras. Construction $5,960.00 Universal Buildin S stems $13,905.00 Grand Industries $15,433.00 F.K. Construction is from Antioch, CA and has worked with the Housing Authority on a previous project and the work was completed satisfactorily and within budget. They have provided the Housing Authority with all necessary insurance documentation and proof of a City of Alameda Business license. Bonding requirements will be met prior to commencement of work. HABOC Item #2-B CC 04-15-08 Honorable Chair and April 15, 2008 Members of the Board of Commissioners Page 2 of 3 On February 13, 2008, the Housing Authority issued an Invitation for Bids ~IFB} for the removal and replacement of the existing roofing at Anne B. Diament Plaza. A public notice was placed in the Alameda Journal and on the Housing Authority's website. In addition, all companies that have requested placement on the Housing Authority's list of potential contractors for roofing and all Alameda contractors with a relevant business license were contacted about the IFB. Roof Replacement On February 2l, 2008 the bids were publicly opened and the results are as follows: Contractor Bid Amount MNJ Roofin Inc. $98,500.00 Central Bay Roofing $~ ~ 3,254.00 1MR Contractor Group $220,000.00 . The Housing Authority has worked with MNJ on previous roofing projects. The contractor has a good record of completing projects on time and within budget. They have provided proof to the Housing Authority that they can provide the necessary insurance documentation and City business license. Bonding requirements will be met prior to commencement of work. Copies of both contracts are on file in the City Clerk's Office and in the Housing Authority's public reference binder. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCiAL IMPACT The budget provides $160,000 for kitchen and bath cabinet replacement, including contingencies. Because of the very favorable bid results, the Housing Authority is able to scheduled 23 units for renovations instead of the originally projected 10 units. The budget provides $80,000 for roof replacement, including contingencies. An additional $30,000 of funding will be needed to execute the contract with MNJ for roof replacement. The additional funds will be a Capitalized Expenditure. Honorable Chair and April 15, 2008 Members of the Board of Commissioners Page 3 of 3 REC4MMENDATIaN The Housing Commission and Chief Executive officer recommend the Board of Commissioners: 1. Award a contract to F.K. Construction for an amount not to exceed $146,955 to replace kitchen and bath cabinets and countertops in 23 units at Anne B. Diament Plaza; 2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract with F.K. Construction; 3. Award a contract to MNJ Roofing Incorporated for an amount not to exceed $110,000 to replace the roof covering at Anne B. Diament Plaza; 4. Increase the FY 08 EMP Budget by $30,000 for the roofing contract and to 5. Authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract with MNJ Roofing, INC Respectfully subm' d, .. Michael T. Pucci Executive Director MTP:RH:KA ~"^ ~ r :.4 t • ..~ ~~~ I~~uin ~~ ~ ~,: ~ut~~ri f ~ the 1 ~ ~~~ ~a m~d~ 7n1 AtfantiGAvanue -Aiame~a, California ~45U~-218 -Tel: {51U} 74T-430a - Faac: {5~0}522-784 - TDD: {5~a~ 522-847 To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Board of Commissioners From: Debra Kurita Chief Executive Officer Date: April 15, 2005 Re: Awarding a Contract for the Replacement of seven Garbage Enclosures at Esperanza BACKGROUND This year's Extraordinary Maintenance Project (EMP) budget includes the replacement of garbage enclosures at Esperanza. This project is funded through the Community Development Block Grant program. DISCUSSION On February 21, 2008, the Housing Authority issued an Invitation for Bids ~IFB} for the replacement of garbage enclosures at Esperanza. A public notice was placed in the Alameda Journal and on the Housing Authority's website. In addition, all companies that have requested placement on the Housing Authority's list of potential contractors for this type of work and all Alameda contractors with a relevant business license were contacted about the IFB. On March 26, 2008, bids were publicly opened and the results are as follows: Contractor Unit Cost US Home Center $14,126.86 B Bros Construction $32,300.00 US Home Center is an Oakland firm which has bid on prior Housing Authority projects. All references were checked with no negative responses. They will be utilizing the Section 3 Requirements as set forth by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and will provide the Housing Authority with all necessary insurance documentation and proof of a City of Alameda Business license. Bonding requirements will be met prior to commencement of work. Copies of the contract are on fife in the City Clerk's office and in the Housing Authority's Public Reference binder. HABOC Item #2-C CC 04-15-08 Honorable Chair and April 15, 2005 Members of the Housing Commission Page 2 of 2 BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT The budget provides $10D,ODD for garbage enclosure replacement which will be funded by the Community Development Block Grant program. The Housing Authority will replace seven garbage enclosures based on the bid results. RECOMMENDATION The Chief Executive Officer recommends the Board of Commissioners: 1. Award a contract to US Home Center for an amount not to exceed $100,000 to replace garbage enclosures at Esperanza; and 2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract with US Home Center. Respectfully s mi , Michael T. ucci Executive Director By: Keivan Abidi Reconstruction Specialist II CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Debra Kurita Executive Director Date: April 15, 2005 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,SD0,000 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, CIG staff and Overaa finalized the value-engineering for the garage design, reducing the contract price to within the CIC's budget. The original contract price of $9,04,000 was reduced by $604,000, resulting in a final con#ract price of $$,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, 6,1 DO square feet of retail, and a 34~ - space parking garage. Additionally, on December 4, 2001, 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 $50,000 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 report for each project is outlined below. CCICIC Agenda Item #2-A 04.15.08 Honorable Chair and April 15, 2008 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 4 Alameda Theater Overaa's contract for the Alameda Theater has achieved completion for almost the entire Theater with the exception of installation of exterior doors in the auditorium and lobby. This item will be complete by the end of April and will not affect the construction of AEA's tenant improvements, which are currently underway, including installation of the movie screen, speakers, and concession plumbing fixtures. 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 March 18, 2008, CIC meeting, the CIC received six bids for abating and waterproofing the exterior eastern elevation of the Theater. The lowest bid was from Doherty Painting of San Francisco for $62,160. CIC staff will use 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 $1,092,000 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 is complete and received the final Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Department in early April. Current and potential contract changes are estimated to require the use of approximately $391,000 in contingency funds, or approximately 94 percent of the CIC's contingency budget. CIC staff recommends allocating the $24,000 in remaining garage contingency funds for waterproofing of the eastern elevation of the Alameda Theater Attachment 4}. The total contingency budget forthe garage is $415,000 Attachment 2}. The proposed facade treatment options for the northern elevation of the parking structure, intended to improve the current facade, will be presented to the CIC in May 2008. Komorous-Towey Architects ~KTA}, the CIC's architect for this work, is currently developing visual schemes that wi[1 convey the intent of each option; evaluating the pros and cons of each option; and preparing a preliminary cost estimate for each. Based on feedback provided by the ClC at the May meeting, one option will be evaluated in greater depth and a more detailed budget prepared. Cine lex Theater Equipment, Construction and Service, Inc. ~TECS}, the contractor for the cineplex, continued with the application of exterior stucco, exterior glass installation, and interior framing. Additionally, the elevator and escalator contractor for the tine lex p Honorable Chair and April 15, 2008 Members ofthe Community Improvement Commission Pa e 3 of 4 g arrived on site in mid-March and is completing its installation work. The openin date for .. g the entire Alameda Theater complex is anticipated for late May 2008. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT 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 tine lex p 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 81.0 - Renovatelrestore Alameda Theater. Alameda Downtown Vision Plan 2000 -Action F4 -Consider building a parkin g structure as part of a Downtown parking management program. RECOMMENDATION This report is the final report for this project and is for information only, No action is required. Res Leslie A. Little Developme t S rvices Director Dorene E. Soto an ger, Business Devel 1 ~ ~1~ By: J n n if~f- Ott R development Manager DK/LAUDES/JO:rv pment Division Honorable Chair and April 15, 2008 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 4 Attachments: 1. Monthly Progress Status Report for the Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and Restoration 2. Monthly Progress Status Report for Civic Center Parking Garage 3. Alameda Theater Project Schedule Update 4. Sources and Uses of Funds for vlJaterproofing of East Elevation of Alameda Theater Monthly Progress Status Report Alameda Theater Rehabilitation and Restoration City of Alameda April 75, 2008 C/C Meeting Original Contract Amount $8,8pp,ppp Previous Changes $193,653 Executed Change Orders Subtotal Executed Changes $p Pending Change Orders Cost Estimates Budget for Retail Tenant Improvement Allowances $130,OOD Construction $8,8DD,ODO Men's Room Water Heater $1,500 Contingency 1 106 040 Concession Area Utilities $5,000 Total Contract Budget $9,906,040 Revisions to Hall $3,500 Roofing Downspout $4,906 Dimmable Ballasts far J Fixtures $2,822 Additional Misc. Items $60,800 Fence at Alleyway $5,000 Acoustical Panel Cleaning $1,000 Replicate Door Pull and Push Bar $fi,000 Additional Core Holes for Electric Boxes $1,348 Additional Aisle Light $440 Revised Vault Lid $1,052 Additional Door Top Pivots $3,027 Additional Door Hinges $6,466 ;, ,.x ~ ~,, ~. ~~;~~ ~;~~~, ~ ~ ~~,;4 ~~;:~. a ,,~~„~ ~~ ont Doors ~~ Re lace Fr la $6,849 Revised Door Hardware $3,500 Sound Proof Door Frames $20,000 Delete Balcony Gates ~$3,OOD~ Previously Paid $9,221,121 Auditorium Handrail Rework $21,000 Payment this Period 219 230 Additional Floor Prepara#ion $9,636 Total Payment To Date $9,446,951 Spandrel Glass Rework 8 aoa Subtotal Pending Change Orders $298,84fi Total Changes $1,D92,499 Estimated Revised Contract Amount $9,892,499 Remaining Contingency $~ 3,541 Bas d-.A'm nt,' ~8.8D4'U e; Bi ~ ou ~ $. 0~ Amount Paid to Date: ~94;4fi,95~ ~: n# .Cost,Ex ended= i Pence p nc.Cas, :`: 95°l0: 0 V ExecutedlPendin :::Chan e::arders $~~~~,92 499;: _ .Project, host:;` $9;892,499 ~ercen~.Contingency.Expended: ` 99°/~ it)?"'a Milestone Baseline Forecast A roved Notice to Proceed 11110120D6 11110/2006 1111 D120Dfi Final Com letion for Tenant Im rovement Areas 11/1312007 1111312DD1 11113/2001 Final Com letion for Qther TI Areas ~ 2/17/2007 12/11/2007 1211712DD7 Final Com letion for Remainin Areas 1/1412008 212912008 Work Carnplefed This Period: Completed Gas Service installation and Mechanical Equipment Testing Work Pro'ecfs Nexf Period: Com late Exterior Door Installation ~ CC~CIC Attachment 'I to Agenda Item #2-A 04-'I 5-08 Monthly Progress Status Report Civic Center Parking Garage City of Alameda April 75, 2008 CIC Meeting Original ContractAmount Value Engineering ~Credit~ Construction $8,499,88 Revised Contrac# Amount Contingency 415 DO Previous Changes Total Contract Budget $8,914,88 Executed Change Orders _ Additional Paving on Oak Street ~ Paint Bollards Fence for Sweeper Enclosure Add'I Granite Tile Subtotal Executed Changes Pending Change Orders Cost Estimates Generator until Permanent Power Add'I Fencing Trash Cans & Planters Add'I Site Work Previously Paid $S,fi3D,45 Add'I.Signage Payment this Period 51 57 Add'I Paint Mock-Ups Total Payment To Date $8,682,02 Subtotal Pending Change Orders To#al Changes Estimated Revised Contact Amount Remaining Contingency ~. Base Bid A~oun#: , . . 9,,~`~4~044 A~mour~tPa~'d ~a:Date~~ : $8,fi82,Q ~. ~~6 Percent Cost Ex ended Inc. . a Cos ~ ; : ~.. - 9$%a ~ Value-Engineering: ~$6.44,1:~-~~ ~ Prer-iouslPendin Chan a ~~der g $394,653 Pro'ect Cost: $SS~~~,542 I?ercent Contingency Expended : ~ 94°/~ Milestone Baseline Substantial Com letion 12/15/2007 Final Completion 1/29/2008 Forecast 2181 D8 311412DD8 $9,104,000 x$604,111) $8,499,889 $349, 882 $5,614 $1,785 $2,337 3 730 $6, 067 $2,D92 $8,000 X5,000 $11,377 $7,236 1 000 $34,7D5 $390,653 $8,890,542 $24,347 ~ roved 2/8/2008 Work Comp~efed This Period: Completed Granite Tile Installation at Base of Columns Work Projects Nexf Period: Receive Final Certificate of Occupancy from Building Department CCICIC Attachment 2 to Agenda Item #Z-A 44.15-08 Q L~ Z V V ~O L a L f+ s H ca c~ Q Attachment ~ to Agenda Item #2-A D4.15-D8 Sources and Uses of Funds for Waterproofing of East Elevation Alameda Theater Restoration and Rehabilitation item Amount SOURCES 4F FUNDS Remaining Garage Contingency $24,347 Interest Income from HUD Section 108 Loan $45,500 Interest Income from Cineplex Escrow Account 12 000 TQTAL SQURCES $81,847 USES OF FUNDS Waterproofing Contract 62 000 TOTAL USES $62,000 NET BALANCE $19,847 CCIClC Attachment 4 to Agenda Item #~-A ~4-'I 5-D8 UNAPPROVED MINUTES of THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC} AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~HABOC} MEETING TUESDAY - - -- MARCH 1$, 2008 - - - 7:25 P.M. Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Commissioner Torrey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioner/Board Members deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Board Member Torrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 6. Absent: None. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (OS- } Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure Project. The Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation. Chair Johnson inquired whether there is money in the contingency for the parking structure facade. The Redevelopment Manager responded $50,000 has been allocated from next year's CIC budget. Chair Johnson inquired whether the elevator timeframe is uncertain. The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the contractor's workload increased; the Cineplex developer will need to do additional work after the contractor's work is complete; State inspections cannot be done until everything is complete. Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the status of the escalator. The Redevelopment Manager responded the escalator has been installed but still needs some work. Commissioner Tam inquired whether parking structure usage has increased. The Redevelopment Manager responded somewhat; stated staff is working with the Park Street Business Association to increase awareness. Special Joint Meeting 1 Community Improvement Commission and Housing Authority Board o~ Commissioners March 18, 2008 Commissioner Matarrese stated that the Central Avenue parallel parking looks good. Commissioner deHaan stated the theater needs to open to maximize use of the parking structure; inquired when the street will reopen. The Redevelopment Manager responded when construction is completed. MINUTES X08- }Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on February 6, 2008. Approved. Commissioner Tam moved approval of the minutes. Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEM X08- } 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. The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation. Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation. Commissioner/Board Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Z Community Improvement Commission and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners March 18, 2008 The materials for this item will be provided under separate cover. Re: Joint CCICIC Item 3-B 04-~5-08 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the Community improvement Commission From: Debra Kurita Executive Director Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Approve the First Amendment to the Contract with City Design Collective in the Amount of $6,500 to Include Watercolor Illustrations in the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District BACKGROUND On January 15, 2008, the Community Improvement Commission ~CIC} approved a contract with City Design Collective CDC} in the amount of $74,925 for the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to: • Identify the type of development in the Study Area that will be marketable, support economic development, enhance the urban environment, and receive community support; • Recommend strategies for redeveloping the Study Area, including a broad land use vision and urban design and streetscape principles that could be used as a basis for a future zoning overlay, General Plan Amendment, andlor design standards for the area; and • Outline major steps and priority actions necessary to achieve the recommended strategies. DISCUSSION The City and CDC held a Public Visioning Charrette on March 15, 2008, which was attended by over 45 people. CDC will use the comments solicited during the charrette to help define common ground for the Strategic Plan. CDC then organized athree-day, local "design studio" in which CDC provided information on the initial urban design concepts, land use concepts, streetscape designs, and revitalization strategies. The community was encouraged to visit the studio and give critiques of the design team efforts. The design studio was held at City Hall, Conference Room 360, from vvednesday, March 26 through Friday, March 29, during regular business hours. The City and CDC will convene a Community Open House on Thursday, April 17, 6:00 8:00 p.m., at City Hall, Conference Room 360, where community members will review the urban design concepts and provide additional feedback to shape the final vision. CCICIC Agenda Item #3-C 04.15-48 Honorable Chair and Aril 15, 2008 p Members of the Community Improvement Commission Pa e 2 of 3 g Watercolor illustrations of the different options will help explain and enhance the draft concepts and strategies. The illustrations will be presented to the public during the Open House and be included in the final Strategic Plan to be presented to the CIC for approval. Attached is a work sample from the illustrator, Robert Becker, which he did far the City of Rio Vista. The contract amendment is on file in the City Clerk's Office. BUDGET CONSIDERATlON1FINANCIAL IMPACT The CIC approved CDC's contract for $14,925. Sufficient funds in Fiscal Year 01108 from the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project tax increment have been allocated for this project. The additional task for watercolor illustrations at a cost of $6,500 will be paid from the Community Planning Fee Fund. MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Strategy #2 in the Economic Development Strategic Plan ~EDSP} seeks to increase the availability and quality of retail goods and services in Alameda. The Updated EDSP, approved by the City Council last January, specifies the creation of a Strategic Plan for the commercial district on Park Street north of Lincoln. RECOMMENDATION Approve the first amendment to the contract with City Design Collective in the amount of $6,500 to include watercolor illustrations in the North of Lincoln Strate is Plan for the g Park Street Business District. Respectful! ub 't d, f Le A. Little Developme ,t Services Director u By; Dorene E. Soto Manager, Business Development Division Honorable Chair and Members of the Community Improvement Commission ~v By; Eric Fonstein Economic Development Coordinator DKILALIDESIEF:dc CONCUR: J Cathy vV ury Director, tanning and Building Department April 15, 2048 Page 3 of 3 Attachment; A. Sample work product ~1'rocCamation WifER~,4S, w~c~R~,as, W}E~R~,45, historic preservation is an effective tool for revitalizing neighborhoods, fostering local pride, and maintaining community character; and we highlight the role of history in our Iives by preserving the tangible aspects of our architectural heritage; and the City of Alameda is architecturally and historically robust with over 10,000 buildings constructed prior to 1940; and tiU#~~R~~IS, this 1e a will be roudl celebrated with slide shows g eY p Y tours, awards, and a bridal extravaganza at the Meyers House; and tiV~~~~~lS, two of the scheduled events are the 11 t~ Annual Kids and Queen Victoria exhibit at the Alameda Museum and the 11~" Annual Historic Preservation Awards presented by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; and u1~{~~~~45, most munici alines deli Hate Ma as the Historic p g Y Preservation month, here ~ in Alameda we choose to expand the month into Historic Preserva~.on Season; and ~~f ~R~~S, the Historic Preservation Season for 2005 is cos onsored b p Y the City of Alameda, the Historical Advisory Board, the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, the Alameda Museum, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. NOW, 7~f~R~~OR~, ~~ IT R~SOLVf~, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim April through June 2008, as ifISrORIC ~R.£S~RV,4170N S~,4SON in the City of Alameda and call upon the residents of Alameda to join their fellow ciBzens across the United States in recognizing and partxdpating in this special observance. City Council Beverly J. Johnson Agenda Item #3-A Mayor 0415-OS proclamation 1N~f ~~Z~,4$, in 197D, the Environmental Protection Agenc ~EPA~ was created with the Y mission to protect the environment and public health; and in this same year, 24 million people in the United States celebrated the first Earth Day; and 1N~f ~fi~~~4S, the idea for Earth Day arose at the grassroots level and evolved into a national day of awareness and education focused on environmental concerns; and w~~R~~s, Earth Day will be observed by other communities throw bout the g world, providing an opportunity for governments to work together with business, industry, environmental groups, community organizations, and citizens for a prosperous and sustainable future; and w~~R~~4S, Earth Day will reach beyond existing environmental constituencies to involve the broadest possible cross-section of society; and u1~f ~R~~IS, Earth Day is an excellent opportunity for all Alameda residents to join the effort to protect the planet by becoming conscious of the challenges facing the environment locally, nationally, and globally; and U1~f ~R~~~4S, Alamedans take great pride in their ability to reduce reenhouse ases, g g divert recyclables away from the landfill, ensure that nothing but rainwater drains into the storm drains, and support efforts for a clean and safe environment in which to raise their children; and 1~U}f ~R~~4S, the Public Works Department, Recreation & Park Departrnent, Alameda Power & Telecom, Alameda County Industries, and East Bay Regional Parks are jointly sponsoring Earth Day festivities on April 19, 2008, at Washington Park. New, ~~12~~~12~ L3~ Ir IZ~S~L~l7, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, do hereby proclaim Apri119 as ~~112~`f ~~lY ~,4L-,4M~~~t 2008 and invite all Alameda residents, businesses, civic groups, government agencies, and other organizations to participate in local and regional celebratory and educational activities. .' ~~ City Council B J. Joli~nson Agenda Item #3-B Mayor 0415-08 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -APRIL 1, 2008- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:48 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese 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 X05- } Proclamation declaring March 30 through April 5, 2008 as Boys and Girls Club Week. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Executive Director George Phillips; Board President Burney Matthews; Program Director Mark Morales; and 2005 Youth of the Year Damara Caldwell. Mr. Matthews stated this year is the Boys and Girls Club 58th Anniversary in Alameda; the new building will be at the farmer Woodstock School site; the new facility will be approximately 24,000 square feet; the $10 million capital funding campaign is half way complete; thanked Council and the community for all of the support. Mayor Johnson stated that she is confident the project will move forward quickly. SOS- } Presentation by the School Board President on overview of Alameda Unified School District budget issues. Bill Schaff, School Board President, gave a brief overview. Luz Cazares, Chief Financial Officer, gave a Power Point presentation. Mr. Schaff requested that Council endorse the proposed parcel tax at the next Council meeting. Mayor Johnson stated that a lot of the budget problems are due to the State diverting local government money to other levels of Regular Meeta.ng Alameda City Council 1 April 1, 2008 government; every year students and teachers go back to school wondering which programs will be cut; she hopes that the School District has strong support for the proposed measure in June. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council would be voting on the matter at the nest Council meeting. The City Manager responded Council would be voting on the matter at the first Council meeting in May. Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the resolution would be to support and endorse Measure H, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative . Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the May Council Meeting date was okay with Mr. Schaff, to which Mr. Schaff responded in the affirmative. X08-- } Presentation by the Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the Director of the Light Brown Apple Moth Program on the Apple Moth. A.G. Kawamura, Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture, gave a brief presentation. Dr. Bob Dowell, Director of the Light Brown Apple Moth Program submitted handout}, gave a Power Point presentation. Opponents Not in favor of aerial spraying to eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth}: Carolina Rogers, Alameda; Stuart Dodgshon, Alameda; Chloe Ashley, Alameda; T'Hud Weber, Alameda, submitted petition}; Simi Sikka, Fremont; Stanley Schiffman, Alameda; Jane Kelley, Berkeley; Tom Kelley, Berkeley; Bernard Clark, Alameda; Helen Kozoriz, stopthespray.org; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; Mary Jane Pryor, Alameda; Victoria Ashley, Alameda; Jim Hoffman, Alameda; Rebecca Hall-Crosby, Alameda; Irma Marin-Nolan, Alameda; Cathy Kordetzky; Daria Schwarzschild, Alameda; Maria Morales, E1 Sobrante; Frank Egger; Constance Barker, Environmental Health Network of California; Lynn Elliott-Harding, Oakland. Council requested that the matter be placed on a future Council agenda for action. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous Regular Meeting Alameda City Council ~ April 1, 2~Q8 voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ~*08- } Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting of March 5, 2008; the Special City Council Meeting held on March 10, 2008; the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board; Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission; and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 18, 2008. Approved. *OS- } Ratified bills in the amount of $1,631,590.32. ~*08- } Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 3-53 Claims} to Division VIII Refunds and Corrections} to Chapter III Finance and Taxation} to Establish Uniform Requirements and Procedures Applicable to the Presentation and Processing of Claims for Money or Damages with the City of Alameda That Are Not Currently Covered by State Law or Other Provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code. Introduced. ~*08- } Ordinance No. 2975, "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." Finally passed. ~*08- } Ordinance No. 2979, "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." Finally passed. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS X08- } Resolution No. 14191, "Appointing Cecilia Cervantes as a Member of the Public Art Commission." Adopted; and X08- A} Resolution No. 14192, "Appointing Andrea M. Leal as a Member of the Public Art Commission." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate to Ms. Leal. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 April 1, 2008 X08- } Recommendation to discuss and finalise the City Council's priorities for Fiscal Year 2447-2008. Jan Perkins, Management Partners, gave a Power Point presentation and facilitated discussion. Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed finances. *~* X07-019} Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ~*~ Council provided direction regarding the priorities. The Management Partners report on the workshop is hereto attached and made part of the minutes by reference. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA ~O8- } Wu Lu, Human Rights Torch Relay; Michelle Midliff, Human Rights Torch Relay; and Connie Wang, Falun Gong, submitted handout? discussed the Human Rights Torch Relay and human right violations in China. X08- } Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed economics. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS X08- } Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Recreation and Park Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Lola W. Brown and Gina M. Mariani. X08- } Mayor Johnson stated that the City received the California Redevelopment Association award for the Bridgeside redevelopment project. X08- } Councilmember deHaan congratulated Mayor Johnson on appointment to the Water Emergency Transportation Authority; stated Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 Aril 1, 2008 the appointment is good for Alameda. ADJQURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 12:05 a.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 5 April 1, 2008 The Management Partners Report will be attached to the minutes once received. April 1 D, 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 against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers Amount 208370 - 208752 $2,9fi3,975.46 EFT 512 $52,856.40 EFT 513 $27,224.23 EFT 514 $125,000.00 EFT 515 $24,017.63 EFT 516 $11,244.50 EFT 517 $50,000.00 EFT 518 $234,717.00 EFT 519 $26,079.57 EFT 520 $43, 057.64 EFT 521 $4,784.18 Void Checks: 132635 ($14.00) 141150 ($15.00) 143544 ($14.00) 145270 ($16.00) 145794 ($16.00) 148352 ($393.47) 149089 ($15.00) 156002 ($12,77 160973 ($26.00) 161050 ($1,840.00) 200787 ($699.75) 200811 ($748.40) 201007 ($29.00) 207586 ($120.00) 208045 ($750.00) 208123 _ ($538.31) GRAND TOTAL $3,557,709.01 Respectfully submitted, VGA Pamela J. Sibley BILLS #4-B Council Warrants 04/15/08 4/15/2008 CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Accept the Bayport Phase 2 Public Backbone Infrastructure, Haile Sewer Pump Lift Station and Sewer Pump Lift Station No. 6 Improvements, and Au#horize the City Clerk to Record a Notice of Completion forthe Improvements BACKGROUND In 2000, Catellus Development Corporation was selected as the Master Developer for the BayportlAlameda Landing mixed-use development project at the former East HousinglFleet industrial Supply Center ~FISC} site. Pursuant to the Disposition and Development Agreement ~DDA}, Development Agreement, Joint Implementation Agreement, and Construction Reimbursement Agreement between Catellus, the City, and the Community Improvement Commission ~C1C} for the Bayport Project, Catellus Construction Company ~"CCC"} serves as the General Contractor for the CIC and is subject to a Project Labor Agreement. The scope of work fvr the Bayport Phase 2 Backbone Infrastructure included construction of the following: 1. The Haile Sewer Pump Lift Station is located at the eastern end of Haile Street at Stargell Avenue formerly Tinker Avenue}, in Block D of the Bayport housing development. The lift station was required to correct a o.6-foot grade difference at the existing sewer line connection point. The project included the construction of a ten-foot deep manhole-type structure, directional drilling, pipe connections, new pump, and site work. ~. Sanitary Sewer Lift Station No. 6 is located at the western end of Stargell Avenue just northeast of the Main Street intersection. The project included retrofitting the existing lift station and adding new pumps and piping to connect to existing utilities, thereby adding greater capacity to the existing line. The project also included the construction of a new concrete slab to support auxiliary equipment, which includes a new generator, transformer, and access driveway. Both projects were competitively bid based on plans and specifications approved by the Public vllorks Department. Construction documents were completed and approved on City Cour~C~l Agenda Item #4.C Q415-o8 Honorable Mayor and April 15, 2001 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 August 18, 2005. The Haile Sewer Pump Lift Station was bid in November 2005. Giacalone Construction was selected as the lowest qualified bidder. Construction started on January 3, 2001, and was completed on December 1, 2001. Lift Station No. 5 was also bid in November 2006, and McGuire and Hester Construction was selected as the lowest qualified bidder. Construction started December 2006 and was completed on February 5, 2008. DISCUSSIGN All work related to the Haile Sewer Pump Lift Station and Lift Station No. 6 improvements was performed in accordance with the approved Master Plan, Site-wide Landscape Improvement Plans, Site Management and Air Monitoring Plan, Demolition Plan, Traffic Management Plan, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Marsh Crust Grdinance, and AP&T plans and specifications. Harris and Associates, City Engineer for the Bayport project, issued a certificate of final completion for both improvement projects on March 13, 2008. The work is also acceptable to the Public Works Department. A copy of the certification documentation is on file in the City C[erk's office. BUDGET C~NSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT Haile Sewer Pump Lift Station Improvements: Following completion of project design, it was determined that an alternate design and small lift station ~Hai[e Sewer Pump Lift Station} was required. BKF Engineers, Bayport project engineer, designed, constructed and paid for the re-designed project. This obligation was memorialized in the Tinker I Haile Sewer Memorandum of Understanding ~MGU}. The MGU also required BKF to contribute $25,000 to a sinking fund to pay for long-term maintenance of the pump station. These maintenance funds have been deposited into an interest bearing account with the City's Finance Department. N~ CIC, City, or project revenues were used to construct these improvements. Sewer Pump Lift Station No. 6 Improvements: The cost for the Lift Station No. 5 Improvement project is included in the Bayport project budget approved by the CIC and City Council in April 2045, and was funded with CIC project revenues generated from the Bayport project. MUNICIPAL CODEIP4LICY DaCUME,N~„GSS RE„FERENCE Plans and specifications were prepared and implemented in accordance with the Alameda Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental impact Report HEIR} was prepared for the Bayport project and certified in 2000. No additional CEQA review is required. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council REC4MMENDATIaN April 15, 200?' Page3of3 Accept the Bayport Phase ~ Public Backbone Infrastructure, Haile Sewer Pump Lift Station and Sewer Pump Lift Station No. 6 Improvements, and authorize the City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion for the Improvements. Resp ctf Ily s ~ fitted, t ;~ Leslie A. Little Development Services Director By: D fie Po e Base Reuse & Community Development Manager DKILALIDP:sb CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids for Cyclic Sewer Replacement, Phase 5, No. P.IIV.10-46-22 BACKGROUND The City of Alameda's Capital Improvement Program ~CIP} includes an annual cyclic sewer repair program to replace sewer mains based on closed circuit television inspection and repeated maintenance call-outs to respond to sanitary sewer overflows. The principal goal of the program is to improve the health and safety of the residents of Alameda by rehabilitating the sanitary sewer collection system infrastructure, eliminating overflows, and reducing the amount of infiltration and inflow into the sewer system. DISCUSSION The proposed project consists of rehabilitating approximately 15,500 linear feet of sanitary sewer pipeline, 11,000 linear feet of service laterals, 46 manholes, and all associated work at the following locations: • Central Avenue (south sidewalk area -McKay Avenue to Webster Street) • Taylor Avenue (Page Street to Eighth Street) • Pacific Avenue (Willow Street to Park Street) • Oak Street (Alameda Avenue to Powell Street) • Park Avenue (Santa Clara Avenue to Otis Drive) • Pearl Street (Fernside Boulevard to Central Avenue) • College Avenue (Encinal Avenue to Calhoun Street) A copy of the plans and specifications are on file in the City Clerk's office. BUDGET CONSIDERATI~NIFINANCIAL IMPACT The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program Project No. 95-02}, with monies allocated from the Sewer Enterprise Fund. City Council Agenda Item #4-D Q4-'I 5-~8 Honorable Mayor and April 15, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 MUNICIPAL C~DEIP~LICY DOCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA~, this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 ~c~, Existing Facilities. RECGMMENDATIQN Adopt plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids for cyclic sewer replacement, phase 5, No, P.V1~.10-46-22. Respectfully submitted, .~ Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director \~ By: Wa ' ~aziri Associate Civil Engineer MTN:Vwll:gc CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To; Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: David Brandt Assistant City Manager Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Find the Project Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Adopt Plans and Specifications, and Authorize a Call for Bids for Fernside Boulevard Bicycle Path and Street Improvements, Otis Drive to North of San Jose Avenue No. P.W, 03-08-10 BACKGROUND The Public Works Department ~PVVD~, in cooperation with the Alameda Unified School District ~AUSD~, is developing a Safe Routes to School ~SR2S~ program throughout Alameda. The objective of the City's SR2S program is to enhance travel ways for students walking and bicycling to school and to encourage alternative transportation modes. As a pilot program, PWD has been working with AUSD to improve access to Lincoln Middle School. On July 3, 2001, the City Council accepted the first phase of work from Encinal Avenue to Washington Street. PWD staff was successful in securing a state Bicycle Transportation Agency grant for the second phase of work, which continues the improvements to Otis Drive. The principal goal in this phase of the work is to improve bikeways along the school side of Fernside Boulevard, in particular, access to the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge. PWD held a public meeting on November 1, 2007, to provide information on the proposed project, identify concerns, and elicit public input. Subsequent to that meeting, staff met with representatives from AUSD and Bike Alameda to discuss the alignment of the recreational and commuter bicycle routes. Staff also met with interested members of the public to discuss preservation of trees within the project boundaries. In addition, the proposed design was put on the City's website as an alternate way of providing information and eliciting public input. The design incorporates many of the comments received at the meeting and through this public input process. DISCUSSION The proposed work, as shown on Attachment 1, includes: 1. The widening of the existing off-street bicycle path on the east side of Fernside Boulevard from the Aeolian Yacht Club driveway to the recently completed Fernside Boulevard Pedestrian Access Improvements. The improved pathway width will be ten feet. City Council Agenda Item #4-E o4'i 5.08 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 15, 200$ Page 2 of 3 2. The construction of a new landscaped median, including irrigation, to separate vehicle traffic from recreational bicyclists. Gne travel lane will be removed to accommodate the ten-foot Class i I commuter bicycle lane. 3. Relocation of the existing on-street drop-off parking along the east side between Washington Street and Lincoln School 15 feet to the west. The drop-off zone will not be reduced. 4. Relocation of the existing median between Washington Court and San Jose Avenue seven feet to the west. Staff has included two Add Alternates that would provide for enhanced landscaping should the bid results come in lower than the engineer's cost estimate. The first Add Alternate would modify the existing center traffic lanes north of San Jose Avenue by replacing portions of the stamped concrete with landscaping. The second Add Alternate would add groundcover along the west side of Fernside Boulevard from San Jose Avenue to Calhoun Street. A copy of the plans and specifications are on file in the City Clerk's office. BUDGET CQNSIDERATIQNIFINANCIALlMPACT The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program Project No. 06-56}, with monies allocated from the State Bicycle Transportation Account fund and Measure B funds. MUNICIPAL GGDEIPQLICY DQCUMENT GRASS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Based on the traffic impact analysis, staff has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore, is categorically exempt from CEQA under Sections 15301 ~c} -Existing Facilities and 15304~h} -Minor Alterations to Land as follows: • Section 15301 ~c} exempts the operation, maintenance or minor alteration of existing highways and streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities that involves negligible ar no expansion of an existing use. The project will not directly expand existing uses. Although the project will modify the merge lane on Fernside Boulevard, the traffic analysis concluded that the merge length is sufficient for existing and cumulative traffic volumes and an adequate queuing distance is provided. In addition, although the proposed project will eliminate the northbound right turn lane at Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 15, 2008 Page 3 of 3 vashington Court, the traffic analysis determined that an acceptable level of service LOS} is achieved for both existing and cumulative traffic volumes without the right turn lane. • Section 153o4~h} exempts the creation of bicycle lanes on existing rights-of- way. The proposed project also provides for both afive-foot wide on-street bicycle lane and aten-foot wide off-street bicycle pathway, including signage at Washington Court and the Aeolian Yacht Club driveway to clearly identify the presence of both facilities and advise motorists of the presence of bicyclists. The operations of the bicycle facilities and potential conflicts with motor vehicles were analyzed and determined to operate acceptably. RECOMMENDATION Find the project categorically exempt from CEC~A, adopt plans and specifications, and authorize a call for bids for Fernside Boulevard bicycle path and street improvements, otis Drive to north of San Jose Avenue, No. P.II`I. 03-08-10. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Hawkins City Engineer ~~~ r By: Ed Sommerauer Associate Civil Engineer MTN:ES:gc Attachment ~ . Diagram of Proposed Modifications C1- C O ~~$ ~~ 1~3~ M0~38 33S Y a =w~ ~oz ~ ~a Z i~ U Q Z~ O ¢~ Q ~ ~ g d ~ }W., ^ ~ Z QQ m O Z W W J „~ a~ NORTlf 510E ENCINAL AVE. MADI54N ST. ., I ~• 5AN J05E• AVE. -~ 1 B ~ M .~ ADAMS 5T, ~'' 0~ ~° z~ ~~ I 1 I 7J.J ap zr UD~ ~~~ • r ~ li 1H~1~ d01 33S City Council Attachment to Agenda Item #4-E ~4'l5-DS CITY GF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $241,820, Including Contingencies, to RMC Water and Environment for a Hydraulic Model Analysis of the Alameda Sanita Sewer Collection S stem BACKGROUND The State Water Resources Control Board ~SWRCB} recently adopted regulations that require municipalities that own and operate sanitary sewer collection systems to prepare a Sewer System Management Plan ~SSMP}. The SSMP is being prepared by the Public Works Department as an element of the City's Sewer Master Plan. The Pian will assess the capacity of the sanitary sewer system, identify hydraulic deficiencies, and develop shock- and long-term capital improvement projects. Staff is seeking the services of a competent consultant to develop a Geographic Information System ~GIS} based hydraulic model to assess the current and future capacity needs of the sewer system. DISCUSSIGN On January 4, 2008, the Public Works Department issued a Request for Proposals ~RFP} for the development of a hydraulic model analysis for the City's sanitary sewer collection system. The RFP was posted on the City's website and mailed to consultants who provided previous letters of interest. The City received proposals from the fallowing consultants: Consultant Location Winzler &Kell Consultin En ineers San Francisco RMAIEn ineerin in association with Advanced H dro En ineerin San Ramon Schaaf & Wheeler Consultin Civil En ineers San Francisco RMC Water and Environment Walnut Creek Staff from the Public Works Department and the East Bay Municipal Utility District ~EBMUD}reviewed the proposals and conducted interviews of all the consultants. RMC Water and Environment was selected as the preferred consultant based on the City's consultant selection criteria, which included: the completeness of the proposal; the presentation of the proposals; interview results; past experience with similar projects; and the qualifications of staff dedicated to the project. City Council Agenda Item #4-F 04-'15-OS Honorable Mayor and April 15, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 The major tasks for developing the hydraulic model will include: ~. Review existing reports on the sewer collection system, including previous capacity analyses, the City's standards for design flow requirements, the City's sewer digital map, and EBMUD's sewer interceptor model; 2. Upload and convert the City's sewer digital map into a GIS map; 3. Conduct fieldwork to gather necessary pump station data; 4. Develop a dynamic model that will analyze existing and future sewer demands; 5. Validate the mode! results using EBMUD flow monitoring data; 6. Identify the existing sewer system's capacity and hydraulic deficiencies; and 1. Calculate future demand and recommend necessary improvements. Staff has negotiated a contract with RMC Water and Environment to complete the above scope for a total amount of $24~ ,820, including a ~ 0°/° contingency. A copy of the contract is in the City Clerk's office. BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program Project No. 904 Ol}, with monies allocated from the Sewer Enterprise Fund. MUNICIPAL C4DEIPGLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The hydraulic model analysis of the City of Alameda sanitary sewer collection system is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Section 15306, Information Collection. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council REC~MMENDATI~N April 15, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Award a contract in the amount of $24~,82D, including contingencies, to RMC Water and Environment for the hydraulic model analysis of the City of Alameda sanitary sewer collection system, Respectfully submitted, . c~ ~~/ Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: ~~ ~ , --~ d Wall az'ri Associate Civil En ' ~ er MTN:WW:gc CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit a Request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the Allocation of Fiscal Year 200812009 Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Funding, in the Amount of $40,000 to Update the City's Bicycle Master Plan and to Execute all Necessa Documents to Im lement the Pro'ect BACKGROUND The Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTC} has allocated funds for Transportation Development Act TDA}, Article 3, PedestrianlBicycle Projects, for fiscal year 200812009. All cities and counties in the nine county MTC region may apply for TDA Article 3 funds for pedestrianlbicycle purposes. Alameda County funds are allocated and apportioned by planning area population. The City of Alameda's planning area also includes Oakland, Berkeley, Emeryville, Piedmont, and Albany. DISCUSSION Staff estimates that the cost to update the City's Bicycle Master Plan will be approximately $100,000. City staff will complete the majority of the update, but consultant support is needed for the preparation of maps, data collection, development of design guidelines, and environmental analysis. The cost for consultant support is estimated to be approximately $40,000. Staff proposes that the consultants' costs be funded through the City's TDA, Article 3 allocation. For the City to receive these funds, MTC requires the City Council to adopt a resolution indicating support for the proposed project. The Public Works Department has begun the process to update the City's Bicycle Master Plan; the update is estimated to be completed in April 2009 see Attachment 1 }. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANClAL IMPACT This project will not impact the General Fund. Staff estimates that it will cost approximately $100,000 to update the City's Bicycle Master Plan. Funding far staff time, estimated at a total of $60,000 over the next two fiscal years, is included in the Public Works Department's budget through Measure B funds. The additional $40,000 required for consulting services will be funded through TDA grant monies. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4-G 04-'f 5-08 Honorable Mayor and April 15, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DGCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This project directly supports General Plan Policy 4.5.g, "Publish and distribute a map showing existing and proposed bikeways in Alameda." As a component of the bicycle master plan update, this project also supports other policies that enhance bicycles as a mode of transportation in Alameda, as delineated in Chapter4.5 of the General Plan. ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIEUV Environmental review will be conducted as part of the public review and adoption of the bicycle master plan update. RECGMMENDATI4N Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a request to the MTC for the allocation of fiscal year 200812009 TDA, Article 3 funding, in the amount of $40,000 to update the City's Bicycle Master Plan and to execute all necessary documents to implement the project. Respectful) submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director 4/Y`- By: Barry BergmanImo- ~ Transportation Coordinator MTN:BB:gc Attachment: 1. Proposed Schedule to Update Bicycle Master Pian cc: Measure B U~Jatchdog Committee Proposed Schedule to Update the City of Alameda's Bicycle Master Plan Task Time Frame Polic Review March-A ri12008 Develo Uveb Site March-Ma 2008 Stakeholder Interviews March-A ril 2008 Subcommittee Meetin #~ Aril 2008 Existin Conditions Anal sis March-Jul 2008 Draft Goals and Ob'ectives Aril 2008 Subcommittee Meetin #2 Ma 2008 Task ForcelCommunit Meetin #~ Ma 2008 Revise Goals and Ob'ectives June 2008 Pro ram and Polic Recommendations June-Jul 2008 Prelimina Pro'ect List Jul 2008 Subcommittee Meetin #3 Jul 2008 Task ForcelCommunit Meetin #2 Jul 2008 TC Review Au ust 2008 Re-Ado tion of Current Bike Pian Se tember 2008 Evaluate and Prioritise Pro'ects Se tember 2008 Develo Plannin -Level Pro'ect Cost Estimates October 2008 Circulate Administrative Draft November-December 2008 Review b Boards and Commissions Janua -Februa 2009 TC A royal Februa 2009 Environmental Review Janua -March 2009 Ado tion b Plannin Board March 2009 Ado Lion b Cit Council Aril 2009 Final Plan Document Aril 2009 City Council Attachment to Report Re: Agenda Item #4G ~4-'15-08 CITYGFALAMEDA RESGLUTIGN NG. ~° ~, c~ 0 ,~ AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TG SUBMIT A REQUEST TG THE METRGPGLITAN TRANSP4RTATIaN CGMMISSIGN FGR THE ALLGCATIGN OF FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009 TRANSPORTATl~N DEVELOPMENT ACT, ARTICLE 3 FUNDING, IN THE AMOUNT QF $40,000 T4 UPDATE THE CITY'S BICYCLE MASTER PLAN AND TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DGCUMENTS Tn IMPLEMENTTHE PRGJECT ~ UUHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act TDA}, Public Utilities Code ~PUC} Section 99200 et se___~c., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation plannin a enc for the fundin of ro'ect g 9 y g p l s ~ exclusively far the benefit andlor use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and V1~HEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTC}, as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 815, Revised, entitled "Transportation Development Act, Article 3, PedestrianlBicycle Projects," which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of "TDA Article 3"funding; and UIIHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a sin le, . g countywide coordinated claim from each county ~n the San Francisco Ba y region; and 1NHEREAS, the City of Alameda desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, which are for the exclusive benefit andlor use of pedestrians andlor bicyclists. NGW, THEREFGRE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda City Council that the City Manager is authorized to execute and file a request to the MTC for the allocation of fiscal year 200812009 TDA Article 3 funding in the amount of $44,000 to update of City's Bicycle Master Plan and to execute ali necessa ry documents to implement the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Alameda declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the Cit of y Alameda to carryoutthe project; and Resolution #4-G CC 04-~5-08 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Alameda attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or coup#y association of governments, as the case may be, of Alameda County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim. **~** Resolution No. Attac:hmpnt A AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TG SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE METRGPGLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FGR THE ALLGCATIDN GF FISCAL YEAR 2008/2449 TRANSPORTATIGN DEVELOPMENT ACT, ARTICLE 3 FUNDING, IN THE AMGUNT GF $40,000 TG UPDATE GF THE CITY'S BICYCLE MASTER PLAN AND TG EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT Findings Page 1 of 1 'I . That the City of Alameda is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission ~MTC} for the allocation of Transportation Development Act TDA} Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Alameda legally impeded from undertaking the projects} described in "Attachment B" of this resolution. 2. That the City of Alameda has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the projects}described in Attachment B. 3. A review of the projects} described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the projects}. 4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested. 5. That the projects} described in Attachment B will comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.}, 6. That as portrayed in the budgetary descriptions} of the projects} in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the projects}. 1. That the projects} described in Attachment B are far capital construction andlor design engineering; andlor for the maintenance of a Class I bikeway which is closed to motorized traffic; andlor for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes; andlor for the development or support of a bicycle safety education program; andlor for the development of a comprehensive bicycle andlor pedestrian facilities plan, and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding far such a plan has not been received by the City of Alameda within the priorfive fiscal years. 8. Tha# the projects} described . in Attachment B which are bicycle projects have been included in a detailed bicycle circulation element included in an adopted general plan, ar included in an adopted comprehensive bikeway plan such as outlined in Section 2377 of the California Bikeways Act, Streets and Highways Code section 2370 et se.~.}, 9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a "Class I Bikeway," meets the mandatary minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the Califarnia Highway Design Manual. 10. That the projects} described in Attachment B are ready to commence implementation during the fiscal year of the requested allocation. 11. That the City of Alameda agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the projects} and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public. Resolution No. Attachment B Page 1 of 1 TDA Article 3 Project Application Form Fiscal Year of this Claim: 200812009 Applicant: City of Alameda Contact erson: Barr Ber man Mailin Address: 950 West Mall S ware Room 110 Alameda CA 94501 E-Mail Address: bber man ci.alameda.ca.us Tele hone: 510 749-5915 Secondar Contact in event rimar not available Obaid Khan 510 749-5926 E-Mail Address: okhan ci.alameda.ca.us Tele hone: 510 749-5926 Short Title Description of Project; City of Alameda Bicycle Master Plan Update Technical Su ort Amount of claim: 40 000 Functional Description of Project: These funds are to be used~to hire a consultant to provide support on several components of the u date to the Cit 's Bic cfe Master Plan u date includin ma in bic cle facilit desi n uidelines data collection ublic outreach assistance and com ilation of best radices. Financial Plan: List the project elements for which TDA funding is being requested ~e.g., planning, environmental, engineering, right-of-way, construction, inspection, contingency, audit}. Use the table below to show the project budget, Include prior and proposed future funding of the project. If the project is a segment of a larger project, include prior and proposed funding sources far the other segments. Project Elements: alannin Fundin Source All Prior FYs A lication FY Next FY Followin FYs Totals TDA Article 3 $40,000 $40,000 list all other sources; 1. Measure B $30,000 $30,000 $60,000 2. Tota Is $30, 000 $70, 000 $100, 000 Project Eligibility: YES' A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? cif "N4," provide the approximate date approval is anticipated}. Y B, Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page. ~ C, For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? Available on the Internet via: ht#p:llwww.dat.ca.~gov}. N D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee? ~If "N0," rovide an ex lanation . N P P } E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project pursuant to CEQA} been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county N recorder? required only for projects that include construction}. F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of project month and~ear}June 2009 Y G, Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant N arranged for such maintenance by another agency? ~If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility provide its name: • The funding is requested for the update of the City's Bike Plan, which will be reviewed by Transportation Commission throughout the project, including review of draft plan prior to Council review, 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 15th day of , 2408, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN vUITNESS, VIIHERE~F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of , 2008. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CfTY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Adopta Resolution Authorizing the Gity Managerto SubmitanApplicationfor Measure B Paratransit Funding for Fiscal Year200S-2009 and to Execute all Necessa Documents to Im lement the Pro'ect BACKGRGUND The Americans with Disabilities Act DADA} requires transit agencies to offer equivalent paratransit service for persons certified as unable to drive or take public transit. Paratransit services must be made available to eligible users within 314 mile of the existing fixed route transit during the normal operating hours of the fixed route services. In Alameda, this mandated service is provided by East Bay Paratransit. While most of Alameda is within 314 mile of AC Transit routes, there are some service gaps, including locations that are without bus service on weekends, or at certain times of the day. Measure B Sales Tax funds provide a dedicated funding source for non-mandated, locally- based paratransit servicesfor peoplewith disabilities and non-disabled seniors inAlameda County. The City of Alameda has used these funds to provide supplemental paratransit services to address the service gaps as well as to provide additional non-mandated services. To receive these funds, the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority ~ACTIA}, which administers Measure B funds, requires that each jurisdiction submita resolution authorizing the Cityto applyforthesefunds along with its application. DISCUSSION The City's paratransit funding application for fiscal year 2008/2009 continues current paratransit services. Alameda's program provides services forpeoplewith disabilities and for non-disabled seniors. Gne of the main goals underlying the proposal is to continue to rely on East Bay Paratransit as the primary provider of paratransit services inAlameda. The City's program has a total ~of 1,648 registrants, and staff will try to expand this number to 1,150 in fiscal year 200812009. In preparing the program proposal, staff sought input from the Commission on Disability Issues, Mastick Senior Center Advisory Board, and the American Association of Retired Persons. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4H 0415-a8 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 15, 2008 Page 2 of 3 The fiscal year 200812009 ACTIA funding application includes the following paratransit programs: 1. Supplementary Taxi Service x$5,000}: The Supplementary Taxi Service provides servicefor East Bay Paratransit-certified Alameda residentswho need service at times when East Bay Paratransit does not operate. East Bay Paratransit operations are tied to the hours of AG Transit routes. This program also provides taxi service for participants with critical medical appointments during East Bay Paratransit's 21-day certification period. 2. Medical Return Trip Improvement Program -MRTIP x$32,000}; The MRTIP provides certified East Bay Paratransit residents with a free taxi return trip home from medical appointments. Since East Bay Paratransit requires reservations a day in advance, medical appointments are not always well served by the County's program, and the City's program provides assistance with urgent medica! appointments. 3. Premium Taxi Service x$13,000, includes $10,000 of coupon purchases}: The Premium Taxi Service program serves certified East Bay Paratransit users; residents l5 years and older, regardless of disability; and residents70years and older that do not possess a driver's license. The Premium Taxi Service provides a 50 percent discount for taxi rides with the City of Alameda's transportation provider. The service is not limited to medical trips, and eligible riders are required to purchase the discount coupons in advance 4. Group Trips x$25,000}: This program provides a range of trip types, including monthly trips for seniors through the Mastick Senior Center, a shopper's shuttle, subscription group trips from convalescent homes, Alameda Recreation & Park Department cultural event class trips, and the Annual Nursing Home Picnic Group Trip. 5. East Bay Paratransit Tickets x$43,500}: Alameda residents who are certified East Bay Paratransit users are eligible to receive up to two free books of coupons ten coupons per book}, subject to availability, through this program. 6. Scholarship Program x$1,000}; For "very low income" households, as defined b Y the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, certified East Bay Paratransit users are eligible to receive up to two free East Bay Paratransit ticket books each year with the purchase of two ticket books at the regular price. 7. Program Management x$30,000}: This amount funds Public vllorks staff time to complete ACTIA applicatian and reporting requirements, review program data Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 15, 2448 Page 3 of 3 and invoices, participate in ACTIA's paratransit committees, renew or establish new contracts, conduct public outreach meetings, and coordinate with the transporkation providers and Mastick staff. 8. Administration x$5,000}: This amount funds printing, postage, and other costs associated with conducting basic program outreach. 9. Materials x$5,004}: This amount funds implementation of the marketing program, including printing program brochures, running printads, and producing promotional mailings. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT The Paratransit Program, as outlined above, totals $159,500. The program will be funded from an ACTIA Measure B funding allocation x$150,75\0}, and fares from taxi coupon revenues x$8,750}. ACTIA requires the funding application include an ado ted Cit . p Y Council resolution. Applying for these funds does not affect the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CGDElPGL1CY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE The City's Paratransit Program is consistentwith the General Pian Transportation Element Guiding Policy 4.3h,"V11ork toward integrating a Citywide demand response of shuttle service, which incorporates paratransit, BART,ACTransit, Dial- Ride, and shopperneeds." RECGMMENDATIGN Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an application for Measure B Paratransit Funding forfiscal year2008-2009 and to execute all necessary documents to implement the project. Respec ully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: ail Payne Transportation Coordinator cc: Measure B Vvatchdog Committee CITY OFAf~MEDA RESOLUTfON N0. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMITAN APPL1CATlON FQR MEASURE B PARATRANSIT FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009 AND E, TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS TO IMPLEMENT THE L ° PROJECT . ~ . o UUHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act DADA} requires that `~ a e uivalent aratransit service ' ~ q p be provided within 314 mile and during the regular ~ ~ o eratin hours of fixed route transit services f ' ° p g or those who are determined to ~ be eligible for such services; and ~. VIlHEREAS, Alameda residents wha are seniors or who have disabilities have transportation needs that are not always met by the existing fixed route transit services; and V1IHEREAS, the City of Alameda receives an allocation from Measure B sales tax revenue, administered by the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority ACTIA}, to provide paratransit services for seniors and people with disabilities tosupplement ADA-mandated services; and ~IVHEREAS, the City of Alameda allocation of Measure B Paratransit funds for Fiscal Year 2008/2009 is estimated to be $159,500; and ACTIA project: The Medical Return Trip Improvement Program provides free taxi service to EBP-certified residents to return home from medical appointments. The Premium Taxi Service provides taxi services knot limited to medical trips} at 50% discount for eligible residents. Free EBP coupons, scholarships, group trips and supplemental paratransit service before or after EBP hours also are offered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda City Council that the City Manager is authorized to submit an application for Measure B Paratransitfundsfnr Fiscal Year 2008/2009 in the amount af$159,500. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute all necessary documents to implement the project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall submit a copy of this Resolution to ACTIA in conjunction with the filing of the application. *~*~*~ WHEREAS, the City of Alameda plans to submit a grant application to for funds from the Measure B Paratransit funding for the following Resolution #4-H CC 04-15.0$ I, the undersigned, hereby cerkify 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 15th day of April, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NgES: ABSENT: ABSENTIgNS: IN vVITNESS, WHEREgF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of April 2008, Lara Vlleisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda C QTY 0 F ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Consider a Resolution of Gpposition to the Aerial Spray Program to Eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth BACKGRGUND On April 1, the City Council heard a presentation from Mr. A.G. Kawamura, Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture and Dr. Bob Dowell, Director of the Light Brown Apple Moth LBAM} program. Secretary Kawamura and Dr. Dowel! discussed the problems that the LBAM poses for California's crops and the Deparkment's plans to eradicate the LBAM through a variety of means, including aerial spraying. Following the presentation, the City Counci! heard from a number of residents and people from other communities who are concerned about the aerial spraying and the effect it will have on their health and on the environment. DISCUSSION According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture CDFA}, the LBAM feeds on more than 2,OO0 different types of native and ornamental plants and trees including cypress, redwoods and oaks, and can attack more than 250 agricultural crops, threatening California's natural environment and food systems. The LBAM has been found in nine counties in the state. In order to combat the LRAM, CDFA and the United States Department of Agriculture have developed a program that uses pheromones to disrupt the mating cycle, thus reducing the moth population and eventually eradicating the pest. CDFA intends to spread the pheromanes using a variety of methods, including repeated aerial spraying of the pheromones in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, Marin, and Santa Clara counties beginning this summer; Santa Cruz and Monterey counties were sprayed last year. The reason behind the LRAM eradication program is concern for the damage to crops and other plant species and the potential for quarantine restrictions on California cro s p that could occur if the moth population continues to increase. The material sprayed is a synthetic pheromone-based solution, combined with other inert ingredients. While CDFA tested the pheromone and concluded that it would not cause any health effects, questions have been raised about the health effects of the inert ingredients that are City Council Report Re: Agenda item #4-I ~4-'15-48 Honorable Mayor and Apri! 15, 2008 Members of the City Council ~ Page 2 of 3 sprayed with the pheromones, as well as the inhalation risks of the capsules that carry the pheromone. CDFA found that the substance used in the spray, CheckMate, could cause skin, eye and respiratory irritation but concluded that the amounts being sprayed would be unlikely to cause health problems. Many members of the community have expressed #heir concerns about the potential health and environmental impacts from the spraying. According to the Health ~fficerfor Santa Cruz County, the aerially spraying conducted in November 2007 resulted in "over 600 recorded complaints from residents of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to the spray." Although cities have no jurisdiction over the aerial spraying program, a number of cities have passed resolutions of opposition to the spraying anti! the State has studied the public health implications and determined that there are no health or environmental risks. In addition, several bills are pending in the State Legislature related to the LBAM program. • AB 2160 ~Leno} requires an environmental impact report be produced before any eradication efforts are undertaken in an urban area. • AB 2763 Laird} requires CDFA to create a fist of invasive animals, plants, and insects that have a reasonable likelihood of entering California and prepare a written assessment on the most appropriate method of eradication. • AB 2164 Hancock} prohibits the Secretary of Food and Agriculture from approving the application of a pesticide in an urban area unless the Governor has proclaimed a state of emergency. • AB 2765 Huffman}sets new limits on the emergency powers of CDFA and requires a public hearing to receive testimony and examine alternatives to aerial spraying prior to any decision to spray. It further bars emergency spraying in an urban area unless there is full disclosure of all elements in any pesticide product, and a certification of the safety of the product by state health officials. • ACR 117 Laird} calls on CDFA and a number of other state agencies to address unresolved health, scientific, and efficacy issues surrounding the LBAM eradication plans. • SCR Sl ~Migden} requests that CDFA impose a moratorium on any aerial spraying that may be a part of the Department's LBAM eradication campaign until it can demonstrate that the pheromone compound it intends to use is both safe to humans and effective at eradicating the LBAM. BUDGET CGNSIDERATf4NIFINANCIAL IMPACT Adopting a resolution of opposition to the aerial spray program and support for the various bills and concurrent resolutions related to the LBAM program will have no impact on the City's General Fund. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION April ~5, 2008 Page3of3 Consider a resolution of opposition to the aerial spray program to eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth and support for the pending legislation that addresses this program. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Goldman Deputy City Manager ~,~ ~.~ d: Don't S ray Californ,i;a's LBAM resolu ion prv ~.:. ,w~w~.~r~~..,H, ~,riA, :~~~, ~.~.,,~ ~~~~.~~~ ~~:.~~..~w~ ,~..w,H.::.:~,~....N,H~.~ :Lora Weise er - Fw po I h.,.~, ~...~~ Page 1 ` . ,,,,~ wrw,...:..,,,,uM,aaaM:•.:,,,e~x~n<•.,.,,~a,uaevu,m++c,.,....~„nw,,,;vr„Mme.~ka~wcw+,,,,,,,,,,,,,;,v+ K ,M<c<,,.v,,.wa,y.,..,..~rurw..,nv~vavrw~nt From: Beverly Johnson To: G1TY CLERK; Debra Kurita; Lisa Goldman Date: 4l912DOS 5:40:43 PM Subject: Fwd: Don't Spray California's LBAM resolution proposal »> "Max Ventura" <beneficialbug aC~,netzero.net> 4/9/2008 9:24 AM »> Hello again, You have received LBAM information from us over the months. It was suggested that we send you the proposal we drafted bringing toge#her a significant number of the concerns around the CDFA! USDA pesticides program. Whether you want to draft a full resolution such as this, or a short one opposing the full program, not only the aerial spray aspect, especially as some of the other toxic methods are quietly being slipped in the back door in use already, this document and the citings accompanying it will give you the information and wording from which you can work. Please also refer to our website for more information. It is www.EastBa PesticideAlert.or ~ htt :!lwww.eastba esticidealert.or ! }, A reminder: we are known as Don't Spray California, also, the names we use more often working on statewide issues. You can click on the LBAM section and from there click on the MS Word document which will give you photos of LBAM applications as well as much more detail about toxicity. By mid-April you will be able all the links should be pasted in by the web person so that the new page is up and running fully but for now it is still a wealth of useful information as you draft your resolution. We have been stressing to people, including other activists that, if the fixation only on aerial spraying continues, the rest of the program will march along unabated, and rapidlywili drown us in toxics. As we predicted from experience, is so. We must have the full toxics program rescinded which is why we are approaching municipalities and unions with this message and this resolution. While the wording of the resolution is being verified, the Berkeley Peace and Justice Commission took this resolution and decided to draft something much shorter, knowing that we have provided much detail for the city of Berkeley and that they are familiarwith our long resolution, with citings. Their recommendation is short and very much to the point of calling for no use of toxics, listing each of the basic methods whether by aerial spraying, ground spraying, twist ties, permethrin, or other related methods, which was referring to chemical sticky traps}, downgrading the pest classification to reflect the lack of risk it poses, and also they acknowledged that the legal action the city of Berkeley is spearheading comes with great responsibility to unite municipalities across borders, to make this about the whole program, not only trying to save our own local behinds from it, but others who have been harmed already in Monterey and Santa Cruz, and people around the state who are threatened by CDFA saying the moth will be all over the state, and asserting that it will take over the country. Kind of like a bad sci-fi novel they're trying to construct up in some office. But the damage in the two counties sprayed already is real, and continuing, including economic damage to farmers and nursery people suffering the crop damage due to excessive handling of their crops, and small farmers struggling under reams of paperwork, taking them out of the fields where they would, in fact, be monitoring the well-being of their farms, where they should be. The East Bay Regional Parks District union also used our resolution to craft a very strong resolution opposing the full program, referring back to some of their union language as well. As soon as we have the formal approvals of the exact wording of both those resolutions they will go upon our site. Please know that people are crying for this whole program tv be stopped, not only the aerial spraying which of course brings back memories of Medfly spraying. But especially in Alameda, the irony is that there is already aerial spraying by the bay, as part of the Spartina project, another terribly dangerous pesticides program about which we have information on our site. Re: Agenda Item #4-I 0~-15 08 r BAM resolution proposa M ~'.~. _w~: ~~w.~,+w~ .~.w~..w~. Page 2 ,,Cara We suer -Fwd M S~pr ~ j` +~`~ Don t++~ ay~Californ,ia's L ^f:~rFnv M1:AP'~S,.IJ'n.~awueeeeeptq+lYWWwlxYm/a+va,.YMW+'i Ye1e;,:w' v~~.1+rNrFVk~. ~~oLntimvovn.vFRUYS9V:•xr »+MY,vr.~+cvb,.w~~ff•~1+P1w:r~HVa.~nvl+~Ifvn.FFN~Y^~:'..:[xaebiveW+Ya1+:;~.'eeb.~~nll':I .w.•~I..~~v.~V^+Wi~+::..•:;au'nyweyp'S:: •.e:f'r. Y'n. We look forward to assisting you in anyway we canto see an end to the use of toxic pesticides by your municipality itself, in the form of pesticides used in parks, for instance, which we have confirmed, and possibly in city buildings, and on city streets, which we have not specifically confirmed, as well as in fighting pesticide use by outside agencies bringing them to your city beloved by so many. Please know that if you need a person to address any public health department or environmental health department on this, keep us in mind for such resources. Honestly, Alamedans are suffering under staggering toxic circumstances, even once the city gives up its use; there is jet fuel toxicity, Port of Oakland particulate matter, drift from W. Oakland industry and San Leandro industry, the Spartina Project. You do not need CDFA's newest program affecting your residents and visitors. !spoke with a couple, both very sick, only this past Sunday, who have lived in Alameda years but have to leave due to this mix. They laughed that at least they get a break on Sundays when there are less Port of Qakland trucks running. That is the day they can go out and breathe reasonably, but they don't use city parks. Otherwise, they are in their home with air purifiers running nonstop, and have another in their car for when they need to leave. Sincerely, Maxina Ventura Chronic Effects Researcher, EastBay Pesticide Alert l Don't Spray California 51 Q-895-2312 or if busy, try 198-553 *** To: The ******** City Councilor..... From: East Bay Pesticide Alert! Don't Spray California Re: Resolution opposing the California Department of Food and Agriculture CDFA} and the U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture's USDA} pesticide program to attempt to eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth Date: Spring, 248 Whereas, the Light Brown Apple Moth ~LBAM} is a pest subject to Federal and State quarantine and eradication orders; and Whereas, there is a claimed presence of Light Brown Apple Moth ~LBAM} in ******* County; and Whereas, the CDFA plans to expand the LBAM pesticide program which began in 2441, to Alameda and surrounding areas in 208; and Whereas, pesticide applications have repeatedly been shown in the past to cause unintended, sometimes unpredictable, and aften serious human health effects; and Whereas, pesticide applications have repeatedly been shown in the past to upset natural ecosystem balance in sometimes unpredictable and often catastrophic ways; and whereas, botanists and entomologists have testified that pheromones, pesticides, and even sticky traps may threaten non-target organisms, including bees, which are currently in a global crisis due to Colony Collapse, in which pesticides have been implicated, and similar yet not fully understood moth species whose importance in the ecosystem is not yet fully understood; and Whereas residents, workers, students and visitors to ******, and people around the world, have recognized that the CDFA and USDA have manufactured a crisis and claimed an emergency ~... .. w:...~.: ~. 's LBAM resolution rop ~, ~. ~~W.~~~,H., ~a„ ~~` Lara Weisiger -Fwd: Don't Spray California _~ M~~~` osal ;,r ,:...•,~,; mw~•u:u«eee:~. ~nvrw:.+::••,;,,m~weeeeu~ur~••,u•:nrco-wwm~.x~o;»v:.,~~;ns•,•:: ~:w~+r.».•e..:.r..r:;:r,;av.~.:•......,.,:.a,s.arn,,.•,.,v,;c~,~+~r~.~_>;:w,w•o~ec«a~a„x:.;nw.r=:nwaee+e, e~a~~o;~,~~+~v.,~viaw~ee~tow+rN•~..~e,.,.:a.v,vaw M,+wsY•,,,~,n~r.;,~;,~a,a„u,~r~m•~••,..n.nwn ,~ •. .,.....a.....,r,:t,k~, .._,.,:,,~a:,..u...s.,~~,.x~a~+a,,.~., ~~~~a~„wr~~.,~.~:~~;~,,,.:Y..,:•~.~~,..a,;::..:.M::Page .3: exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} in order to aerial spray without conducting an Environmental Impact Report HEIR}; and Whereas, the state has confirmed that it will produce an EIR after the resumption of aerial and ground pesticide applications; and Whereas, the use of toxic chemicals results in reliance over time on more chemicals; and Whereas, exotic plant experts, Dr. Daniel Harder and Jeff Rosendale, have testified and reported that purported damage attributed to the LBAM in New Zealand occurred only prior to 200, and once the pesticide regime was stopped, the LBAM ceased to be a problem as LBAM predators which had been killed by pesticides were allowed to regenerate and keep the LBAM naturally- controlled; and Whereas, according to the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, the LBAM is not considered a significant pest but may even be considered beneficial, as a control measure for invasive gorse and blackberry; and Whereas, biologists have testified that the LBAM is unlikely to be eradicable; and Whereas, UC Davis entomologist James R. Carey has testified that the range overwhich LBAM has been detected in California indicates that it has been established in the state for some time; and Whereas, the CDFA has stated that no physical crop damage has been attributed to LBAM; and Whereas, the risk of economic damage alone does not justify the health and environmental risk of pesticide applications; and Whereas, farmers have suffered economic damage not due to the presence of the LBAM on their farms, but due to the damage caused by the State's demands of extensive handling of delicate crops in search for the LBAM; and Whereas, Qrganic farmers have suffered economic damage due to CDFA interfering with, and further diluting, Drganic industry standards by allowing synthetic chemically-treated crops to continue to be labeled Certified Qrganic, resulting in consumers seeking produce from outside of application zones; and Whereas, nursery owners have suffered economic damage not due to the presence of the LRAM in their nurseries, but due to temporary closure during and after pesticide applications, and the threat of permanent closure for refusal to comply with the pesticide program's pesticides protocol; and Whereas, the CDFA has stated that, residents cannot refuse pesticide applications at their homes and properties; and Whereas, hundreds reported health problems following pesticide applications, including headaches, gastro-intestinal pain, rashes, reproductive system irregularities including post- menopausal resumption of menses, asthma attacks and difficulty breathing, including respiratory arrest in an eleven month-old baby; and Whereas, sicknesses reported were consistent with expected effects of ingredients of pesticides applied; and ~:: ... . a ~,,, l ~.~....M.. w:~...u~,,.,,~,,. ;;,.~ . ...~~. Lara Weisiger -Fwd: Don't Spray California's LBAM p sa! ~~ ~ x~::~.•, ~~~~~~~ ~..w,_.. IMI 1n1 1r ~~ resol t ae `,......::ti:k.:~vr,,.,;,r::eeue.,.vmum••;r:.. .: N..•r:.rvro,n+~cxttoac~,H~. v~,,~+r~mr~+~van~•,rrti;::.;~sr.,:e.::,.xu:o••xm«r.~r•r::.;n~••r:ae: anNauxvn•:::aww.vr:xn,:,,..nwxaw.voeu+o~ro+~arrx».w, xi.,rc~vm~~~°,c.,~..,.xauO~~N~Mr+~~r.,.amnnxim~t•..,.+r,.:•~,::.x.:..,r....>vrmua;+:..x<er•..~,.n..wewM,:varo~vv:.yaon::m.~u~om..+acv.+~~uunvwneum+:»~cnxn..:,k.:::en,~.,,<x,.•aucurnweew;ee.»ur+wnvnw. , x,.<Mr~~~a,,,.::::: ••+,.r!~::: :~~~~+~.~~~~~~{ whereas, CDFA has not addressed the synergistic effects of combined chemicals, most of which are kept undisclosed, protected as "proprietary" by trade secret laws, are frequently far more toxic than the active ingredients, and are specifically designed to interact synergistically to achieve greater toxicity than any chemical by itself; and Whereas, the pesticides that are part of this program are associated with gastro-intestinal illness, are harmful if absorbed through skin, are neurotoxic, carcinogenic, endocrine•disrupting, chromosome~damaging, cause damage to the immune and central nervous systems, hearing and memory loss, leukemia, genetic damage, and are associated with birth defects; and Whereas, the pesticides that are part of this program are toxic to beneficial insects such as bees, ladybugs, parasitic wasps, including the Trichogramma which is part of this program}, non- targeted moths, as welt as fish, oysters and other marine mollusks, a wide variety of other aquatic organisms, birds, cats, other mammals, and even plants; and Whereas, other environmental impacts following pesticide applications were reporked, such as the death of pets who died of identical symptoms to their affected guardians; and Whereas, birds and honeybees disappeared for lengths of time after pesticide applications from gardens theyfrequented previously; and Whereas, a red tide developed, more dramatic than any in the area in at least 40 years, blamed on surfactants consistent with inert ingredients in pesticides, resulting in the death of hundreds of birds; and Whereas, pilots employed by CDFAto apply pesticides mistakenly sprayed outside of designated application zones; and Whereas, the California Constitution guarantees the right not only to retain, but to obtain, health; and Whereas, The Nuremberg Code, Directives for Human Experimentation, states that human experimentation without consent is illegal; and Whereas, complicity in the commission of a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI of the Nuremberg Principles is a crime under international law; and Whereas, claims of safety of synthetic chemicals classified as pesticides is illegal, but CDFA persists in calling some of the pesticides used in this program safe; and Whereas, the burden of proof of safety must reside with the pesticide manufacturers; proponents; executors; and applicators; and Whereas the State has relied almost entirely on its own scientists to address concerns about the LBAM pesticide program and has not employed independent, outside experts to evaluate and support the program nor address issues in a direct and impartial manner; and Whereas Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Richard Philp testified that the USDA and EPA documents "are suggestive of a poor understanding of basic pharmacological and toxicological principles"; and Whereas, increasing numbers of municipalities have embraced the Precautionary Principle and passed resolutions to the effect; and ,.;,,;~ ~~ .. _ .. . Lara Weisiger -Fwd Don't Spra California's LBAM resolution ~ .....~~...._..M~,~~~w Pa µe 5 ` ~.,~ proposal ......~ ..~ ~v~m::.,.:,ryt.7Nx~k ,..,vw.....,....~.~.,~,~.,.~:.. ..:....~~~...,.~.....~.,.,,...,a .............v,,.::, .....,, „~ ; ~~,,, ,.:<<,~..:H~~...~.:.:~~v.~.~~.~~ ,. ~,, ~~,.r._«:.::.~~~.xib~ Wnx~.~::. , ,v~~„~.~~,r~..,r.::.a.:..:~~..r ., . ,~........ 9 .... ~+~tn:~....•~wxee+aa. r. .. w,e,xmew,~aen~,+r..,uw.vm~eMVU.+t~~.,,..~.,~~~~~~~~.:mva+~xnm+am~a•~rc.,•r.:~..n~ctwvnvMrw....~~n~ntiu+m...~w. Whereas, CDFA insists that local governments have no control over this program's implementation; and Whereas, the people residing within and visiting the boundaries of those local governments depend on protection by elected representatives; and Now, therefore be it resolved and ordered that the ******* City Council opposes the USDAICDFA pesticide program to eradicate the LBAM; and Now, therefore be it resolved and ordered that the ******* City Council demands that the USDA downgrade the pest classification of LBAM to reflect the Pack of risk it poses. -----.. Documentation for Resolution opposing the California Department of Food and Agriculture ~CDFA} and the U.S. Department of Food and Agriculture's ~USDA~ pesticide program to attempt to eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth Pheromone Search - 942 Monterey County Moths -Lancelot Houston; "Non-target" moth species in Monterey County, affected by the CDFA's supposedly "targeted pheromone htt :Ileastba esticidealert.orglPheromone%20Search.pdt Pheromone Trap Colour Determines Catch ofNon-target Insects - New ZealandPlant Protection Society htt :llww.nz s.or I'ournall531n~ 53 216. df LBAM Status report from New Zealand by Dr. Daniel Harder and Jeff Rosendale -March 6, 2008 htt :Ildemocrats.assembl .ca. ovlmembersla271 dflHarderNZRe ortFINAL. df Buckwheat study showing that flowering buckwheat sown in grape fields, attracts parasitic wasps and other beneficial insects, and extends the food supply of insect predators of the LBAM caterpillar, by days to over a month, also extending their effectiveness in managing the moth htt :llwww.vine ardsho .com.aulmoduieslnewslnewsview.as x?NewsiD=TVSN0337 List of natural enemies of the LBAM htt :llwww.hortnet.co.nzlke Ike slinfolenemiesllba-enem.htm Hawaii Department of Agriculture Press Release in response to USDA quarantine -May 2007 -- LBAM beneficial in same cases ht_ tp:llwww.lbamspray_.com100 Documents120071News%20Release%20-%20NR07-09%20- %20Ma °/°202 %202001°/°20°/°97%2oHawaii°/°20De artment°/°20of%20A riculture.htm UC Davis entomologist James R. Carey statements regarding eradicability htt :Ilforum.sto thes ra .or Iviewto ic, h ?f=10&t=61 Dr. Carey's Presentation to the State Assembly Legislature Committee onAgriculture- March 2008 htt :Ildemocrats.assemb! .ca. ovlmembersla2ll dflAssembl A Committee LBAM2. df 4rganic's Organics - on the natural food industry seeking organics grown outside the spray zones htt :Ilwuvw.metroactive.comlmetro-Santa-cruz112.12.Ollnuz-O150.html r Blue Bamboo nursery forced to close htt :Ilwww.bohemian.comlmetro-Santa-cruz106.27'.Ollmoth- O126.html ` e - Fw . on.t Spray Californ ~f,~:~, t~ w~~ r Lara Uveisig r LAM resolution ro sal d D 1(~y~/-l Page 6 ' la's B ~~aM'ememd fnefw.l+?1W}vnY+AY^+'A',~an,.ntt[eedn. 5h1uc[.+»SV~AW!~~~f~~SW+ON'AS M:r~:t bP'+{{~w: f~~"Mfff~~4nN/.1'~~'.~cntttt:mntme:c+~00fmf^'M:f<c'F'.(^w(GS•u,;.ea»5 {~+w+YO',1':'~:t~~. xniefe R•:K^(+•..:•~~x:.n~~f~rfr wt40:4'{•'+.v~::. ~wtf+ceeeee000fem1+P'M+:v.~'n[~;:+,xu nv.+11r•.1'.:~nnw[mftttxlF+tt4+++'?tn~..:':frcuf~~,^P'+a+'n~~. ~;::::~:1'•~~,:" uu...:,N~ftr~,'~~;,]!~u'~'..5. . ~r .5'~i.»5'~.,Sti.' Ful[ report of 2001 health complaints including survey of impact on homeless residents of Monterey and Santa Cruzhtt :Ilwww.ind ba .or lu Ioads1200810~1051s ra cam 12. df No Spray Zone overview of Btk-used to hose down neighborhoods and private gardens htt :lleastbaypesticidealert.orglNo%20Spray°/°20Zone%20paper°/°20on°/°20Btk.PDF Toxicological profile for Btk by Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides ~ htt :llwww, esticide.or lbtk. df } htt :Ilwww. esticide.or lbtk. df Isomate LBAM Plus Twist Ties - manufacturer's MSDS - "Harmful if absorbed through skin" - 254 per acre, 40 per property -low hanging in easy reach of children http:llwww.pacificbiocontrol; comlLight%20Brown%20Apple%20Moth°/°20-%20LBAM fileslMSDS- LBAM. df -.. _ _ ,_,.,,, ,,,,.. .- Dangers of Permethrin ~ htt :llwww.mindfull .or 1PesticidelPermethrin.htm }Fact Sheet by Caroline Cox - to be painted on minimum of 3000 utility poles and trees per square mile htt :Ilwww.mindfull .or IPesticidelPermethrin.htm Most recent toxicological profile for Permethrin htt :Ileastba esticideaiert.or (Permethrin%20Safet %20Review.htm USDA quarantine exemption request ~ http:lleastbaypesticidealert.orglUSDA°/a20guarantine%20exemption%20reque_DF } to use a new ..,~_ chemical, which has not been registered by the EPA. This is the "pheromone", the "active" ingredient in CheckMate, the synthetic "pheromone" used in aerial applications. htt :Ileastbaypesticid,ealert.arglUSDA°/°20Quarantine°/°20exemption%20reguest.PDF Most recent indepth toxicological profile for CheckMate htt :Ileastba esticidealert.or ICheckmate°/a20Chemicals%20Safet .htm Toxicological profile of Chlorpyrifas by NCAP --forced on nurseries htt :llwww. esticide.ar Ichlor rifos. df Chlorpyrifas Fact Sheet by Chemical Watch and Beyond Pesticides htt :Ilwww.beyondpesticides.orglpesticideslfactsheetslChlorpyrifos.pdf Unidentified Inert Ingredients in Pesticides: Implications fvr Human and Environmental Health - Coxand Surgan http:llwww.ehponline.orplmem,bers120061937419314.pdf Moss Landing Mystery Spill -Discussion about what killed the birds that washed ashore htt :llforum.sto then ra .or Iviewto ic. h ?f~l&t=83 CDFA letterto property owners of areas sprayed accidentally htt :Ilwww.ksbw.comldownload12007111031~4501006. df Nuremberg Code -Directives for Human Experimentation - relevant to CheckMate, the synthetic " pheromone" containing pesticide, which has been untested on humans, and therefore its use over human population constitutes experimentation without consent. http:llohsr.od.n,ih.~ ovlquidelineslnuremberq„htm! Declara#ion of Richard Philp, toxicology professor, for county of Santa Cruz suit ~ htt :Ileastba esticidealert.or l hil .html } http:11eastbaypesticidealert~lphilp.htmlhtml CITYGFALAMEDA RESQLUTIGN N0, 0 ~o °a 0 ~. d 4PPGSfNG THE CALIFGRNIA DEPARTMENT GF FGQD AND AGRICULTURE AERIALSPRAY PRGGRAM TG ERADICATE THE LIGHT BRG1lvN APPLE MGTH AND SUPPaRTING LEGISLATIGN TG PLACE RESTRICTIGNS QN THE PRGGRAM WHEREAS, the Light Brown Apple Moth LBAM} is a pest subject to Federal and State quarantine and eradication orders; and :~ ~ WHEREAS, there is a confirmed resence of these mo ' ~. p the in Alameda ~~' County; and VvHEREAS, the California Department of Food and Agriculture ~CDFA} plans to begin an LBAM aerial spraying program in Alameda County and surrounding areas in the summer of ~a08; and WHEREAS, aerial and other blanket pesticide applications have been shown in the past to cause unintended human health effects; and WHEREAS, the State has claimed an emergency exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} in order to begin the LBAM aerial spraying program without conducting environmental review based on an emergency exemption; and WHEREAS, the State has confirmed that it will begin preparation of an Environmental Impact Report after the aerial spraying program has begun; and WHEREAS, the CDFA LBAM program sprays pesticides in microscopic plastic capsules that pose unknown inhalation risks; and 11vHEREAS, reports of health effects such as asthma attacks, headaches, difficulty breathing, stomach pains, and skin rashes were reported following the LBAM aerial spraying in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties; and v11HEREAS, Assemblymembers Leno, Laird, Hancock, and Huffman and Senator Migden have introduced legislation that would place various restrictions on the LBAM eradication program. NOW, THEREFGRE, BE IT RESGLVED, that the City Council of the Cit . Y of Alameda opposes the CDFA aerial spray program to eradicate L BAM until the State has studied the public health implications and determined that there are no health or environmental risks. Resolution #4-I CC 44-15-0$ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council supports AB 2760, AB 2763, AB 2764, AB 2765, ACR 117, and SCR 87, which are currently pending before the State Legislature. **~**~ 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 15th day of April, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN ~JIl1TNESS, VIIHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this day of April, 2048, Lara ~llleisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING ~ SECTION 3-53 CLAIMS} TO DIVISION VIII REFUNDS AND ~ ~ CORRECTIONS} OF CHAPTER III FINANCE AND TAXATION} o ~ TO ESTABLISH UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS AND ~ o PROCEDURES APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENTATION AND ~ Q PROCESSING OF CLAIMS F R ~ O MONEY OR DAMAGES vvITH ~ ~' THE CITY OF ALAMEDA THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY o ~' L COVERED BY STATE LAIN OR OTHER PROVISIONS IN THE a ~ ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE a BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Cade is amended by adding Section 3-53 CLAIMS} to Division VIII REFUNDS AND CORRECTIONS} of Chapter III FINANCE AND TAXATION}, which shall read as follows: 3-53 CLAIMS 3-53.~ Authority This ordinance is enacted pursuant to Section 935 of the California Government Code. The purpose of the Ordinance is to establish claims procedures for those claims agains# the City for money or damages not now governed by state or local laws, including those claims currently exempted under Government Code Section 945. 3-53.2 Time Barred Claims Nothing in this Code section revives or reinstates any claim or cause of action that, on the effective date of this Code section, is barred by failure to comply with any previously applicable statute, ordinance, or regulation requiring the presentation of a claim prior to suit, or by failure to commence any action within the period prescribed by an applicable statute of limitations. 3-53.3 Construction Nothing contained herein is intended to extend any statute of limitations or claims f ling period provided under other provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code, State law, or any other applicable law or regulation related to filing a judicial action or other proceeding for recovery of money or damages against the City. References in this Chapter #o specific sections of the California Government Code shall refer to those provisions as they now exist or shall hereafter be amended. Final Passage of Ordinance #4-J CC 44-~5-48 3-53.4 Claims Required All claims against the city for money or damages not otherwise governed by the Government Claims Act, California Government Code Sections 90o et seq., another state law or applicable Code section thereinafter in this ordinance, "claims"} including the exceptions contained in California Government Code Section 905, shall be presented within the time, and in the manner, prescribed by Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title ~ of the California Government Code commencing with Section 900 thereof} for the claims to which that Part applies by its own terms, as those provisions now exist or shall hereafter be amended, and as further provided by this ordinance. 3-53.5 Form of Claim All claims shall be made in writing and verified by the claimant or by his or her guardian, conservator, executor, attorney-in-fact or administrator. No claim may be filed on behalf of a class of persons unless verified by every member of that class as required by this Code section. In addition, ail claims shall contain the information required by California Government Code Section 910. In accordance with California Government Code Sections 935~b}, 945,4 and 945.6, all claims shall be presented as provided in this section and acted upon by the city prior to the filing of any action on such claims, and there is a provision that a rejection of a claim is the prerequisite decision, and no such action may be maintained by a person who has not complied with the requirements of Alameda Municipal Code subsection 3-53.4. 3-53.6 Suit Any action brought against the ci#y upon any claim or demand shall conform to the requirements of Sections 940-949 of the California Government Code. Any action brought against any employee of the cit shall conform with Y the requirements of Section 950-951 of the California Government Code. Section 2. Should any provision of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction tv be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision of this Ordinance or the application of this Ordinance to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full fore and effect from and after the expiration of thirty X30}days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Officer of the City Council Attest: Lara weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda *~***~ I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the ~ St day of April, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN wlTNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of April, 2008. Lara weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda E 0 0 N 0 a a CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. APPOINTING LOLAW, BRGWN AS A MEMBER GF THE CITY RECREATION AND PARK CGMMISSIGN ~ BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2-1.1 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and upon nomination of the Mayor, 0 ~ LOLAW. BROWN is hereb a oin ' y pp ted to the office of member of the Recreation and Park Commission of the City of Alameda commencing April 15, 2008, and expiring on September 30, 2011. **~*~~ 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 regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of April, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2008, Lora Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution #5-A 44-15-48 CITY OF ALAMEDA RES~LUTI4N N~, APPOINTING G1NA M, MARIANI AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY RECREATIGN AND PARK CGMMISSI~N E L a N o~ 0 L a a ,~ 0 a .~ BE IT RESOLVED by the Council ofthe City of Alameda that pursuant to Section 2-1,1 of the Alameda Municipal Cade, and upon nomination of the Ma or, Y GINA M. MARIANI is hereby appointed to the office of member of the Recreation and Park Commission of the City of Alameda commencing April 15, 2008, and expiring on September 30, 2011. *~*** I, the undersigned herebycertifythattheforegoing Resolutionwasdulyand regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 15th day of April, 2008, by the following vote to wit; AYES: NGES: ABSENT: ABSTENTfONS: IN VvITNESS, VvHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of , 2048, Lara vVeisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Chair and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the FY 2008/2009 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, A regiments, and Modifications BACKGROUND Community Development Block Grant CDBG}funds from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development THUD} finance programs and activities that benefit low- and moderate-income persons and help prevent or eliminate slums and blight. The FY 200812009 CDBG Action Plan, describing the proposed use of CDBG funds in the coming year, must be approved by the City Council and submitted to HUD by May 15, 2008. All citizen participation requirements have been met. DISCUSSION The FY 2008/2009 draft Action Plan is on file at the City Clerk's office. The Action Plan Summary, Attachment A, summarizes the activities recommended for funding in the 200812009 fiscal year. Recommendations are based on needs identified through a variety of community engagement activities, including results from the Social Service Human Relations Board's ~SSHRB's} community needs survey, consultation with community-based organizations, sponsorship or attendance at neighborhood andlor community outreach events, and public comments received at the SSHRB and City Council meetings on community needs held on November 15 and December 18, 2001, respectively. Public Fac11rf1es ~ lnfras~ructure: The Blight Busters program is recommended far additional funding to demolish and clear three to five additional blighted structures at Alameda Point. Several programs and projects previously approved by the City Council with prior years' funding will continue during FY 2008109 including the improvements to the Esperanza Housing Complex, the Alameda Point Americans for Disabilities Act Curb Cuts project, and the Woodstock to Webster Neighborhood Improvement project. City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-B 04.15-08 Honorable Mayor and April 15, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 4 Public Services: $232,600 is available during FY 200812009 for public service funding, which is a $9,922 decrease compared to last year's Action Plan allocation. Attachment B lists the public services recommended for funding. The Attachment includes program descriptions, proposed service levels, and proposal review scores. Consistent with identified needs, the funding recommendations target both safety net and empowerment programs. The City received $541,000 in public service requests -more than two times the amount of available funding. Unfortunately, several eligible programs could not be funded due to insufficient funds. In particular, staff received many more proposals from youth development programs than have been received in the past. As a result, there was increased competition for resources in this area. In total, six requests for youth-related activities were received. After careful consideration of all proposals, the Alameda Boys and Girls Club and Alternatives In Action programs were selected. Both programs offer youth development activities. The addition of Alternatives in Action, which focuses on workforce development by providing job training, college credit, and internship placement to high school students, will further advance the City's commitment to youth development and economic empowerment. At the City Council's request, the SSHRB reviewed staffs public service recommendations and heard public comment from organizations expressing support. The SSHRB concurs with staff s overall funding recommendations except in the area of funding for youth services. Following a thoughtful discussion regarding youth programming, the Board recommends that proposed funding for youth services be evenly split between the two agencies recommended for funding, the Alameda Boys and Girls Club and Alternatives in Action. A discussion of the Board's observations and findings is included in the report as Attachment C. Staff concurs with the Board's recommendation regarding youth service funding and the recommendation that any additional public service funding made available as a result of unanticipated program income received by June 30, 2401 be allocated towards direct service programming offered by the Alameda Red Cross andlor Bananas, Inc. Residential Rehabr~lfafr'on: $303,431 is recommended to support the City's Residential Rehabilitation programs, which include the Substantial Rehabilitation, Rental Rehabilitation, and Housing Rehabilitation programs. The Substantial Rehabilitation Program is funded in accordance with the requirements of the Guyton Agreement to develop new units in vacant or underutilized space in existing residential and mixed- use structures. Funding for the Alameda Accessibility Modification Program is provided by both the Rental and Housing Rehabilitation programs and provides grants to disabled residents to make accessibility modifications to their homes. Economic flevelopment: Building upon the successes of previous CDBG-funded economic development projects such as the Civic Center Parking Garage and the Small Business Assistance program, three economic development projects are proposed for funding. The vVomen In Business Program is recommended for $40,000. Administered by the nonprofit organization Vllomen's Initiative for Self Employment, the program will provide small business training and financial support for low-income Honorable Mayor and April 15, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4 women who want to launch or grow a microenterprise business. Additional funding is also recommended for the Development Services Department's Business Assistance Program, which provides assistance to commercial property owners and businesses for the purpose of creating or retaining jobs. The City will also continue to work with the Alameda Point Collaborative ~APC}, which has been designated as a Community- Based Development Organization ~CBDC}. The designation increases the City's flexibility to fund economic development-related initiatives, including employment training, which is typically funded as a public service and constrained by the 15°/° Public Service cap. The funding will enhance existing APC entrepreneurial efforts including the Bike Project, the Ploughshares Nursery, and Growing Youth Food Security program. Planning/Admin~stration/Program Delr'very: The Action Plan includes allocations for Fair Housing services, Everyone Home formerly known as the Continuum of Gare} support, program delivery, planning, and administration related to the development and implementation of all CDBG-eligible and CDBG-funded projects. In furtherance of the CDBG objective of assistance to lower-income residents, staff provides support to the Rent Review Advisory Committee, the SSHRB, and other similar activities. Following approval of and in accordance with the FY 200812009 CDBG Action Plan, grant agreements or modifications will be negotiated to fulfill Federal and Ci#y requirements. The form of agreements and modifications are the same as those previously approved by the City Council and City Attorney. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The execution of related agreements and final funding commitments are subject to satisfactory environmental clearance under 24 CFR Part 58. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT CDBG funds provide services and improvements to low- and moderate-income residents and neighborhoods. CDBG funds are also used to leverage millions of dollars of private, foundation, and other public funds for Alameda through private investment and matching grants. This Action Plan will allocate $1,329,612 in new CDBG Entitlement funds. tither CDBG funds noted in the Action Plan include an estimated $220,000 in program income from loan repayments and $359,135 in reallocated prior year funding. This is a total budget of $1,909,351. There is no impact on the General Fund. RECGMMENDATICN Adopt the FY 200812009 CDBG Action Plan and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute grant agreements, grant modifications, and other related documents. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ~C/ es ectf su eslie A. Little Development Services Director ; Debbie Potter Base Reuse and Community Development Manager By; Terri Wright Community Development Program Manager LALIDPITW;sb Attachments: A. CDBG FY 2008/2009 Action Plan Summary B. CDBG Public Services Funding Summary C. SSHRB FY 2008/2009 Public Service Recommendations April 15, 2008 Page 4 of 4 cc; FY 2008/2009 Public Service Subgrantees Social Service Human Relations Board CDBG FY 2008-09 Action Plan Summary April 15, 2008 The activities listed below are proposed to be funded with FY 2008-09 Entitlement and Program Income and reallocated CDBG funds from prior years. Program delivery costs support continuing projects that are funded with current and prior year funds. Final funding commitments are subject to satisfactory environmental clearance under 24CFR Part 58. CLEARANCE ACTIVITIES Activit & Descri tion LDCATIGN/ OUTCOMES CDBG Im lementin A enc ELIGIBILITY FUNDING Bii ht Busters Pro ram Alameda Point Demolish $180,000 Additional funding for program clearing blighted properties 570.201(5) 3 to 5 at Alameda Point Improvement Project. 570.208(a} Structures 04 Development Services Department PUBLIC SERVICES Alameda Continuum of Communit Emer enc and 451 Stardust PI 1,100 $41,500 Social Services IA.C.C.E.S.S~ individuals Case management, referrals, and direct services for 570.201(e} individuals and families at risk of homelessness. 570.208(a)(2} Alameda Red Cross 03T Alameda Food Bank 1900 Thau 1Ny & 3,900 $20,600 Staffing and operating costs to support emergency food 650 vU. Ranger individuals nroarams. 57D.201(e) 570.208(a)(2) Alameda Food Bank 05 Alternatives in Action Transition Center Community-wide 95 $15,000 Youth workforce development program. 570.201(e) youth 570.205(a)(2) Alternatives in Action 05D Child Care Vouchers Community-wide 12 to 15 $35,000 Limited-term vouchers for children of working parents. 570.201(e} individuals 570.208(a}(2} BAlvANAS, inc. 05L Famil Violence Prevention Services Community-wide 100 $15,000 Enhanced prevention and information, referrals, legal 570.201(e} individuals counseling for victims of family violence, 570.205(a)(2) Family Violence Law Center D5G Four Brides 1912 Central 45 $25,500 Support group for mentally and emotionally disabled adults. 570.201(e) individuals 570.205(a)(2) Bay Area Commoni~y Services 05B Housi_n~ Counseling Community-wide 400 $15,000 Tenant/Landlord counseling, mediation, information and 570.201(e) individuals referral. 570.208(a)(2} Sentinel Fair Noosing 05K Midwa Shelter Confidential 200 $43,500 Service-enriched, 24-hour emergency homeless shelter for 57D.201(e} individuals women and children. 570.208(a}(2) Building Futures with Women and Children 03T West Alameda Teen Ciub Third & Brush 130 $21,50D Youth recreation and leadership development program. 570.2o1(e) youth City Coin Alameda Boys and Girls Club 570.208(x)(2) 05D Puhlic Hear Ottachment ~ ~ci1 ing ~ to Agenda Item #5~B 0415-08 Activit & Descri Lion LOCATION/ OUTCOMES CDBG Im lementin A enc ELIGIBILITY FUNDING RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION Residential Rehabilitation Pra rams Community-wide 3 to 5 units $100,000 Financial and technical assistance for rehabilitation of rental 570.202 and owner-occupied units,including ADA upgrades. Programs 570.208~a}~3} include: Housing Rehabilitation, Rental Rehabilitation, Residential Pre-Development, and the Accessibility Modification Program. Development Services Department 14A & 14B Substantial Rehabilitation Community-wide 1 to 2 units $203,431 Financial and technical assistance to restore and/or create 570.202 affordable rental units in existing vacant or underutilized 570.208~a)~3) ~firi ir1~i irP~. Development Services Department 14A & 14B Residential Rehabilitation Prv ram Administration Community-wide $220,OOD Estimated costs to administer program. Development Services Department 14H ECONQMIC DEVELOPMENT Alameda Point Collaborative CBDO Community-wide 1 to 3 $125,000 Financial assistance to approved Community-Based 570.203 activities Development Organization providing CDBG-eligible 570.205~a}~4} economic development activities. 17C & 17D Development Services Department Business Assistance Pro ram Community-wide 1 to 3 $100,000 CDBG-eligible assistance to commercial property owners and 570.203 businesses businesses for the purpose of creating or retaining jobs. 57D.20S~a}~4) 1SA Development Services Department MICROENTERPRISE Women In Business Pro ram Community-wide 60 $40,000 Small business training and financial support for law income individuals women. 57D.201 o ~ } 570.2D5(a}(2) Women's initiative for Self Employment 15C PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION Fair Housin Services Community-wide 25 households $16,000 Fair housing education; housing discrimination counseling 570.206 and testing, Sentinel Fair Housing 21 p Ever One Home Community-wide Community-wide $5,800 Cformerly Homeless Continuum of Cared Implementation of Homeless Management Information 570.206 System and development of funding resources for Alameda and other County homeless providers. Alameda County 21A General Administration 570.206 $285,122 21A Program Delivery Various $330,000 Unprogrammed Funds for cost overruns 22 $68,398 TOTAL FY 2D08-D9 ACTION PLAN FUNDING $1,909,351 G:CDBG~CONSPLAN~AnnPlans~2408~draft plan`AP Summary F: 34.11} aaooS ~(} rn [!} lf? In rn ~ rn QO ~ oo ti I!'? ~ In o I.() ao issodoad o o rn °~ h ~6ny s uoi~~~ndod X X X ~ ~C >C isiaadg fiuisnoH K ~ ~ aiq~epao~y aanr-odua3 ~C X ~ ~ ~aN ~a~s o° ~? °o ~ °o 0 °o 0 °o o °o N °o o o° u~ o 0 o 60 ,~• o N ui ~ ~i c~ ~i ~ ,~ N ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~° N ,B0 spunk ~ p,woaa~ r~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J3 ~ ~ N ~r ~°n ~°n ~ °o °o ~ ~ ~ h °o o °a 0 60-80 pa~sanba~ ~= ~' ti N m ~ ui ti ~i ~- co N co ~- ui ~ ~ N spunk ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rf3 ~ ~ o ~ rn 6wpun~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ - ~ N ,~ }ua~m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ N ~ L .c o~ ? •~ ~•° o o~ ~. -c o a ~~ ~o ° ~ cE~ ~ -o ~ ~° ~ N a ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ c o C C ~ ~`° o o C +r :;~ r ~ v o o o rn ~ ~~ N ~ 0 vc~ ccn o ao cn m~ ~ ~ o~ c o aaE aX - mac vNo a rn L e~ -~°'co ~~ ~a C Lafe m~N~ ea ~e o•~ co ~ e N~ ~ ~; L ~'~m O ~-oo L a av~ L• aN~c rna oo~c aoN° c~m ~ Nrnc ~ a~~ ~o oa ~~~ ° ~m~ Aso u7oca ~~- r~"~v ° ~a~~N v'a aN o W p ~~•~ ~N~ N N ~•~ ~ 0 ' ~ N ~ o mC•X ~ v • r~ M ~U mVo ~ac~ r~E Nm.~ rnra~i L m O=~L oN °~ ~ c m~Em ~] avmoo a cc L o0 c o c ' ~ case O L~ ~Qa t v ~ a ~ N D ~ ~~ N C N c p rn ~~ ~ ~ N m~ A N L _= N c 0= N a ~? E 0~ ~' N ~ 0 cn p i s N~ ~ E~ 0 ~? a ? C~ a~ E'~~ui o Loa o o N cn~-~ m S-' E o~ ~ ~ ~cNm a-o cc .n_ N o m s~ ~ N ~-~~ ~coN~ o ~ ~oL ~• a ~~ N ~~°~ v ~ ~~~ N ~~a~ oc~~ ~Eo= ~~ NL ~ cn ~0•3•~' ~-. °~~~~ o °oo° ~~~ Q~-'c`_~n ~ ' ~o o a ° a ~ o ~ ~, - ~.~ ~'~ ~ j U~ aN a turn ~ a L cn u~ U N U UN}' ~ ~ aL o +.~ 0 q} ~•~ o v o O. C _ o (D ~ o c~ C ] ~ N ~_ ~ 3 ~ ~ f6 L o ~ E ~ C ~' ~•- - 0 ~ ~ o a•~ ~ oT °~ C 0~ ~0 ~,,, N C 0 ~ o~°? o m ~'' O i E aN a N - C m~ `~ o a o,~ a U C C ~ L rn E ~ c N ~ E C U' vU ] ~ ~' E>> o c~ mc ~ ~, c _o a ~ a iri E~ ~ a ~ rn ~~ N O ~ m c L•` L '~ w 0 ~ N N E ~r~a a N ~ Z C -p C~ r o N~~ ~ U o p • ~ E C c N~ O p , N N o N N Y N li r •v L m ~ o r -° .~ 0 0 ~ a ~ a c c E ~ o~ 'o~ ~ ~ ~ ro N~ ~'N ~ L ~ rn ~ c~ N a 'cn ~ ~ ~ c ~ " -~ °}cn 3~ c•L~ 0 r~ 0 • v a~ ~ o-o c E F- a~~L~ L E m '~ a a~ E o E N ~ o oc~.oN m ~ E '~o ~a ~ o a~mc o ; o c~'~~a3 c ~ 3 v ~, • c ca~~ o o. Q ~Q m o p a °'~ n ~ m~ ~~~ ~ ~ a C ~s m~ a ~- L fa s E v aN a o L N C O Q~ N c. p ,vi ~ o m~ o C cn f6 C .~.. ~• Y ~~ X N C~ o v a ~-° N a WNv.°cc o~L~ a v~aE c ~°'a~a o~ o C o~ ~°oE-o c a ~~~Ern rn3.3 ~'3~° m ^ a~cno C C :F., ~~ a~ '~~~a i 7+ f~ o C aa~ 2 c ++ N o ~-v o~oN~ ~ L. U :p ~' o ro ~, .E ~~c~o-v - N ~ C • ~Lo°~ 0 ~ `~ ~ DL °' Laa~ N t- v ~ ~ ~ ' E ~ ~, ~ cn~ a~ (~ o ca c o a os c c•~ o E cn t a o' L c s `~~ ro o m N ~ 3~~~ a c c c~ as a m~ :n c c~ o ~ c e '~ as U ~ ~' o~ rn o o E o or E cn v o ~ a o ~ ro N ~~N v ~ W a D} a ~ om uai'O`~' °~ m cn ~ VO~NC = rnE r m a~a~o o 4 NE rn cwEcc .N co~. o ~0 ~ s} a o L N E- o o m • ~~ E o o E ~,~ m a c as :~ ~o s a~E E c ago E ~ L ~ ~ a~~~ N o c~ `~ ~ o•~ ~ o~ ~ ~ cn ~ 2 E cow W ~ a~ Q.~ 02 U.~~ ~~ W ~ ^ ~ ~ 3 c 2 ~ v mr ~ N~ Q ~ E z U C o (ti 0 N Q 3 L? ~ C o a Z LA .C •a ~ N~ Z Q Z N J C o ~ m C N • ,..~ m i..~ C LL. ~ .~ .~ ~ E a~ v ~QN m ~ ~ ~ ~ Ja c '~ me c ~ ~ o cV ~ W m Y c ~ ~o a~~ Nm C ~~ Ucn ~ o ~• - o i- a~ ~~~w~ +r {,} W W Q m ~ Q c a ~ ~~, ~E ay ~ L E U c~ a~ N ~2 ~ C ~~ ~ N c V ~ U ~ Q ~ o ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ p ~ c ° N 'N a~~ s N 0 ° City z v .~ ~ ~ o ~ ' :~ ~' j n ~ ~ '~ U ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ Public ~ • m aEUc~m E • °' E ~ ~ - '_'~ • a~ma~E ~°~ ~~ Q~ A ttach ~ 0 a ~ v c E ~ N a Q~cn~~ (d Q N Q L ~ C~ C E E ~ n~ i~~ v 7 C C N _ ~ .C ~' ~ N E A endal ~' `~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~Q Council Nearing ment B to tem #5, B 04~ 5.oa N aaoog ~ ~i ~esodo~d ° ~ °0 • 6Ay fn N Z s uo~~e~ndod ~ ~ ~ ~eioadg 6uisno~{ X X X algapao~'d auaw ~ X ~ ~annodua~ X ~aN ~a~aS 00 ° 0° °o ° ~ sa -gQ spunk ~ ~; N °~ ~ I~ p,uaooa~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° o 6Q"BQ cn o N q N a o ~ pa~san~a~ spunk ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ° ~ ~ 6uipun~ ~ (~ ~ C'7 ~: ~ua~m~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ N (~ ~ o ~ '~ ~ ~ C N `~ ._ = c o ~~~ N °~ oN O ~ ~ c 3 ~ ~ - ~ U U c ~ ~ p ~ ~ p a~°~ a~N •~~~ a ~ .~ E ~ ~ o ~ °o`~ C 0 a L ~ aE ~ ~~o ,acre •~ ~c~o E a caa ~, ~~,~; ~~ c c~ ~~ ~ p N N E cno o N~ U~~ vN~ o`°~ Imo ~Q~ ~ ~ 'd ~ ~U U L n C U c ~ o ~, o a m ~ E E ' a° aa~ i~ ~ v m v E•~!' o N U O C ~ ~ C~ ~ C f~ co 0 ~ ~ N ] N i~~ ~ C c, ~ v= o U ~-oo~° ~ o~~ ~ ~ orr ~}' ~ ~,° v ' ]~ ~ ~o~c ] U a o N ~ U o N ~o ~ L C L, E o ~ fI3 ILf N L 'C ~~ ,~ ~roo ~ m oo.~ L a~ a a c o ~ N.o o ~ ~•~•~,~ NN~~ ~~ NEo ~' .°~ ~~ ~v a c mN ro ~ a ~~ m N ~v c~O.E ~n•~Na • V} ~~c • C 0 ^ ~ D. d.c Cm o ooU~ .~ ,~ ~a~ N o ~prn E ,C N ~n ~ a C~ E~mc N C N o C j U 0 ~ ,w -0 o c 0~~ _ N c N N O N c C~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~o~ o- °? UC ~oa o~a ~- ~N ~ ° E • ~ Ew U~ N z ~ ~ m C Z 41 N ' LL a U ~ .~ ~ Q ~ ~-°~ ~ °' a~ E N ] L 0 0 U N ._ E [~ ~ 0 o m +~ a~ p C Wo~~ Z UN U ~ ion a a~ E 2V} c W Ors _c c~ om c ~_ , C C aU 2 0 a~ Z ~~•N*' a~ ~ o oV o •°~ v ~' ~ E E~ E a ~'°r ° a W~'~~ ~ cnu.~ ~o°' QUO of ~w ~~~ wQ o (D u7 ti lf7 N oD co CV co -p ~~ O p -p ~~ o p ~p ~~ o p c~ ~ ' ? N Z N Z N = v ._ .n N c o ~ ~. K X ~ o ~ ~ °' m E ~ ~ E N ~ v~ v .N ~ ~ m o ~ U ~ ~ -p ~ C .` ,~ 0 ?C )C ~C yC )C X 0 ~ N v C ~ v ~ = .0 U ~ Ca X .~ ~ j C N ` L ~ ~d ~ ~ O a N N _ ~ ~ r •c ' °~ °~ °~ ° ~ o ~ o ~ = N ~ •~ ° ~ 3 ~~ 0 ~ C N ~ ~~ as o ;v_ o ~o 0 0 O 0 N ~ N o ~ M ~ o O N v ~~ - [ u ? . p N ' N O ~ C .~ O z C m ,., ~ ~ Q ~ ~} 6F} 6F! Ef} {f} E 0 a~ C ~' N ma '~ Z °- N `m a0 E ~ aU c L N U ~ ~ O} ] N p~ +r Z~ o ~ `~ N ~ 7 ~U ~m N ~~ ~ o ~~ ~o E .3 3 0 moo ; n 3 ~ ~m •~ ° ra ~ ~O U ~ .~ 0~ +r o N C 0 O~ O~ 0 L 0~ N ~ C O N~ C ~ o~~ ~ c ~' ~ o• o N~co Quo o ~c ,~ ~ ~ o ] _ ]+ E N E '0 N o c o m C N Q O 'D ~ p Z ~{7 ~ N [ o. _ O ~-mcnv qOj 3 ~ p~ 'O C ~w Q 'N ~a N L ~ ~ a~ ~ ] N o oao ~.. C ° ~ ~ [ o D. N ~ C 0 N U c~ ~- ~ ~~ Y m o . O p> > E > ~° O N -- ~rn-o~LE otSocm~~ a~ ~E ~° ~ *, n~o.o° ~s~rn c r L moca ~N~ .n o~, o~ a~ s E ~. ~? ~ N E c~ a~ Y ~.., ~ 7 c L cn c~ m C E N~ 0) ,~ d Q1 ° E ~~ N a i c~ t n aE o o~ E c m .N .~ o ~ c '0 ~ O 0 r -d L a ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ 0 0 O 'L ~ N ~ [ ~ D~ c 3 • ~ cv +r O ~ °~ ~ C s~ c 0 0 0 ~ ~ c a ~ c ], ]~ Loo~~ N ov~v aN-oo ~o _~ a .o E ~ ~ o~Noor ° `~ 3~ Nc ° ~°-c~~v o~~ o E o o,~a L ~ ~ m ~c~a v ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ r ° -~ ~ [ 3o~~No p v~ V N C ou. ~ soo N~ *~' ~ *'' oo ~ N m °~Nm ~ N .p ~ o p~ ~. ~n '~ oi c N c ~ ~ U ~~o o A~U ~~ ~a~i oma~°irnp c ~~a~ m -- oa~U ~ N o ~ ~ m a~ c MccNoo ~ 'a v] m o~ ~ .~ - - E•E~E°o m ° ~. m°,m v -v o o oar c ~ ~ ~ .~ L a~ ~ a '~ ~ v ~ ~ .o ~ as ~ ~ n a ~o°~ c ~' ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ o ° ~,o ~^ ~ mN °? a~ ~ ~ m ~, ~ O 0 ~~ C C Q L .0 v~°o a~ C N r E N (6 C I~ E,cv°'~ U ~~ Q _cm ,c ,~ ~~ O omma N .~ E o N Q L ,o N N N E ' E U L NN ~ [} v N E O N ~ ~~~ '0 c 3 ~ ~ ~ t c~~ N 7 ~ (~ c 0 (~ o .N ~ ~ .~. O ~ .c QJ N N O t , 0 N ~ , 0 Q o ~ rnm~ L 3-oa m~o w~ N•E was E a•a~ ~ E ~ ~ z Z ~ ~ V ~ ~ O ~ LL ~ N o ~ N N ~ •7 ~ Q ~ N .U E O N C v p N ' +r c E o r U ~ ~ 7 n ~ ~q m E 0 N O' a ~ a W E o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~' _ .E U v ~, • o ~ ~ o ~~= ro ~ m , , ~ ~ ~ Q N ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ d ~ [ ~ a ; E Y m 0• W p v a N ~a ~ c ' ~a w E ~ m o ~ ~ ], O 0 ~ ~ ~ c ] y N ~ ~ o. ~ a E ~ ~ °' E ~ ~ ~w z i~ ~ ~ o L U Q r ~ Uu. ~ r N~i ~ . ~~r CITY OF ALAIVIEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Cynthia Wasko President, Social Service Human Relations Board Date: April ~, X008 Re: Recommended FY2008-~ 0 CDBG Public Service Allocations BACKGROUND At the City Council's request, the Social Service Human Relations Board SSHRB}annually reviews and comments on the Development Service Department's recommendations far Community Development Block Grant ~CDBG} public services funding. At its November meeting, the SSHRB Board} considered priority needs for public service funding and recommended certain focus areas, including strengthening the social service safety net, empowering economic and social self-sufficiency, improving access to affordable housing, and making sure isolated populations have awareness of, and access to services through increased outreach and publicity. DISCUSSIDNIANALYSIS At its March meeting, the SSHRB reviewed staff's public funding recommendations. The SSHRB also heard comments from representatives oforganizations proposed for funding. FY 08-09 represents the first year of atwo-year funding cycle, and the recommendation was consistent with funding plans established for this funding cycle. This year, the Board's Community Needs statement emphasized support for youth development and youth empowerment programs. In keeping with this priority, the staff recommendation allocated $36,500 to youth development programs. The Board wishes more funding was available to support youth development, but also recognizes the importance of balancing safety net services such as food and shelter services with youth development. For this reason, the Board supports the funding balance between youth development and safety net programs. Based on presentations and discussion at the Board's public hearing regarding public servicefunding, the SSHRB unanimouslysupportsthe staffrecommendationsforsafety net funding. However, after much discussion, the Board also recommends that the $36,500 recommended for youth development programs be re-allocated between thetwo proposed programs recommended, so that both entities receive equal amounts of funding. City Council Public Hearing Attachment C to Agenda item #5~ g D415~08 Honorable Mayor and April 2, 2005 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 The staff proposed plan allocated Alameda Boys and Girls Club $21,500 in funding for the West End Teen Club, adrop-in center that provides middle school and high school aged youth with recreation and life skills training including online self paced computer courses, nutrition and money management courses, and recreational field trips. A newly funded program, the Alternatives in Action Transition Center, was allocated $15,000 for an after school and summer job development program for high school students including special education students} that offers college credit, internships and job training. After much discussion, the Board recommends that each program be funded equally x$18,250 each}, The Board believes this shift better reflect supportforyouthempowerment, economic self- sufficiency, and special populations. The recommended public service funding package represents a keen understanding of maintaining the current level of operating funds for previously funded, performing, grantees. The Board believes maintaining the highest level of support benefits clients who have come to rely on these services. However, the Board also values ensuring that new programs are able to compete for and receive funding. With limited funds, this is a challenge that the Board and staff work to balance. As in past years, a percentage of the additiona! program income received through June 30, 2007 can be used to increase public services funding for FY 2001108. !f additional funding becomes available, the Board recommends additional funding for Bananas, Inc., Child Care Voucher program andlor to the Red Cross Emergency Rental Assistance Program. Increased funding would be contingent upon the agency's abilityto maximizedirect program benefit. Decisions about additiona! awards would be managed by staff, with Board in ut, . p and will take into cons~deratlon hausing needsthat may emerge should the housing market decline or foreclosure rates increase. RECGMMENDATIGN The SSHRB unanimously recommends the City Council approve the CDBG public services funding recommendations with an amendmentthat divides youth program funding a wall q Y between the two youth development agencies recommended for funding. Respectfully submitted, Cynt ' Wasko, President Saci Service Human Relations Board CW:MJ:sb cc: Social Service Human Relations Board G:ISSHRBI000NCILIRECQMMENIPublic Services Recs 08.doc F:ISSHRBICouncil Relations 2008 1!} 7 f CITY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Approval of a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development Amendment far Reduced Parking, and Tentative Map far the Construction of Ten New office Buildings Located at 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway 11Uithin the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial Manufacturin ,and Planned Develo ment Zonin District BACKGROUND On February 25, 2008, the Planning Board considered a proposed Final Develo ment . p Plan, Major Design Review, Planned Development Amendment for reduced arkin , . p g and Tentative Map for ten commercial buildings totaling approximately 109,000 s uare . a feet} and associated parking, landscaping, and other improvements located at 2800 Harbor Bay Parkway in the Harbor Bay Business Park. The individual buildin s would g range in size from 1,600 to 20,000 square feet and would be located on an undeveloped 9.22-acre portion of an overall 29.31-acre site adjacent to the Ferry Terminal and Harbor Bay Parkway. The proposal also included the subdivision of the existin 29.31- . g acre parcel into 14 separate parcels, including ten parcels for the proposed office park, four parcels for future development, and dedication of a portion of Harbor Ba Parkwa . Y Y to the City. The project is being designed to achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design BLEED} certification; consistent with the City Council's recent) . Y adopted Climate Protection Local Acton Plan. Based upon a review of the proposal, comments from the public, and the established entitlements for the property under the 1989 Development Agreement for the Harbor Bay Business Park, the Planning Board found that the proposal was consistent with the approved Planned Development for Village V -Harbor Bay Isle, which includes the Harbor Bay Business Park, made the findings necessary far the Design Review and Planned Development Amendment for reduced parking, and approved the project. The Planning Board also recommended the City Council approve the Tentative Ma for the ... p subdEV~sion. The Planning Board staff report for the project is on file in the Cit Clerk's Y Gffice. City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-C X4.15.45 Honorable Mayor and April 15, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 6 Following the Planning Board's approval of the office park and subdivision on Februa ry 25, 2008, an appeal was filed on March 5, 2008 by Ms. Reyla Graber see Attachment 1 }stating that: • There was inadequate notification regarding the project; • The effects on the nearby lagoons anal wildlife were not adequately addressed; • The project lacks sufficient open space; • There is an insufficient buffer between San Francisco Bay and the proposed buildings; • The project proposes insufficient parking; • The colors and afesign of the buila~ings are nod compatible with the neig>?borl?ood and bayside ambiance; and • The environmental impacts may trigger the need for review pursuant to the California Environmental Qualify Act (CEQ,4~. It should be noted that the appellant did not raise these issues with City staff prior to or at the Planning Board hearing. However, they are addressed in detail below. In addition, the applicant's attorney has submitted a written response to the appeal ~ See Attachment 2}. DlSCUSSfGN In 1981 and 1952, the City granted approvals for the development of Harbor Ba . Y Business Park, which together wEth subsequent amendments, established that the lands within the Business Park, including the subject site, would be developed for office and business use with specifed setbacks, density, parking requirements, and other site controls. Pursuant to the original approvals for the Business Park, as each property within the Business Park is prepared for development, the City has the authority to complete design review and assess the final development plans for consistency with the original approvals. Public Nolificalion: All public notices regarding this project were in full compliance with Alameda Munici al p Code X25-5 Notices and the City Council s policy. Gn February 6, 2008, 20 da s rior Yp to the Planning Board hearing, notices were sent to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project site, including residential properties within the Bay Colon .. y and Freeport cammunit~es located east of the lagoons. Notices of the proposed project were posted on the project site on February 6, 2008, and advertised in the Alameda Journal on February 5, 2008. In addition to the City of A[ameda's efforts to inform and involve the neighborhoods adjacent to the site, the project applicant, Mr. Joe Ernst of SRM Associates, conducted at least six meetings with the adjacent homeowner associations and their representatives, including presentations to the boards of the Bay Colony and Freeport homeowners associations. As a result of these public outreach efforts, the staff s recommendation included a series of specific conditions proposed b . Y the neighbors and agreed to by the applicant to improve the project for the neighbors. Honorable Mayor and April 15, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 6 Effects on the Nearby Lagoons and Wildlife: Based upon the staff analysis and recommendation, the Planning Board made the finding that there have been no significant changes in circumstances that require revisions to the previously certified Environmental impact Report for the Harbor Bay Business Park development. The Planning Board also made the finding that the proposed project would not cause environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. In response to the appellant's concern, staff contracted with PBS&J to conduct an on-site survey of site-specific flora and fauna, as well as a transect survey for evidence of burrowing owls ~,4thene cunicularia}. The findings of the biologist's March 19, 2008 survey indicated there was no evidence of wetlands or burrowing owls, and that wildlife species in and around the lagoon would not be adversely impacted by the proposed project see Attachment 3}. open Space: The proposed project exceeds all of the open space requirements established for the site. The 1981 Planned Development BPD-S1-2} for the Business Park establishes the standards for density and open space for each development project within the Park. For example, PD-81-2 establishes a maximum building coverage of 40°/° for lots between 1.5 - 5.5 acres and 35°/o for lots that are 5.5 acres or greater. The proposed project has an average building coverage of 13.89°/4, which is well below the maximum permitted. Minimum landscape coverage of 30°/o is required for lots between 1.5 - 5.5 acres and a minimum of 25°/° for lots that are 5.5 acres or greater. The proposed project has landscape coverage of 41.3°/0, which is well above the minimum required and will be maintained in common by the project owner's association. Buffer Between the Buildings and San Francisco Bay: The project provides a sufficient buffer between the proposed buildings and San Francisco Bay. The 1981 approvals for the site establish minimum setbacks within the Business Park. Specifically, the minimum required setback from the property boundary for office buildings adjacent to Bay Edge Park, also known as Shoreline Park, is 35 feet for buildings under 35 feet tall. All the buildings in this proposed project have a setback of 35 feet, which is consistent with this requirement, It should be noted that Bay Edge Park is approximately 40 feet wide in front of the project site boundary, providing a total distance of l5 feet between the front of the buildings and San Francisco Bay, 40 of which are publicly accessible open space with bicycle and pedestrian paths. Illlithin the 35 foot wide area between the Park and the buildings, the project wilt provide an attractively landscaped band that will include native grasses and environmentally appropriate landscape materials. The applicant will also resurface the existing public paved path and add benches for pedestrians. Finally, the proposed project and the site improvements have been reviewed by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ~BCDC}, which found the improvements to be consistent with their original approvals for the site. Honorable Mayor and April 15, 2005 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 6 Parking: The project provides sufficient off-street parking and is subject to participation in the Harbor Bay Business Park Transportation Management Program. The Alameda community, Planning Board, Transportation Commission, and City Council have all considered at various times the relationship between the City's parking regulations, community character preservation policies, environmental sustainability policies, economic development policies, urban design policies, and transit-first policies. As each project proceeds through the entitlement process, staff and the Planning Board consider these relationships in the context of the project's specific site conditions, land use mix, transit availability, and the character of the surrounding land uses. In this instance, the Planning Board and staff focused on the following site specific considerations: • The 1981 approval BPD-S1-2~ requires a total of 405 parking spaces, an average ratio of 3.75 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. • The Institute of Transportation Engineers 1999 recommended standard for "suburbanllow rise general office" use would require 3.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area but only 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for "downtownlmid rise" office use with nearby transit service. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission's 2001 publication "Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth" recommends a range from a low of 2 spaces per thousand to a high of 3.33 spaces per thousand depending on local conditions for an office project of this type. • The site is located immediately adjacent to the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal and the project will participate in an existing transportation program funded and administered by the Harbor Bay Business Park Association that was developed to minimize traffic and parking demand at the Business Park by disseminating transit information, providing subsidized mass transit passes, cooperating with RIDES on car pool matching programs, providing shuttles to and from the Coliseum BART Station, and encouraging employees of the Business Park to use alternative commute modes. The BART shuttle program has been very successful and is currently being expanded to provide additional shuttle vehicles and service frequency. • The project is designed to meet a LEED standard for sustainable design, which requires that the parking areas be sized appropriately to maximize transit use and minimize impervious surfaces. • The parking areas will be shared between the various tenants within the project. • An informal survey of existing parking areas developed within the Business Park reveals that the parking areas are generally over-sized for the parking demand generated by the tenants and visitors within the Business Park. Given these circumstances, the Planning Board and staff found that the proposal to provide 3S4 parking spaces, a ratio of 3.51 spaces per 1,404 square feet of floor area, was appropriate and represented a more effective use of the site than is possible under Honorable Mayor and April 15, 2008 Members of the City Council Pa e 5 of 6 9 the regulations for the district with which the Planned Development BPD} District is combined and that the reduced parking count would not result in overflow parking in the adjacent neighborhoods. Colors and Design of the Buildings Not Compatible With the Neighborl~oo~: Alameda Municipal Code RAMC} §3D-31.5 requires that in order for a project to receive Design Review approval, a finding shall be made that "Projects must be compatible with their site, and any adjacent or neighboring buildings or surroundings and promote harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses." The Planning Board found that the project's site design takes into consideration the adjacent properties by providing ample open space that is appropriately located to serve as transitions between the office park and the surrounding land uses. In addition, the buildings are grouped to create a sense of spatial units, and there are ample provisions for pedestrian access to the waterfront. The building design is harmonious with the neighborhood, complements the Business Park, and has an appropriate theme and sense of scale, utilizing high quality textures, extensive glazing, and premium building materials. The design also takes advantage of its location on the waterfront and maximizes its orientation to, and visual relationship with, the water. The landscaped areas have been designed to be an integral, harmonious, and sustainable part of the project, incorporating plant species that are attractive, native, and tolerant of the maritime environment. Additional amenities such as benches, seating areas, and bicycle racks have also been incorporated into the landscape design. The off-street parking is located behind the buildings, is attractively screened from the public right-of way, and in response to comments from adjacent residents, landscaping will be used to break up and screen the interior. Review Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality act ~CEQA}.~ Upon further review of the existing environmental documentation for the Business Park and the project site and consideration of the appellant's concerns, staff finds that the project would not result in any new significant environment impacts that were not considered within the existing, certified environmental documents for the Business Park and the subject site. BUDGET CGNSIDERATiGNIF1NANCIAL IMPACT No additional funding is necessary related to planning activities for this project. MUNICIPAL CGDEIPGLICY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE Planned Development PD-S1-2, Tract 4500 - Village V -Harbor Bay Isle Planning Board Resolution No. 1203}, Alameda Municipal Cade §30-4.13 Planned Development Combining District, §30-37 Design Review Regulations, and §3D-18 Tentative and Parcel Maps govern this proposal. Honorable Mayor and April 15, 2045 Members of the City Council Page 6 of 6 ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIEW The 1951 Harbor Bay Business Park Planned Development was evaluated previously in an Environmental Impact Report prepared by A. D. Little and certified by the City Council on March 5, 1971. A subsequent Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report was approved on April 4, 1989. Under Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required for this application. The draft resolutions for this project contain findings pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15162. RECGMMENDATIGN Hold a public hearing and uphold the Planning Board's approval of a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, and Planned Development Amendment for reduced parking for the construction of the Esplanade office park and approve Tentative Map TM 9689 based on the findings and with the conditions contained in the Draft Resolutions. Respectfully submitted, (~LJ Cathy W d ury Planning & Building Director By: Douglas Vu Planner III Attachments: 1. Appellant's application to appeal the Planning Board's February 25, 2448 decision 2. Letter from Gibson, Dunn,& Crutcher, attorney far the applicant 3. PBS&J Biologist's Report nwa+we~~c PETITION FOR APPEAL OR CALL FOR RE\dIEW This tition is hereby filed as an appeal r call far review of the de~i~ion of the C3~.1(l ~ \ ~ ~~tiV~ <ihich _ 1 (Planning Director2oning Admini rator/Planning Board/Hi torical Advisory Eioard) _ for applicatian~ (Denie ranted t blished Condfions) (Application type) ~ (~ ~. `~,~ 1 J `~~ u~--~ ~-~ at - :_ :_ _. -- . ~°~ - (Application Number) (Street Address) (Specify Date) ~~:- the basis of the appe I or call fo review i ~ i . ~ ~~Q, ~~ ~c~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~~~~ `.. ~ '';, ' 1 ~G, ~ , v .< (If more space is needed, continue on the reverse side or attac~-e acfd "~~nal sheet Appelland: ~ `~ ~~ Yom'-~v~ ~~~ ~~ ~ _ ~_} ~ln (~ nt ame(s Plaq ir~n~ ard~M-e~mber r it Member) ~ ~ ~ Z,~ ~4ddress: ~ L ~`~' ~~(Appel~la+nt~~A_ddress),_, _ ~~~~ ~~~ ~C~~ ~.~ ~ ~ L~ AMC Section 30-25, Appeals and Calls for Review, provides th~~withi~~~ ten (10) days a decision of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator r ay be appealed t4 the Panning Board, and _- decisions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board may ire appealed to the City Council. fn addition to the appeal process, decisions of the PIarGEying Director or honing Administrator may be called for review within fen (10) days to thy; Planning Baard by the .Planning board or by the City Council and decisions of the Pl~nnins~ Board or the Historical Advisory Board may be called for review by the City Council or a mer~~ber the City Council. A processing fee of ~'f 40,00 must accvrnpany the Petition far Appeal. No fee is required for a Call far Review, ~~ . ~~:.~': ^. ~ -`~~,~~ For 0~[ce Use On Qate Rece~red Stamp City Council Received By: ~ ~ Public Hearing ece~pt~ o~: Attachment 'I to . Agenda Item #5-C 04-15.08 ~~ An employee-owned company To: o ~C~~~]C MAR 2 8 2008 PERMIT CEN'fEt~ ALAMEDA, CA 945^ 1 The City ofAlameda -Planning and Building Department: Andrew Thomas and Douglas Vu From: PBS&J: Erik W. Hansen and John T. Steere Date: March 2l, 2008 Re: Harbor Bay -Bird and Wetlands Inspection Methodology 0n Wednesday, March 19, 2008, Erik W. Hansen ~PBS8~J -Biologist l1} completed an on-site investigation for avian species and wetlands at the project site, located southeast and adjacent to the intersection of Harbor Bay Parkway and Bay Edge Road, The investigation began at 9:10 a.m. to include the morning active period, and concluded at 11:42 a.m., and included a survey of site specific flora and fauna and site conditions, and a transact survey for evidence of burrowing owls ~Afnene cunicularia}. on-Site Conditions The project site is flat and made up almost entirely of sandy soils dredge material}. In communication with the developer, he has indicated that the project site is disced annually fat the request of the City of Alameda Fire Department}, which is reflected in the on-site vegetation, consisting of species indicative of a "ruderaf" disturbed}vegetation community see "Site 2 -Photo 3" of Attachment A}, and includes such species as: Italian rye ~Lolium mulfiflorum}, rip-gut brome ~Bromus diandrus}, black mustard ~Brassica nigra}, Iceplant ~Carpobrofus edulis}, and Red-stemmed f laree ~Ero~ium cicufarium}. The black-tailed jackrabbit ~Lepus califomicus} and California ground squirrel ~Spermophilus beechey} were observed on site, burrowing in the project site's pliable soils. Avian species observed on site included the American crow ~Canrus brachyrhyrrchos} and house sparrow Passer domesficus}. Findings Wetlands Project Site No evidence of vegetation that is either facultative or indicative of wetlands was observed on site, including rush species, tules, andlor riparian vegetation such as willows, currant, or herbaceous species, and there was no evidence of channels or drainages perennial or ephemeral}, on site. There are no "blue-line" streams or drainages, as mapped by the United States Geological Survey ~USGS}, located on site, and due to the permeability of the soil located on site, most precipitation seeps quickly underground rather than run off site. Lagoon and Bay The lagoon is located in the eastern portion of the project site. No work will occur in the lagoon or on its banks. As no work would be completed in the lagoon, wetland habitat and associated species would not be impacted by project implementation. Water quality effects associated with project runoff to the lagoon would be minimized through specific Best Managemen# Practices ~BMPs} that would be implemented as part of the project's Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ~SWPPP}, which will be prepared in compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ~NPDES} requirements. These measures would ensure that short term cons#ruction activities and long term stormwater discharge from the project site does not impact the lagoon and adjacent bay. City Council Public Hearing Attachment Z to Agenda Item #5~ C ~i3 Sacramento Street • Suite lOQO • San ~rancisca, California 94111 • Telephony 04-'15-08 Avian Species Burrowing awl The burrowing owl survey was conducted in conformance with the protocol established by the California Department of Fish and Game ~CDFG} for .a phase II burrowing owl survey. The entire project site was surveyed in transects see "Site ~ Map" of Attachment A}, allowing for 100 percent visual coverage up to 30 meters, and burrows were observed for the presence of the burrowing owl ~e.g. pellets, feathers, carcass'}. No evidence indicative of the burrowing owl was observed atthe time of the survey In 1 g83, an occurrence of burrowing owl was recorded within one mile, southeast of the project site; however, this colony was relocated to an area near the golf course on Harbor Bay Parkway. Ground Dwelling Species As mentioned previously under "On-Site Conditions", ground dwelling species observed on site included the California ground squirrel and black-tailed jackrabbit, neither of which is considered sensitive by a regulatory agency ~e.g. U.S. Fish and wildlife Service, CDFG}. The loss of habitat for these species in buildout of the project site would not be considered significant. Wildlife Movement The ruderal vegetation community located on site provides little habitat value, except to those ground dwelling species mentioned above, and most avian ~speciai-status or not} species would only utilize the project site for local foraging. The project site does not serve as a wildlife corridor, as it does not: ~1}facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources ~e.g., water, food, cover, den sites}; ~2} serve to connect two or more habitat patches; and ~3} allow wildlife to pass through an obstacle or barrier that othen~vise hinders or prevents movement. Sincerely, Erik W. Hansen Biologist II Attachments: A -Field Notes and Photos L~.:r~iJ SITS Z /~fpP Site 1 Photo 1 Photo 2 ih4r;erJ:~' ::i:?a~:'. •i, i•, ',~~..,~j~ ~...~: ~ ji.s ,F,f,.~iY`,fia~l~:,~''~'r;'.; '•~yr~s. L .id',:v~r;• _ ~ - i;r.. .i,. ~ri;CC.',:i"~~ti{~°:r~:'i. 1''i~ °+'°[,; 'r:,.'',;•ri•. `u±. 'Jr. .}~ .1 i~1~~:~1~ ..i. F~,,•.4.',v,~ J.'" ~.. ~r.l ~.•~ ~•~rl ~: ,~j, .;;;'. Photo 3 Photo 4 GIBBON, DUNN ~CRUTCHERLLP A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ~` ~ ~ i ~~~. ~~~+~I~~ ~~~~ INCLUDING PROEESSIONAI CORPORATIONS Qne Mont orner Street San Francisco California 94104-4505 ~~ ~P~ ~" ~ ' g Y ~ ~~"~ ~~~ +~ ~415~ 3938200 www.gibsondunn.com NSekliri@gibsondunn,com April 2, 2005 Dixect Dial X415} 393-8334 Fay No. X415} 3 74-543 5 Farimah Faiz Deputy City Attorney 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 2$0 Alameda CA 94501 CIiY ATiO~NEY'S OFFICE Client No. [52279-00123] Re; Response to Appeal Regarding Planning Board Resolution ~4pproving Ma~ jor Design Review for Property at 2800.1Yarbor Pay Parkway File No. PL~V07-0061) Dear Ms. Faiz: I am writing in response to the appeal filed by Reyla Graber, Chad Often and other concerned residents on March 5, 2008 the "Appeal"}, appealing the Planning Board's approval the "Approval"} for the development of approximately 9.22 acres located at 2$00 Harbor Bay Parkway ~PLN07-0061) the "Esplanade Project"}. The Appeal contends that the approval by the Planning Commission did not adequately address effects on nearby lagoons and wildlife, and that the environmental impacts of the Project may trigger a need for CEQA review. The Appeal further urges the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission approval because there is "lack of open space ~andj insuff cunt buffer between [thejbay [and the] buildings," "insuff cient parking," and "color and design of buildings not compatible with neighborhood and bayside location and ambiance." This letter addresses each of the issues raised by the Appeal. The City has already granted a series of approvals to the Esplanade Project. City Resolution 1203 indicates that the final development plan far the Esplanade Project will only be reviewed for "conformance with the Planned Development Design Guidelines and [] conditions Hof approval of Resolution 1203] prior to issuance of building permits." thereinafter referred to as "Consistency Approval"} Thus, the Esplanade Project only needed to obtain Consistency Approval from the City before it can proceed to pull building permits and begin construction. Issues such as density, site plan configuration, open space, set backs, height, etc. are only subject to this review far consistency. The City Planning Board granted the Consistency Approval for the Esplanade Project on February 25, 2008. That Approval is the subject of the Appeal. City Council Public Hearing Attachment 3 to L05 ANGELES NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. SAN FRANCISCO PALO ALTO t0~1DON PARIS MUNICH BRUSSELS ORANGE COUNTY CENTURY CITY DALLAS DF Agenda Item #5~-C o4'i 5-os GIBBON, DUNN &CRUTCHER LLP Farimah Faiz April 2, 2008 Page 2 The Appeal should be rejected for a number of reasons. First, the Appeal asks the City to disapprove the Esplanade Project for reasons unrelated to the Consistency Approval. The City approved the applicant's right to develop the Esplanade Project in accordance with Planned Development PD-81-2 long ago. The applicant holds a vested right to proceed with that project through the 1989 Development Agreement. The time to challenge those decisions or their environmental impacts has long passed. CEQA may not be used to expand the City's authority to revisit matters previously approved and studied as part of the original project beyond the narrow question of compliance and consistency. Second, the Esplanade Project is unquestionably consistent with prior approvals. As the Staff Report properly concluded, the overall qualitative design of Esplanade Project is appropriate for the site. Furthermore, the Esplanade Project meets or exceeds each objective design criteria setout in PD-81-2 ~i.e. building height, set back, open space, landscaping, lot coverage, Third, the Planning Board's decision to amend PD-81-2 and reduce the parking requirement from 410 parking spaces to 384 parking spaces was based on substantial evidence in the record that the amendment would result in a more effective use of the site and the project would not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses. Finally, no circumstances are present that would trigger preparation of additional environmental review under CEQA. The existing Final Environmental Impact Report for Harbor Bay Isle and the subsequent Addendum were prepared at a Harbor Bay Business Park "project" level of detail. The City Council has determined that the Harbor Bay Business Park Project, approved by Planned Development PD-81-2 and Development Agreement 89- 1, was within the scope of the Final EIR and Addendum. The scope of the project studied in those environmental documents extends to all subsequent discretionary approvals necessary to implement the project, including the Approval that is the subject of the Appeal. Age alone does not undermine integrity of the EIR and is not the basis for further review. Rather, the requirement for subsequent environmental review is expressly limited to the circumstances set forth in CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. CEQA Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 provide that no subsequent environmental review documents shall be prepared unless there are substantial changes proposed in the project or substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revision of the previous EIR, or if there is new information that would affect the severity of impacts or would change the mitigations. In this case, none of the requirements under Public Resource Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met, because the Esplanade Project, as currently proposed, has not been changed or undertaken differently in a way that will require major revisions in the 1974 EIR as supplemented by the 1988 and 1989 Addenda, and no new information has emerged GIBBON, DUNN & CRUfCHER LLP Farimah Faiz April 2, 240 $ Page 3 that would necessitate subsequent environmental review. In fact, the proposed Esplanade Project is significantly less intense in terms of lot coverage and density than allowed under the PD-81-2 development standards. Accordingly, the Approval by the Planning Commission should be affirmed. ~. Background of Project and Prior Approvals The Esplanade Project is part of a much larger project the "Harbor Bay Project") that received a series of entitlements from the City of Alameda dating back to 1974. The Harbor Bay Project was planned as a community within the City of Alameda that combines residential uses with commercial and industrial elements. It was to be constructed in stages over a period of many years. The Harbor Bay Project originally contemplated the creation of one lagoon to accept water run-off. In 1974, the City prepared and certified an Environmental Impact Report ~"EIR"} in support of this Project. The EIR noted that the land in the Project area prior to the implementation of the Harbor Bay Project was "essentially flat," and was "covered by dredged f 11 consisting of f ne sand and fine silty sand." See Draft EIR at IV-179. The EIR indicated that "[w]ith the exception of the marsh along San Leandro Channel, all of the existing vegetation and wildlife habitat will be destroyed" by the development of the Harbor Bay Project. ~d at IV-207. However, the developed project site "may well increase the quantity of wildlife on the site," because of "the increased productivity and complexity of the vegetated areas that will result from soil improvement, irrigation, and planting," and because of the development of the lagoon system. ~d. at IV-207 - 205, 220. 0n December 1, 1981, the City Planning Board passed Resolution No. 1203, which granted approval for the implementation of Planned Development For Tract 4500 of the Harbor Bay Project, which included the Esplanade Project BPD-S I -2}. The Resolution found that that the arnount of "private open space provided Ito be] sufficient." Resolution 1203 indicated that the final development plan must be reviewed for "conformance with the Planned Development Design Guidelines and [] conditions [of approval of Resolution 1203] prior to issuance of building permits." The Final Development Plan must include building site plans, plot plan, elevation plans, roof plan, plans showing exterior textures and colors, and landscaping plans. Gn December 14, 1981, the City Planning Board passed Resolution No. 1205 which approved the tentative tract map for Tract 4500, which includes the Esplanade Project. The Resolution concluded that the project would not cause "substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat." However, the Resolution acknowledged that "the development will unavoidably displace some jackrabbits and birds and their habitats." GIBBON, DUNN &CRUTCHER LLP Farimah Faiz April 2, 2005 Page 4 Subsequently the Harbor Bay Project developer proposed changes to the development that deviated from its original proposal in 1974. The proposed changes included changes to Tract 4500 containing the Esplanade Project and the creation of a new lagoon adjacent to the Esplanade Project. The City conducted subsequent environmental review of these project changes and issued a 198$ draft and 1989 final EIR Addendum together, the "Addenda"} disclosing these changes. According to the Addenda, "[w]aterbirds will continue to use the existing lagoon [building by the Harbor Bay Project] and will have the new lagoon as an alternative to the temporary drainage ditches slated for removal." See 1989 addendum at 3-14; 1988 addendum III-20. The Addenda concluded that the revised project would not create new significant impacts not analyzed in the 1974 EIR. Dn April 5, 1989, the City Planning Board passed Resolution No. 1939, approving the project changes. Resolution 1939 concluded that the existing EIR for the Harbor Bay Project, as amended by the Addenda, was "adequate to cover the current development." The Resolution found that changes in the project did not involve new signif cant environmental impacts not considered in the 1974 EIR; substantial changes had not occurred with respect to the circurnstances under which the project was undertaken; and "[u]pdated information [did] not show that the revised project would have significant effects not discussed previously in the [ 1974] EIR." At the same time, the City also entered into a development agreement ~"DA"} with the Harbor Bay Project developer. See Alameda City Council Resolution 2426, The DA allowed the Project to vest certain development rights including the right to development the Esplanade Praject in accordance with all prior City Resolutions including PD-81-2 and subsequent amendments that do not increase density or intensity of use. The DA does not expire until the year 2019. The DA was explicit that the City has conducted all necessary environmental review for the development of the Properties and the Harbor Bay Project, including review required under the California Environmental Quality Act, FDA Section 1.1.0}. Based on this set of approvals, the Esplanade Project only needed to obtain Consistency Approval from the City, as described in City Planning Board Resolution No. 1203, before it can proceed to pull building permits and begin construction. The City Planning Board granted the Consistency Approval for Esplanade Project on February 25, 200$. On the same day the Planning Board also amended PD-81-2 and permitted the reduction of 26 spaces from the Esplanade Praject from 410 parking spaces to 384 parking spaces}. That Approval is the subject of the Appeal. GIBBON, DUNN &CRUTCHER LLP Farimah Faiz April 2, 2008 Page 5 II. The Appeal Should Be Denied Because of the Limited Nature of Discretion That Can Be Exercised by the City in Granting the Consistency Approval The Appeal suggests that the City should disapprove the Esplanade Project because of alleged environmental impacts, such as impacts to traffic, noise and to wildlife using the nearby lagoon, and because there is "lack of open space [and] insufficient buffer between [the] bay [and thej buildings," "insuff dent parking," and because the "color and design of buildings [are] not compatible with neighborhood and bayside location and ambiance." The Appeal also suggests that the City should undertake subsequent environmental review to study the alleged environmental impacts to supporC the City Planning Board's Consistency Approval. kith respect to the Consistency Approval, these contentions are without legal merit, as the Consistency Approval does not permit the City to engage in the type of environmental review requested or reject the Project on such grounds. The City has already exercised its discretion to approve the development of the Esplanade Project in prior Resolutions, and the Developer has a vested right to proceed subject only to these subsequent implementing approvals. The only discretion remaining for the City is to verify "conformance [of the proposed project plans with the Planned Development Design Guidelines and [j conditions [of approval of Resolution 1203] prior to issuance of building permits." See City Planning Board Resolution 1203, Thus, having already studied environmental impacts of the Project and resolved to approve the development of the Project, the City no longer has the discretion to take a second pass at the question of whether the Project should be built due to potential impacts to wildlife, traffic generation, noise, site design and layout or any other impacts unrelated to the narrow question of the Esplanade Project's consistency with the Planned Development Design Guidelines and conditions of approval. The City should, and the Planning Board properly did, confine its decision to findings of conformance and consistency.l Accordingly, the citizen appellant's position urging a reversal of the Planning Board's grant of Consistency Approval and the conduct of subsequent environmental review to study alleged wildlife impacts, or any other impacts not directly related to the Consistency Approval determination should be re j ected. IIY. The Esplanade Project Is Consistent With Prior Approvals. The Planning Board property granted the Consistency Approval, as the Esplanade Project meets or exceeds the requirements laid out by the prior approvals. The citizen appellant's 1 See Friends of Davis v. City of Davis, $3 Cal, App, 4th 1004, 100$-1010 (2004}. In that case, the court found that the application of CEQA to a local ordinance is dependent upon the scope and interpretation of the ordinance (Id at 1014-15}, The Friends of Davis court held that CEQA does not grant an agency new powers independent of the powers granted by other laws, (Id. at 1015}, "The exercise of an agency's authority under a particular law must be within the sco a of the a enc 's authori provided by that law." Id. (emphasis added} GIBSON, DUNK &CRU1'CHER LLP Farimah Faiz April 2, 200$ Page 6 contention that the Esplanade Pro ject is not consistent with prior approvals, because it lacks open space and sufficient buffer between the bay and the buildings, and that the color and design of the buildings are incompatible with neighborhood and bayside location and ambiance, are without merit. The City's ultimate decision regarding the Consistency Approval would be reviewed with substantial deference by Courts and that the decision would be upheld as long as it is supported by substantial evidence. See Saari v. City of Berkeley, 24 Ca1.App.4th 1206, 1212 X1994} ("the issue is whether the findings of the [City] were based on substantial evidence in light of the entire administrative record"}. Under this standard, the "burden is on the [opponent] to show there is insufficient evidence to support the [City's] findings." Breneric ~4ssociates v, City of Del afar, 69 Cal.App.4th 166, 175 X1998}. The Caurt "resolve[s] all reasonable doubts in favor of the administrative findings and decision and [would] reverse the administrative determination only if, based on the evidence before the agency, a reasonable person could not have reached the conclusion reached by the agency." Id As discussed earlier, the Esplanade Project's site design envelope, including items such as open space, building set backs, height, and landscaping, has already been approved by the City in earlier resolutions. For instance, in PD-81-2, the City approved the design and layout of the Esplanade Praject based on the plans submitted at the time. The City specifically found in PD- 81-2 that: "[t]he private open space provided is suffcient;" "[t]he interior common and public open space and recreational areas are adequate in size and appropriately located to serve the needs of the residents;" "[t]he nearby beach and Shoreline Park, when developed, will provide additional open space resources useable by residents." Accordingly, during this Consistency Approval process, the City does not have the discretion to disapprove the Esplanade Project, which meets or exceeds the standards laid out in PD-81-2, on the basis that the amount of open space offered or the amount of setbacks required is somehow insufficient Df course, as part of the Consistency Approval, the City has the right to review the current development plans to ensure that those plans comply with the prior approvals and other applicable regulations. There is substantial evidence in the record to show that the Planning Board properly reviewed the setbacks and open space provided by the Esplanade Project and correctly found it to be adequate. The Staff Report shows that the set backs proposed by the Esplanade Project meets or exceeds (in some cases substantially exceeds} the minimum standard. See Staff Report p. 4. The same is true for landscaping and iot coverage. For instance, the minirnum lot coverage standard is 40% of maximum far Building A and 3 5% of maximum for Buildings Bl-E2. However, the Esplanade Project proposes to offer a 12.39% lot coverage for Building A and 13.98% for buildings B1-E2. This means that the Project is offering more than twice the amount of open space required. Thus, not only is the proposed project plans consistent with PD-81-2, it far exceeds PD-81-2's requirements. GIBBON, DUNN &CRUTCHERLLP Farimah Faiz Apri12, 2005 Page 7 Additionally, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Board's decision to approve the Esplanade Project's design. PD-51-2 permits the City to conduct design review of the final project plans during the Consistency Approval process and ensure that the current plans are consistent with the plans submitted during the PD-81-2 process. The Planning Board properly approved the design of the Esplanade Project based on 1 } the Staff Report's conclusion that the Project meets or exceeds each objective design criteria setout in PD-81-2 ~i.e. building height, set back, open space, landscaping, lot coverage}; 2} the staff s positive review of the Project's overall design from a qualitative perspective; and 3} detailed design information provided by the applicant in written submissions and oral presentations at the Planning Board hearing. The citizen appellants contend that the "color and design of [the] buildings [are] not compatible with neighborhood and bayside location and ambiance." Those contentions were properly rejected by the Planning Board based on f ndings and recommendations from Staff. The Staff Report found that buildings of the Project "will have a low horizontal profile similar to other Harbor Bay Business park buildings[, which] . , .will allow for more frequent and better distribution of open space and view between buildings. Staff Report at p. 5. The Staff Report further found the design of the buildings and the landscaping to be "cohesive," provide '"articulat[ion] [of] the waterfront's edge," and produce adequate "screen[ingj" "shade, seasonal color, and visual interest" for adjacent residential uses. Id. The Staff Report concluded that the buildings' "share[d] subtle variations of design features with brick color, parapet design, and arbor sunshades varying between the groupings , ..will provide visual variety and add to the individual character of the buildings without taking away from the cohesive building alignment along the waterfront's edge." Id. The members of the Planning Board spent substantial time during the hearing considering the Project's design features, and largely agreed with the findings in the Staff Report. Thus, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Planning Board's approval of the Project design and that decision should be affirmed. IV. The Esplanade Project's Parking Approval'Was Proper , The Planning Board's decision to amend PD-$1-2 and reduce the parking requirement from 4 i 0 parking spaces to 3 84 parking spaces should also be affirmed, as it was proper, well supported by the record, and environmentally positive, PD-81-2 required the Esplanade Project to provide 410 parking spaces. The Esplanade Project applicant requested a parking reduction to 3 $4 spaces with the support of Staff, Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.13 ~f}~3}, ~m}~3}, "[t]he Planning Board shall approve a PD [amendment] application only if it determines that the development is a more effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the district with which the PD District is combined; and that the project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses in the City." GIBBON, DUNK &CRUTCHER LLP Farimah Faiz April 2, 2008 Page 8 The Planning Board made the requisite findings under Section 30-4.I3 based on substantial evidence. The Staff Report indicated that the parking reduction is a more efficient and effective uses of space due to the availability of shared parking and "because the reduction in land that would otherwise be devoted exclusively to parking will provide additional open space and outdoor amenities, particularly in the transition areas between the off ce park and Shoreline Park." The parking reduction will also not significantly impact adjacent land uses as the overall reduction is modest from 3.75 to 3.51 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area}. Additionally, the reduced parking will produce positive environmental impacts by 1 }encouraging the use of public transportation thus reducing traffic, air quality and noise impacts from individual vehicle trips, and 2} reduce impervious surfaces and surface runoff.2 According, this decision should be affirmed. V. Subsequent Environmental Review Is Not Required In This Case As stated above, subsequent environmental review is not required to support the approvals granted by the Planning Board because of the narrow scope of discretion that could be properly exercised by the City in the Consistency Approval Process. Even if the City believes that it has the authority to consider whether the Planning Board's Consistency Approval should be supported by subsequent environmental review, it should still ultimately f nd that an SEIR should not be required for this Project. The standard for subsequent CEQA review is set forth in Public Resource Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. Those sections provide that a subsequent EIR ("SEIR"} should be prepared only if 1} "[s]ubstantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR;" or 2} "~s] ubstantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report;" or 3} "[n]ew information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certif ed as complete, becomes available." "A SEIR is a subsequent version of an EIR which revises the earlier EIR to make it adequate for a prof ect's approval after conditions have changed." rani Brothers Real estate Group v. City of Los ~4ngeles, 153 Cal. App. 4th 13 S 5,13 g7 (2007}. Under the new information prong, subsequent environmental review is appropriate only if the new information shows 1} "[t]he project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR;" or 2} "[s]ignificant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;" or 3} "[m]itigation measures or 2 While not specifically argued by the citizen appellants, we further note that subse cent . q environmental review is not needed to support the parking reduction approval, as such reduction will only produce positive environmental impacts as indicated here. Nothing in record suggests that the reduction will significantly impact the environment. GIBSON, DUNN &CRUTCHERLLP Farimah Faiz April 2, 2008 Page 9 alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or mare significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative;" or 4~ "Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative." Id. In this case, none of the requirements under Public Resource Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are met. It is undisputed that the Esplanade Project, as currently proposed, has not been changed or undertaken differently in a way that will require major revisions in the 1974 EIR as supplemented by the 1988 and 1989 Addenda. In fact, the proposed Esplanade Project is significantly less intense in terms of lot coverage and building density than allowed under the PD-81-2 development standards. The citizen appellants contend that the Esplanade Project will impact the environment in terms of traffic, noise and effects on nearby lagoons and wildlife, and such environmental impacts may trigger a need for CEQA review, However, the citizen appellants have not offered actual substantial evidence to warrant a finding in their favor. A determination that a proposed project may have significant environmental effects which would warrant subsequent environmental review must be based on substantial evidence. Davis, 83 Cal. App, 4th at 1018, "Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative ...shall not constitute substantial evidence." Id, In this case, the citizen appellants have offered no more than their unsubstantiated opinion that the project will have impacts on nearby lagoons and wildlife, No facts or creditable evidence has been put forth to demonstrate that the Approval would create any significant impacts. Thus, the City should not require an SEIR for the Esplanade Project based solely on these unsubstantiated opinions. Even if the City believes that the arguments posed by the citizen appellants are more than conjecture, they should still be rejected because there is substantial evidence to support the conclusion that an SEIR should not be required in this case. The environmental impacts of the Esplanade Project have been sufficiently studied by the 1974 EIR as supplemented by the 1985 and 1989 Addenda. The EIR acknowledged that the implementation of the Harbor Bay Project would cause a change in wildlife habitat. It indicated that "[w]ith the exception of the marsh along San Leandro Channel, all of the existing vegetation and wildlife habitat will be destroyed" by the development of the Harbor Bay Project. Draft EIR at IV-207. However, the developed project site "may well increase the quantity of wildlife on the site," because of "the increased productivity and complexity of the vegetated areas that will result from soil improvement, irrigation, and planting," and because of the development of the lagoon system. Id, at IV-207 - 208, 220. Additionally, the 1985 and 1989 Addenda concluded that "[w)aterbirds will continue to use the existing lagoon [building by the Harbor Bay Project] and will have the new lagoon as an alternative to the temporary drainage ditches slated for removal." See 1989 addendum at 3- 14;1985addendum III-20. GIBBON, DUNN &CRUTCHERLLP Farimah Faiz Apri12, 2008 Page 10 In any event, to fully address concerns raised by the appellants, the City requested a biological study of the Esplanade Project area on March 19, 2008. A preliminary biological opinion dated March 21, 2008 the "Biological Opinion"} concludes that the site provides little habitat value for avian species; however, upon buildout of the project site, avian species could still utilize the project site as a local travel route, The Biological Opinion also concludes that the build-out of the Esplanade Project would not impact burrowing owls, as there was no evidence of their presence, and the site did not provide appropriate habitat for great blue herons in any manner that would be affected by the development. Accordingly, the citizen appellant's position urging a reversal of the Planning Board's grant of Consistency Approval and the conduct of subsequent environmental review should be rejected. very truly yours, .~ ~ ; ~ r ~ Neil H. Sekhri .f NHSIys cc: Joe Ernst k,Fµ~.~..~~.m.,,.,.r„..9 ~, _ P u...,~.H.~ ~. ~~. ~_._~.~,.,~ ~.~ ~..~...,,~.~...~~.~,m.~..N.._.~,. .~.~.~.,~:~. ~.~a.~NN~...~~.w~~Nµ~W,r~. ,,,~,~. .. Lara Weise er o ose new homes ,.~.~,,, ._..:~.a~r. ro..:x~..~.~.,...~:~..,..z...~~r,~p.,. ~..,..;va,:,...m,~.~~~...,,~,..~,.,,~,M.~~,v~:...v..~.~,~.~.~.,~„ ~.t.,.....v~..,..Y.:.....F..~~~..,..,.r~~ ~~v~~,,~~~~..,~..,.,r....,.,..«.,.~..... ..v,.,..,o~~,~,,~~ a9e From: merola <merola@fastmail.fm> To: ~bjohnson@ci.afameda.ca.us~, <Itam@ci.alameda.ca.us>, ~ddehaan@ci.alameda.ca.us>, <mgilmore@ci.alameda.ca.us>, <fmatarrese@ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 1111120081:25:15 PM Subject: oppose new homes 206 Carob Lane Alameda CA 94502 January 1l, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members We respectfully request that you not approve the proposed development of 104 homes in the commercial-zone business park of Harbor Bay. As residents of Bay Farm Island, we are opposed to both the increased traffic the morning commute is already unacceptable} and increased airport noise likely if these homes are built}. As our elected government officials, we request that you look after the interest of your existing cons#ituents in opposing this construction. Thank you Alexander and Madelyn Merola CC: merola <merola@fastmail.fm>, <mmerola@fastmail.fm> Re: Agenda Item #5-C 04-~ 5-08 City of Alameda: EFMHome kl',%~OLMk~1{c: i.A'•?YM:P'~~1~`1'R11IXC%WAKSkmWiWOD?MYA01.`CWCWWOC0.u'AkWo1IXdW: AkhYfiLK{aKx%IX04?%v?%LSesuYAO?0%m WiOCM~W.+MW?0.`-LLLhM?W?YhY:•%f f fWOW.WOIXLLPkWWkWWO'A4YMOIXWWY.%WWWtt900.gOWA^%; b.!ryw.H1:a41Mr%K'.r100Wi%x`%~`?k0%~%i:. tl.WAOC?V. N~'n%tt f ff40'R?OOOh1`WYAWOfOkWWOWO%-0WWO~~OpLC%OYpA0tt4!~%IXLWMLC%LPN?OnNRONav?? Case Details Print Close Cash Numbed; : 16847 ;,Customer: danieis, ~ external customer 126 Purcell Dr, Alameda CA 94502 ...... ma 510-521-4799 rpdaniels~lcomcast.net Prefarred Ga:n•tact Method: Email ''s:U~rriitted ~y; daniels, .:.:: customer Topic:.. Mayor and Counciimembers>E~ ~~: mail the Mayor and Councilmembers Status. Resolved Lo~ator.~ ~of: Request: R'e,~~est;;TYPe~ Complaint Prirriary ~wn~r: Baines, :::::::. '. ' :~ ~ Christina D~~eJTime •~~q,ate~.: 01/ 22/2008 13:21 DateJTime Closed`: 01/23/2008 OS:57 ~r~nina~ Rer, I am v~r~~itrn' ; ~~~ ex ress m concern g s .ove~:t a propose eve npment o...~,04~ omes .. in the existin Harbor Ba b`usiness' ark..• ,. ~:. Y P • ~ enc4 ra' .. u ~e you: not to allow` his re~zoning'~a'nd~deveCo meri~~ Ma•nY'o~Y:.. our con tit u ts...ar.e concerned n , ,: . ~' rab will ne ativ .:.. how this la ''d"'g;;.. , :.. ~. g . el im act.: roperty Y P P and;:aur uali~ of lii"e while lining, t ,, valbes q y e, pockets ai' the developer.. .. Tan' o U'; -.. ~ • Y w 1 . .... ... No records muni~atian act~vi ' o _ cam ties ~~una: Page 1 of 2 https:Ilclients.comcate.coml~repslcaseDetail.php 1123120$ City of Alameda: EFMHome ~ r ,. Role, Name E Phone ~ , '. ma r ~ainesr::C.hristina Primary pvun,~ ha~n~s~ci Ra~ameda;ca,~ us 5 ~: ~:-747-470 ~::. . 9Y91A AWA'AYN/Axx9'dIWYHIOYI.MWdVI:.IS1:v ~AHaxwx~meofU%J~Ai ~AxMWf4sri •• aAeusvf nv,)p)pryap4~.kWWbWWWpWyvP/nnyy/Am(gpey~gpygpppyYV/ppesymW~Syjy/y~yti~p,~pppx9~yyppy~giyry~ry»py9lxxsM'AWW'M1Y 1:NxUYnYA A'.NM:EkSYmM»>fv8wffxSN%:9 Secondary ~~ner Ulleisi~er; Sara Iweisi e~ci,a~~meda.ca,us g 747-~480~, ::... ,, No'atta~h men:~s found a Da ... .. , . Uescri fro' .. ,. ~e . Fven~ P... n .. .. .. ... . ' vma:~a~^co~rx»maxvN,tinv»,v~wra»xemrrrrater:tr»:r>x~~wmr~.vx»aRUwoixmr~o~»xw~rx~xa~w»~umvrwxwaxrx~nvn,~vww~u.;gmx+» xx:rxxxar, ~ ~ ~ .. .. nvxvnu ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ nw, .. ..... 01' /23/~0~~ 48;,57 Change Status Change status from, New to. Resolved '" Page 2 of 2 hops:Ilclients.comcate.coml:repslcaseDetail.php 1123120oS ' ' " E Ms. Linda Allen 12~~ l~ar~nister way Alameda? CA 9502 ;~ . ~ . ~' ,~ ~ i~ ~ ~•~ y ~ r' V r ~. ~ January 19, 2008 City Council Member Lena Tam 2263 Santa Clara Av. Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Council Member, RECEIWED 2008 JAN 23 P 2:31 CITY CLERKS OfF~ICE Rich & Su Nabuda 44 Chatham Pointe Alameda, CA 94502 we are waiting in concern of the re-zoning effort on the city's part to re-zone commercial property in the Harbor Bay business park to accommodate Ron Cowan's plans to build 104 new homes. This would jeopardize the voluntary agreement the Oakland Airport has with CLASS and Alameda to mitigate noise and traffic over Alameda. Building these homes would be a slap in the face to the Port of aakland and go against the agreement. VVe are dead set against any further development of homes in Harbor Ba and in Y particular the re-zo~ung of commercial property in the Harbor Bay business ark. An p y such action that would disrupt nozse abatement by the Oakland Airport is unacce table. p Sincerely, Rich Nabuda Su Nabuda ,~,~ ~~~G,.,;.~G,~ The Honorable Beverly Johnson Mayor of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, Ca. 94501 Dear Mrs. Mayor: RECEIVED 1U08 JAN 23 P 2~ 32 CIiY CL~ERKLS Of~ICE We've received correspondence regarding the proposal of 104 new homes on Harbor Bay Isle. We- as owners of a home that is already inundated by noise and pollution- are strictly opposed to any new developments. Although we love this community and have lived here since Harbor Bay's first development in 1978- we have noticed the increase in airplane noise, CRIME and congestion which would only increase with more homes. Please do not allow what was once a beautiful, crime free area continue to become somewhere that we need to form "Neighborhood Watch° groups to protect our homes. Sincerely, ~~~j . ~~ M. Foss and G. Tarr 306 Lagunaria Lane Alameda, Ca. 94502 510-865-6158 CC: The Honorable Lena Tam, The Honorable Doug DeHaan 45 Justin Circle Alameda, CA 94502 January 19, 2045 REC[IVED zoos ~nN 23 P r 3z Mayors, Members of the City Council and Planning Board CITY OF ALAP"IEDA City of Alameda CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Mayor, Council and Planning Board Members: I am urging your opposition to aproposed housing development in the Harbor Bay Business Parlc tract previously approved for commercial development. As a homeowneron Bay farm Island forover 23 years, I do not understand why you would ignore the best interest of the area residents and existing commercial users such as Peets in favor of a deal with Ron Cowan's, someone with a proven record of questionable dealings with the city. Maybe you don't remember, but the City of Alameda had to sue Ron Cowan's company, Doric Development in the late 19S0s in orderforce them to provide to common area lands promised when the city approved the Harbor Bay Isle master plan. That land includes the site where Bay I"arm School is now situated. I was personally involved in organizing a successful effort to prevent Doric from changing this master plan to build ahigh-density condo development. Why would you risk the goodwill and best interest of your constituents and the hard-fought airport noise agreement fora "deal" with Cowan? Sincerely, Robert E. Hubbard WILLIAM C. RUSSELL ~ tV1f~LLl~i~xC ~tU~+~~,~ ~~ A1=Ak1~DA. QA..8,4502-6514: ~. 1008 JAN 2 U A I1: I b ~~ar~ ~~s o~~tc~2~6~ ~ ~~ w u~ ~ ~~ ~e~~~, C~i~ ~ " ~e ~, ~ 3Z a ~.se~l 7 n~ ~ ~~-~ C I t ~~.k~ ~-~t4~ fi- ~o~ ~ ~~/ ~C3~S t ~~s ~a)Lk ~-• W l(o~.c~ 1 DY ~~st~~ti~~~ v ~. ~~s, ~~~~~ ~ ..~ ~ ~~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~ r ~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~- ~~ ~ s ~~~ ~- -~ vet ~_ ~- ~~ ~ ,- RECEIVED JAN 2 3 2008 ~gpps pFMF CE Mayor Beverly Johnson 2263 Santa Clara Av. Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mayor, January 19, 2008 Rich & Su Nabuda 44 Chatham Pointe Alameda, CA 94542 we are writing in concern of the re-zoning effort on the city's park to re-zone commercial property in the Harbor Bay business park to accammadate Ran Cowan's plans to build 104 new homes. This would jeopardize the voluntary agreement the Oakland Airport has with CLASS and Alameda to mitigate noise and traff7c over Alameda. Building these homes would be a slap in the face to the Port of Oakland and go against the agreement. Vie are dead set against any further development of homes in Harbor Bay and in particular the re-zoning of commercial property in the Harbor Bay business park. Any such action that would disrupt noise abatement by the Oakland Airport is unacceptable. Sincerely, R ich Nabuda Su Nabuda ~~ ./~~~~~p~ ~ c~ d ~~ ~~ r~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ r ~ .~ .~~ ~. ~ o ~ ~ r~ ~ ..,,.y c7 ~ .. ~ n~ ~ ~ ~ RECEIVED The Honorable Beverly Johnson Mayor of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, Ca. 94501 JAN 2 3 2008 CITY OF AL/-MEpq MAYOR'S OFFICE Dear Mrs. Mayor: We've received correspondence regarding the proposal of 104 new homes on Harbor Bay Isle. We- as owners of a home that is already inundated by noise and pollution- are strictly opposed to any new developments. Although we love this community and have lived here since Harbor Bay's first development in 1978- we have noticed the increase in airplane noise, CRIME and congestion which would only increase with more homes. Please do not allow what was once a beautiful, crime free area continue to become somewhere that we need to form "Neighborhood Watch" groups to protect our homes. Sincerely, ~i- ~ ~~ M. Foss and G. Tarr 306 Lagunaria Lane Alameda, Ca. 94502 510-865-6158 CC: The Honorable Lena Tam, The Honorable Doug DeHaan n -~ ~~ ~~ ~ a~ ~ ~+~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~o ~.~ ~. ~ .~ ~- RECEIVED THE~D~RE BERRY 102 Ironwood Road Alameda CA 94502 January 18, 2008 Beverly Johnson Alameda City Hall Santa Clara and Dak Streets Alameda CA 94501 Re: Re-zoning of Property to Permit 104 Residential Units Dear Mayor Johnson: ~aN z s coos ~AAYOR'S OFMF CE I am opposed to the plan by Ron Cowan to build 144 units on Bay Farm Island. The potential for damage and problems is too great to permit any alterations in the zoning which would influence the future of Oakland Ai rport. Sincerely, ~ r, ~,, ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Theodore Ber ~~ ry ,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~~ o~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ b Page 1 of ~ Beverly Johnson - HBI New homes From: "Gardner, John" To: Date: 1/22/2008 2:2~ PM Subject: HB7 New homes Hi Beverly, I live around the corner from you and have so for almost 20 years. I have remodeled my house substantially and have a vested interest in keeping our quality of life at its current reasonably high level. I have read about the proposed construction of 10~ or so homes on what was once zoned commercial property. Seems like a small change and I'm glad they are upscale homes as I worry about density. What I would say to you though is that if this in any way weakens our arrangement with the airport, it is not worth the risk. If they ever start flying directly over our homes, our property values will be devastated. As it is, the expansion over the past ten year of Southwest and FedEx has been hard to take, even with them flying over the bay. Also, I do think getting Peet's was a great accomplishmen# and I would not want us to do anything that is inconsistent with our original deal with them. My thoughts for your consideration. My family and I are counting on your good judgment #o protect our interest. Thanks. John Gardner n ~n o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ `~~' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o- f le:IIC:IDocuments and Settxngslcm userlLocal SettingslTempl~Pgrpwise14795FD05AlamedaCivicPal... 1/24/2008 RECEIVED JAN 2 4 2008 pR1f OF ALAMEDA MpyOR'S OFFlCE ~ 15 Centre Court Alameda, California 94502 January 22, 2008 Beverly Johnson, Mayor Marie Gilmore, Council member Frank Matarrese, Council member Punning Board City of Alameda 22b3 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, California 94501 Dear Ms. Johnson, Rezoning the business park at Harbor Bay for construction of homes is a bad idea for potential home buyers and for current residents of Alameda. The location is too close to the Dakland Airport for housing and has the possibility of jeopardizing the noise abatement procedures protecting current residents. Please do not rezone the business park. Sincerely, ~i ~ Alice J. o ter n ~~ o ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .,~ .~ ~~ ~ o~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ .. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ City of Alameda: EFMHome Page 1 of 1 wcr.:cwu ~:w;or.+,oeawounxavxawac;'~m'~rhy~wowa~w~eawmxum.v.:uxmu'wMaxa;.wn;wxoyxnur:kwcttea~o~Yx/,occtt~Nav'.~t~ca'~~Kr~~.~v ~~~eattuoooxeawmaawx;~ ~ ~wh'vh.;;H~~iluanwwwooeawwoooewcwawy ~: Kee~mµvawwwwwwa::ttxas me:~aoxx;:::waxxwuacsawwwrouwNOOCSswte~auamouneorowowuawe>was;awenwuwuobwo~ay,+'ne;,^~e,::a ;m~~~»~,raxaer'an:m~nrot Case Details Print C[vse Cats, e.'iVumber; 16 S 59 : ,S a has; Resolved . stom Cu er: ~~"' W Location' of Reque~l: ~ ong, Lynna external customer lynna_wong_~OOO@yahoo.cam Preferred G ct Method; o'nta Email .. Request Type:: Suggestion ~~ S~bmi,tted By: ;. . Wong, Lynna Primary; awr~er Baines, customer ,..: C hristina Topic: Mayor and `Da~ejTime Created: 01/26/2005 Councilmembers>E~mail the ',' '' 07:06 .. ayor and Coun~ilmembers .. ....... ~ r Date Time'Clo~ed.: 1/~S/2005 :: 13:36 i ~ -.# As`. ,,, nt I .. ide : ~nHarbor t t ay, ~ u r. e yo u to p ease . ~ o e e:re~zo er i he PP .. ........ r, .Y~` ~.. . H .. ~ :. arbor Ba B ~siness. Parl< fram busy , :: y Hess ~a resi en~ia s ~ti n o.t at a a g o housin .:~ . P ~ he ,.. . ~ P 9 ~ develo; n~ertts does not `ea. ; aardize'the well bei.n of all residents' in t ornmun~ty Internal: Note's No attachments found ~a ~~ ;,:. Fven t : ,... Des~riptio n 01' . /z$/z~o$ 1.3.,36 Chan Change ew to; Resolved ge: Status status ti"o.m. N https:Ilclients.comcate.comlrepslcaseDetail.php 1/28/2008 nCVCI V CU JAN 2 8 2006 C~IY CAF ALAMEDA MAYa~~~ ~J~FlCE ~, ~ ~ ~. ~ „~- ~~ ter: ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ Q~ a5 ~~- ~~~~~ ~~ .._~ ~ `~ ~ ~~ ~~-r~~ z~ ~ ~ ~~ a ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~- ~ moo/ ~' ~ a.~.---r Lr yn~- '..~.~~ ,-,~. -~ ~ we.ey~~ ~~ ~= ;;~ _ ~-~ 4 • ~ ~~'~ ~~~ d~~ ~ ~~ /y~-rte, ~ ~• ~~ ti~ ~ ~-'~ a, ~~ L.. ~.~ ,~ ~, ~, ~~. ~'/ ~ 1, ~ ~ a.- v~ a f -.~.~~ ~~~ ~ ~~T~~ ~a s~~~ ~. ~~~ ~. s~~,o RECEIVED 2 R~J'~'I,AN~ COLT]E~'~' ~,a~~A, C~,~o~r~ ~4so2 JAN 2 ~ 2008 CITY OF AL~lAEDA MAYC~R'~ ~1FFI~~ January 24, 2008 Mayor Beverly Johnson City of Alameda 2263 Santa Claza Avenue Alameda, California 94501 Mayor Johnson: ~e are opposed to rezoning the Harbor Bay Business Park from business to residential thereby making it possible to build homes. There is more than enough air traffic over Harbor Bay Isle and vehicle traffic off the island. Home Gwners on Harbor Bay Isle, r ~1• ~ 4 a .f .i: ~~ Gay Selo ;~ % i ~~~ Peter Selo ,, ~~~ ...~ ..g Fw µH,N~..S ,. Y m _a.n kMw.. ~....~..~.~. v~.n _,.~.,,~, w~~.....~~_ ~ ~.~~~.~~.~M.:. ~.L,... ~.. ~~~ d Harbor Ba .~.M~~ :~..:.,.~ ~ ::~ww~..,,~;~ ara Weise er - ~ Village VI Page 1 y ..:..:.. ,,~~.~,~„~..w ~: ~.,,,~:~::~.~„N~w., . , ~ :,~,.~t,Y,.t.Sx~~..5tt.5, t.. . ... ,., •.t.uw~~iwuYU,WeVa+[.. dnt...eewue5.., rn~nt:.v...,:.5.'.~5 n~vt•~.dsnfh.n.0eee'+/{A'.v.11.1'~Yt.::r..~~~.~wW..S.~,ett+mfYxueet+•n+Y+.: v.. .:.v.v. u.:.e...f W..y55•eew.)'::,;,h';nu,~::mvn+ e.0.W?5~;,5:'::5~5"~,~;"~;•~~\'.~~~.~~~.~;..~r:::•;5.e::..~:.::.1';;;::,:::.:.~~. ~...f•:.5v~.~~%4v.Nf.•,.r. ~: :...:~iua+::. From: Beverly Johnson To: Cathy Woodbury; CITY CLERK; Debra Kurita Date: 1/28/2008 8:38:05 AM Subject: Fwd: Harbor Bay Village Vl FYI cb »> "John Nolan" ~inolan(~alamedanet.net> 112412008 7':27 PM »> Mayor Johnson and members of the City Council, oppose your action to proceed toward the construction of Village VI as well as the method you used to avoid legitimate public hearings on this issue. In siding with the plan to develop 104 new homes on land not designated for residential development, you chose to favor a developer rather than protect the interests of the citizens of Alameda. Your actions threaten to jeopardize long standing agreements with the Port of Gakland regarding airport naise and the voluntary efforts to mitigate airport noise. These actions have caused your own residents to have to challenge you in court. WHAT ARE YDU THINKING? John Nolan µ ~..M.~,M ~w~ .... ~...~. ~,f~»»,f 104 h .~... ..~....,~ ~.. ~ ~ Hw.. wLara Weisiger - Fwd. ~ Proposed eves ~~~ n ~ ~ omes~~at the d Harbor Bay B ` usiness Park e 1 nw•+r;u+»vnn ~»+~..nnvur Nnn•' x' „~.,~::.. . Pag ~,~ ~.~ a»~..4 ~na,~M.~..,~~ha~., I+MFUFU+uM:rms.n~•.,ntcn,b;eb/t.+,e'2ewH1CWMs,:,..v,..~•en o,,.NMM:,•~X~F~,unmex+t.,»:n,uuf?Wv..e;ct~», r,Y+nkHY. ~M::WF..v:.k ;. ,, N..m1.,.:c»k NNMM:H::~b,.,un,•,p M^~hS.. MVMG+»~:x u,. ,, .,:.:;t:^ix,,:.+++P^Wkn,.m.::;...rv.~••.h.Y•...•hx,;~........SZwk:.: From: Beverly Jahnson To: Cathy Woodbury; CITY CLERK; Debra Kurita Date: 112812008 8:39:20 AM Subject: Fwd: Proposed development of 104 homes at the Harbor Bay Business Park FYI -cb »> Pat M Gannon ~pmgannon(a.iuno.com> 1125120081:39 PM »> Jauary 25, 2008 Honorable Beverly Johnson Mayor, City of Alameda City Council Members City Hall Santa Clara at Dak Strreets Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mayor Johnson and Councilpersons: am writing to express my extreme concern over the proposal to rezone a portion of the Harbor Bay Business Park to allow the developer to build 104 additional homes. This wauld have a significant, long term, negative impact not only on Bay Farm Island but throughout the entire city. My opposition is based on the following: Allowing this project to go forward violates the settlement agreement of 2002 limited the scope of airport development; if this agreement is rescinded becaue the City violated the intent, the Port of Oakland no longer would be restricted to limited size aircraft departures from fields direct over Harbor Bay and Alameda. Currently the Port of Oakland and airport tenants volunfarr! follow the noise mitigation procedures resuslting from the settlement; this could cease if the City chooses to move forward with the proposed home development. Similarly, the very tenuous participation of TRAC4N fair traffic controllers in region} to participte in the noise abatement procedures likely would be lost.. Additionally, the streets on Bay Farm Island are not equipped to deal with the increased level of traffic and will increase the danger to bikers and pedestrians, especially children. Since this development is isolated from the rest of Bay Farm residents would have no choice except to drive. Peets Coffee and Tea specifically moved its plant from Emeryville to the Harbor Bay Business Park because it was zoned for commercial, not residential. It invested a lot of money iu this move; to now rezone for a residential development adjacent to Peets plant would be a slap in the face to Peets. If the City want to encourage more business development at the Business Park, this is not the way to do it. I will be out of the state next week and unable to attend Wednesday's night meeting. However, l implore the Council not to move forward with this ill-conceived plan. Thank you. Sincerely, Patricia M. Gannon 1019 Tobago Lane ..... .w~.... ry.rM_w ~h~.. ~Lara Weisiger-Fwd: ~~~ HBI New ho ` mes Pa a 1 `:e~ :;•.•.,c~aa ~,a,::«rer<x.•nrwo+n+;xn,:~:,,.r.»»wxu.+rww+;+r...a.wx:nceeeunawnw~v,~~,,,~r.;:::,.ru~:u,;.:nr:r•:::s,•~xn:.,,;,•:o~;o»++•vrr•••s:,••;.-::aorx.caeeeeanm:w~a~:•.;:.;+.+.r;.y:,:aa-.,r« m.x:.;r•n+rrrn•.•n~~n~~i,.•,~~,,,;,c.,..,.uro:o;v>+•++••r;sr,:auxuruw.+~»~wr.'nvx~r ~,~v,aa•:,;,xrreew.r. Q ww,ro-r:ro• •: •r:cc ;r:,ewwwvr,,„•:.yro w.>:r:cee:r.wyr.va r.r • •~•.xe.r.,re:ry::: r; •:::., ~. enrcarx..y:..r :~ ~.::::: 4~:.:;:..,;;.o~,y,;r.::; ~ .:.;,~ .~,,::.:..,:.;rr~v:•T•.:r~rn, rr~~.:o~...., From: Beverly Johnson To: Cathy Woodbury; CITY CLERK; Debra Kurita Date: 1/28/2008 8:40:24 AM Subject: Fwd: HBl New homes FYI -cb »> "Gardner, John" ~John.Gardner {schwab.com> 112212008 2:01 PM »> Hi Beverly, I live around the corner from you and have so for almost 20 years. I have remodeled my house substantially and have a vested interest in keeping our quality of life at its current reasonably high level. have read about the proposed construction of 104 or so homes on what was once zoned commercial property. Seems like a small change and I'm glad they are upscale homes as I worry about density. What I would say to you though is that if this in any way weakens our arrangement with the airport, it is not worth the risk. If they ever start flying directly over our homes, our property values will be devastated. As it is, the expansion over the past ten year of Southwest and FedEx has been hard to take, even with them flying over the bay. Also, I do think getting Peet's was a great accomplishment and I would not want us to do anything that is inconsistent with our original deal with them. My thoughts for your consideration. Myfamily and I are counting on your good judgment to protect our interest. Thanks. John Gardner Lara~,:~~ww~.Y.~ a~:~:~,.,~, .. F. ~:_w..:~,,,,.n,~~~~... ~~m~,,.,~:~~N„,~ ~NF ~...~..,~„,~ .. m, ~~.,,,~, ,~.,..:N,: ~, .ww... . , »~.H. , eisi r - M w. ~„~ ~ ,.~,m .,. ge wd~ Q osition to building f homes in the ~p a additional 104 Harbor Bad BusinessMPa Pa e~~~ ! ~ rk emv.)•,•••,ua,+vM'+WaYWfM'Sv :•;lua•axan'0",~~Wl+ L: w,:.aw.•aed{:rch•rr ..,.•..,,,la.+..,vrvtax•WYO"YFYlf"aa+:1 ,~;lr n•ro;em+unv-0,• 1•v.•„ new+nv:,~,uS^Y ;trca+• .. +:: '~ S^••1 „W' •Y~fS q'vYrr •r,Wa++a, w^P'..+".i,.•,hvtm+0 l,x :~n•.:•.vy.na^,axYM~;~"n:.\~~.vr.~.,..:.v,eeevn m~,vv.;x.. v.ve, mar•:Ywm•-rc:uaraax,~eYlrs•~cYas:;rweaM.YYxr~x~aw~m~n,»,•n•,..;:...a~aawrw„~:~..;,~.~~~~..:.,n•n,u+•.w.•..»v;••n+rlavw.,,,,,•n,r«•yv~ ~~~~.,..,~ From: Beverly Johnson To: Cathy Woodbury; CITY CLERK; Debra Kurita Date: 1/28/2008 8:41:21 AM Subject: Fwd: apposition to building of additional 104 homes in the Harbor Bay Business Park FYI -cb »> AI Lin <alin 168(a~hotmail.com> 1/21/2008 4:04 PM »> Dear Mayor Johnson and City Council Members, We are writing today to express our concern over the proposed building of additional 104 homes in the Harbor Bay Business Park. We oppose the rezoning of property in the Harbor Bay Business Park from business to residential and D~ NAT support the proposed additional 104 home development on that property. This change to add the residential development can seriously jeopardize the Agreement of 2002 between CLASS and the Port of Oakland. This new development and subsequent change in the adherence to the 2002 Agreement can easily change the current noise abatement procedures tha# are currently in place. We cannot imagine having to live with even more airport noise than what we currently have to tolerate, Please do not allow our quality of living here in Alameda to deteriorate for the sake of a few individuals. We also feel that any new development should have to adhere to the city's affordable housing laws -this exception for this proposed new development by Ron Cowan is unacceptable. Thank you for hearing my concerns and please continue to do what is right for our beautiful and historic community -and reject this proposal to change the zoning and to building the new residential community. Sincerely Yours, Alfred and Elizabeth Lin Cldcastle Lane Alameda, CA 94502 Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! Learn rnvre. ~ htt :llbi estloser,msn.coml ~ k~ECEIVE~ iUUB JAN 28 P ?~ CITY OF ALAP9i :ITY CLERK'S 0'. .._ ~~ 4 ~~ ~'-~.~ ,~ .~~ ~~ ~ ~~ l~~~~"~~ ~.~ ~~ ll~~ ~~.. f~ ~'~~ ~l 4~ ~~ry~ °Y ~~ ~ ~ .~~ ~~.y ill' a /~~.~, ~ V r ~ r ,.r rr w '~ Y_,.~~.... .vN r~ ~- 1 .~. ~ ~~ `~ ''~ ~-- ,.~~ ~ ~ P ~' fir" ~vr~- ~ ~ t~-~' ~~ ~ 1,~~ ~ ~~~T ~'~"~- ~'~r ~"1 ~, ~ ~.-~ ~~ c.~~. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ , /~ ~~ 1~...~+~ ~ ice. ~-'~ ~~..~.,; ..~~ - 1~1v~''~'~-t5' f ~ ~~r~~~ ~'`~ ~ .,1 ~- -~ ~+ ~a ~~, I~.,~~ ~~~ ,~h.nsmti-, o ~ ~.~~ 2'ZLe 3 ~a,YL~"~i. ~~-¢~a~P~` ,~~'~Ux~' R C C F I V E D ;~-rrw d-a , ~ . q~tso o~c~. lq, ZUo~ ~uun ~qn Z9 P 4~ 21 Cl-h'~ I.l~ r L T~ Yl~ .C~.T~ CI~ Af V~~~FFI ~ ~~i~~25s m~ ~ancern ~d cl,~sc~s-~ac~p~ r~.'. '1'l~e. Mo-~~r ~,rl~ ~h~n~son a~2d,. ~'l.C~l'Y~-c~--~, v..~ ~ (~,~lA.n c~.l . (Y1.P.m b~.r.C ~ o~,r~~ a.n ~. m o~1 ~n~ ~1~.-e- Q~vu;r~~ , ~enJ¢ ~oPvx~~ o~- IDS ~~Q~lci_a~'.d-y - zor~ee4. J I, r. ,~i,._ ~ ra. _ ~r~ ~~ ~o~ -~v rt,~ ~ a,r~ ~-r~ d S-er~ d-~-n~ -~ -~ ~ r.~u ~-~ ; -~-~, ~V,, pow r~.e,~.s I~,o ~ ~.o i.;~.~ ~+~,.~. ~u~..55 ~a~ ~ vrwr Your ,Uc~.~ . ~,,~ ~,,, n ~a,.L is ~iJ ~a~, is 0 b ~_L ~ y'~2. ~ e p-{- I..`~ , A „ ~ ~,PX ~ ~1 ~j Y~ ~n~Sor~ S .~ ~~~ J d`-~e~d a `~ 1,~h~ v.~o~..eC `Shy c~~p~~~ cad ~o-I e_ ~~ Sorr~~u,ng ~a~ ~s s~ C,Lea.rt~ nA-t ter, ~' b~Pose -~ r~2-Zoru,r~ p-~- ~r~,~ ei'-I-~ ~,v~, ~.-e. ~arb~ r I~a~ `~~~,~,ss ~5 ~ -~ m b us cr~.eas -Iv ~2,S~den~e~~ . Z oho (1~ ~SU~~oa-~-1- ~I'{~~ ~j"b~t~S2~ Q._c~~.e~l. 5r1 a~ h,o rr~ d.e.~~l o Pvr~~e ~~l-, o ~ 4~c~- ~ I'll ~ e, /~ . Z du su P~~~--~- ~I emits C°_o-f-fie a,n~ ~~s~k~~ ~ ~.~-~-' ~,r~d u.Sc~.s ~.e~' l~a-~~ a.r~~ wu~ ~Y~r1. r~ ~ -~-e e,L CSI- is wYV n ~ -~, r d ~e.l ~ ~~s ~ ~w-~-~ i~Jh,~l,~.~ ~p~rc~cl.iuY-,~ ~z-er~S ~I~.e~e- ~-e.~~i ohs d o n~-i- -e,~/e.r~ I ~i~~ t:~, ~ame~~ G.~ b. d,~ ~r~ e~ r~t.~ ~ ~e ~o w~ w h ~ ~~-p ~ex~S I~~X'2, y ~5~I~ 1'-2C_Gi~.~ , `I ~~ l,~.l.e,~~e a-t ~ ~~bba~ ~.~~,~ ~.~,~ ~rvU~~,~l lor~~l~~~ ~ ~ ~~-~s N-e-a ~-~-~~-rs . Sly rn~.~ ~~, - . (~,~d• cZ,l,lc~wLV~~ ~ hour -h~ l~e_ ~~~~~-- is wwv~c~ -Fc~~ by r 3~ ~S I~e~ 3a~ ~a.r nn I ~ ~c~~~ GL~~1 ~Q~_~~u. , J~-t- is ~ruu~c~ ~,~ o~,., ~ouv~~rn tr:.~ ~~ City Council Members January 27, 2008 City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 ~~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ C p Subject: Opposition to re-zoning of property in the Harb~~~B~~ineks ~rl~~ Dear City Council Members: C ! T `~ ~ ~= ,~~ ~ ~!, ~ ~~ E Q A CITY C~.ER~~~°~ aFFICE we have been Harbor Bay Isle residents for nine and a half years. We made Alameda our home because of its scenic views, fresh air, individual neighborhoods, and outstanding public school system. one of our primary criteria in selecting a home was the distance from the Oakland Airport as we wanted to minimize environmental issues such as noise and air pollution. Accordingly, the home we selected is not immediately within the flight path of the Airport. '~Ve are raising two young children and enjoy our home and neighborhood. we oppose the re-zoning of property in the Harbor Bay Business Park from business to residential and do not support the development of new luxury homes on that property. It is our understanding that execution of this project could result in the following: • Rescission of the 2002 settlement agreement limiting the scope of airport development which would result in elimination of restrictions on limited size aircraft departures from fields over Harbor Bay and Alameda • Port of Oakland and airport tenants circumventing noise mitigation procedures resulting from the settlement ~ ~ . • Loss of TRACON (air traffic controllers in region) to participate in the noise abatement procedures Furthermore, we are concerned that development of this project in such close proximity to the airport may be viewed by the Port of Oakland and airline tenants as a deliberate taunting of voluntary noise mitigation procedures, and thus; abandon existing procedures and agreements. In turn, this could result in increased healthy and safety issues and decreased property values for all Alameda residents. Some additional concerns include -increased tra#~ic congestion on the island, adequacy of emergency personnel, utilities, and infrastructure for residents, and the safety of pedestrians and residents near Harbor Bay Parkway with more autos traveling at high speeds. Due to the aforementioned concerns, we oppose the re-zoning of property in the Harbor Bay Business Park from business to residential. And accordingly, we do not support the development of homes on that property. - . We appreciate your consideration of our concerns. Please contact us if needed. Sin ely ''~ Mark Alene Okazaki ~/ 210 Cumberland Court Alameda, CA 94502 City of Alameda: EFMHome Page 1 of 2 + ~~,~~~~#~1.~~~ nb,'rinocte:el eFeedbackManager « Back to Case List ~S ~~~ iic~r Case details View Print Version Ease Number; 16873 Customer; Fukuchi,. Ron external Customer 81 Basinside WY Alameda CA 9450 .map} 5105zz4633 Stakes; Resolved cha.~.ge t.ocakion of:Requ~st: edit ranfukuchi[~comcast.net Preferred'.CorikactMeChod; Email Re'quesk Type; Suggestion Sub :fitted 8y;. i=ukuchi, Ron Primary D m wrier: Baines, Christina customer reassi n Topic: Mayor and Counciimembers~E- ~atelTime Created; . 0113o1zoos 13:25 mail the Mayor and Councilmembers Date/Time Closed; . change 01~3o~zoo813:31 ed~t..Beverly Jo>~i~son,.Lena :Tam Doi ~ 'Ima~ , r . , g deHaan Marie Gi re Frank:Mata `rese y conce e o me' ex 9Y p r ansian a : ar . ~ ar" Bay I le. I have not p .. attended lan a~ ouex ress m rr;s ave. ,,,,',, but ~ ha.ve: attended gs an the;:sub a rid Airpo'rk meetinigs at the airport. 1' J I have also disc .ia ussed issues, with fri.endsand g meda - based ort nei ors:rn a motion I:., av h~ ir~for' ~ ...;.. ali t see ed Iam",, ' .... n at?d discuss adamants, a ain r ., st;ae u . ing of ariY addi~iorial units dose to. the Airport Runways. :. . . Please da r~o p s ~n t ~~suppart the addi~'ianal develo ment,of 1 he exis~iri ~4 home g commercially-zoned business Per ' . . .. Send an Email Clog Communication Mail Merge . :. .. Ftnm ~ ..:.:. ae:~. Tex }131~4TP~.T.T1,.~6T:1. STM71fryf551.'aCAauf,ElSmplSl'A31 }719A1fF.UUTF:oaAasSS65C}41}}9R1R~PF11::111.aU5s5Ra1A~'U77 71'1:1 ~.~f1T1~:g11W1V ~} q/ nQ +~ ~y ~j +~' ~+ _ iP~155 '.. •• 01 3V Lo1.IV ~{~.II1IGs 1wm[~et41~1~7 xi~~k ~ sms~raasssasiysssss~rssxsslaea»wss'asalnsurlsasaluass»57,aru~euasnvpm'a~~nsnssyssa!sssms':f:m]ar:xranssrsssasy;ysusss laws edit ~'~ }5}fA}}' ........ 1 _._. y Than Y la R„ B ' ..~.~ au. ~ar,,us~ng..A meda ~ccess,~a Cammupicate. our concerns. ristiri a City Cauncif have' Tha Mayor and been~.provided a copy of .your: comments. https:llc~ients.comcate.comlrepslcaseDetail.php?id=93427 1/34/2005 City of Alameda: EFMHome Page 2 of 2 Manage Collaborators Add All Elected ~ffieials Reassign Primary/Secondary dole Name . Einar! Ahone j 1%~NNAW*Y"IxV+N+`I+NM1>.`V1%H}15}}}1x~W1.VW11.WW)SNNIIYANkJI!N!+!!f.Wu!»b))))},yl}IO))NNIY)N11))pl\YfINVAy.~fy)p},qy)ppN}~pgyaf}ab}~,iy}ayp))AWMA+)NW)NWN}}k1111111y1gaWp uuWp~,Wpp)pW,yIAVN~+A~AU}I/ INNAMVIM}Ylp})RV»efV».w)W}},ypppWV,yy,DWI.WAV~».4W1~44+11:1`.111Y)N}}Nf)yq~,ppgff}plgW)4.W IMy1~1ll14}J ~y,\W,V,~pU,q~+~,q},~tlb,\nX Primary.4wner. Baines, Ghristir~a cbaine~@ci~;alameda,ca~us.' ~~.0-747-47Q~, ~,.,,,,~....Kµ4\~.~.~,,.~.~_~~.~~.~,~,,.~,.w~,~,~,~~ ~}~},~,,.,~..~......~....4~,N . ,,.~.~ ,w,~,~YY~Y~.~,.,.~... .»..,~..,,,~~.M:.~,~~.,~~..M~.4.~.,..~..w.,..~..~ Secondary 4v~ner ~leisige~; Lara Iweisige@ci.alameda.ca.~s . 7474801 ,:..::: Add Attachment k,~~~~~1>I.~.~.„>M.,..,.,, .w,~w No attachments found A ~ rr~t. Date Ev e rbn .. esc ~~ . o~~~ozoos ~~:31 Change Status states change during send email ©2008 Camcate, Int hops:Ilclients.comcate.coml~epslcaseDetail.php?id=93427 1/30/2008 C~ web site • Ca_ mcate ~~ ~ ..I~~ !~ ' ~~~~~~~'~® JAN ry~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ r ot~. ~ 2~~~ J~,N ~ ! A l~~ ! 1 ~s,~~ '~~ ~v~ ~~~ ~ A~~ eh 1 C~T'~ ~I ir~L~4~1~'~~DA //// j w January 28, 2005 ClT~ CLE~~ S OFF4CE Dear Mayor Beverly Johnson: The land set aside for commercial development should remain for commercial development ONLY. Anything that Don Perata has to do with, from the sweetheart deal between Perata and Al Davis, owner of the Oakland Raiders, to present day has been tainted; if not, downright dishonest. If the Harbor Bay Ferry cannot pay for itself, then discontinue that service, More residential development will only add to the existing overcrowding and traff c congestion on Harbor Bay Island. Please vote NO on all of the above, and any other Don Perata schemes. N4 MORE GRIDLOCK ON HARBOR BAY ISLAND, Respectfully yours, Jim Orr 114 Lagunaria Ln. Alameda, Ca. 94502 p Mayor Beverly Johnson City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 January 27, 20~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ .~ ~~~~~, Subject: Opposition to re-zoning of property in the Harbor Bay usiness Park Dear Mayor Johnson: 1008 JAN 31 A 10 ~ ~ ~~r~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ f.1 ! ~~fy~~~ r' + ~. We have been Harbor Ba Isle residents for ~i~e~a~~~ a made Alameda our h y ~~~~` j ome because of its scenic views, fresh air, individual neighborhoods, and outstan Ong public school system. One of our primary criteria in selecting a home was the distance from the Oakland Airport as we wanted to minimize environmental issues such as noise and air pollution. Accordingly, the home we selected is not immediately within the flight path of the Airport. We are raising two young children and enjoy our home and neighborhood. We oppose the re-zoning of property in the Harbor Bay Business Park from business to residential and do not support the development of new luxury homes on that property. It is our understanding that execution of this project could result in the following: • Rescission of the 2002 settlement agreement limiting the scope of airport development which would result in elimination of restrictions on linvited size aircraft departures from fields over Harbor Bay and Alameda • Port of Oakland and airport tenants circumventing noise mitigation procedures resulting from the settlement • Loss of TRACON (au traffic controllers in region) to participate in the noise abatement procedures Furthermore, we are concerned that development of this project in such close proximity to the airport may be viewed by the Port of Oakland and airline tenants as a deliberate taunting of voluntary noise mitigation procedures, and thus; abandon existing procedures and agreements. In turn, this could result in increased healthy and safety issues and decreased property values for all Alameda residents. Some additional concerns include --increased traffic congestion on the island, adequacy of emergency personnel, utilities, and infrastructure for residents, and the safety of pedestrians and residents near Harbor Bay Parkway with more autos traveling at high speeds. Due to the aforementioned concerns, we oppose the re-zoning of property in the Harbor Bay Business Park from business to residential. And accordingly, we do not support the development of homes on that Property We appreciate your consideration of our concerns. Please contact us if needed. Sinly f ~ ~ ~- Mark an ene Okazaki 210 Cum erland Court Alameda, CA 94502 JAN 3 01008 CRYOFp~,gMEDq MAYOR'S OFFICE RECEIVED January 25 2008 ._~.. ~.~ ~, Ma or Beverl Johnson ~~ ~~r `~`~ y y ~ ~~:~, ~ ~ ~~ City of Alameda - .. ~°' 2 2 6 3 Santa Clara Avenue ~~~ Zo~$ ~ ~~ Alameda, CA 94501 ~ ~ ~, , '~ ~`~ r~ ~` Sa. q 'y.,y r~ Dear Mayor Johnson: FEB 0 4 2008 CITI' OF AL,p11~Epq MAYQR'S OFFICE As a long time resident of Harbor Bay Isle, I am concerned about airplane noise. .... Currently there is an agreement with the Port of Oakland and airport tenants limiting the size of aircraft flying over Harbor Bay Isle. Currently the only planes flying directly over my home are small, private planes. They are disturbing but infrequent. It is my understanding that this agreement could be nullified- if Ron Cowan is allowed to construe homes on the Harbor Bay Industrial Park area. I enjoy my home and have no intention of moving, however, the noise and danger created by commercial planes flying overhead would make living here impossible. At the same token, under those conditions, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to buy my home. Sincerely, Paula N. Keilson 426 Sheffield Road Alameda, CA 94502 January 25 2008 City Council Members City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Members: h~FC'F1bED 108 FEB -4 A If 30 ~~ 7 ~5 ~ ft S r C~ ~ '~° Syr ,F.:.,,_,..~~`~~Q~ As a. long time resident of Harbor Bay Isle, I am concerned about airplane noise. Currently there is an agreement with the Port of Oakland and airport tenants limiting the size of aircraft flying over Harbor Bay Isle. Currently the only planes flying directly over my home are small, private planes. They are disturbing but infrequent. It is my understanding that this agreement could be nullified if Ron Cowan is allowed to construe homes on the Harbor Bay Industrial Park area. I enjoy my Name and have no intention of moving, however, the noise and danger created by commercial planes flying overhead would make living here impossible. At the same token, under those conditions, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to buy my home. Sincerely, Paula IV. Keilson 426 Sheffield Road Alameda, CA 94502 ~ ~ ; ~ ~ D Community of Harbor Bay Isle ~ Owners Association, lnc. 4~ 3195 Mecartney Road Alameda, California 94502-6912 (510) 865-3363 February 6, 2005 Ms. Beverly Johnson Mayor, City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 9450 RECEIVED FEB 0 7 2U06 CfiY OF ALAMEDA MAYOR'S OFFICE Dear Ms. Johnson: Tne Board of DireC~ors of the Cari~rnunity position regarding the proposed building Harbor Bay Business Park: car Harbor Bay isle i~~as aaopte~ an officiai of additional residential properties in the The Community of Harbor Bay Isle does not suppor# the building of additional homes on Harbor Bay Business Park properly and opposes the re-zoning of the Busr'ness area for residential use. The Board of Directors is happy to meet with any City of Alameda officials to discuss this position and the effects their actions may have on the Community, Bay Farm island and Alameda as a whole. Sincerely, On Behalf of the Board of Directors of the Community of Harbor Bay Isle ~, ~~ en D. Crook Executive Director Communitvof Harbor Bay Isle ~~,„M,w N .. ,~ ~~w~ s ra - ei i s er R B La+,,H e; a Farm~lsland Shoreline y open space ~u'.»'i+:~~~eaaww~»erow~aws+,wwrr.;r:•:ss»„wu.nw+xawrowna arM. ,~r..»~rxroww m+>,,•,,r~+:a++: rarrnv.nr;.;;xra•naroxm•:eamwmaw.vx~+;;+;: mw+»ror.m.Kn~.au:aee»+v;~w.rep,u+~,ov.••v.an::.»,r.w»wxr•.r:.. .:.r>nnz.rmn,w~~~~r~+~•+rv:a;,r~~v~.m~~,:,xuna~+:o•,~hh.:nerwwnm x~,,,,,n••:•rxox:.m:.»+u•~:xa: o• ...:......:..~tn •,,..:.:,: ,:.~..,..,,,,.:r.. .,. .~~.~~.: ..:,,:.: ~^ From: Goldenez8 ~goldenez8@yahoo.com> To: ~bjohnson@ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 4111200810:55:58 AM Subject: Re; Bay Farm Island Shoreline open space Dear Mayor and Council members, My name is Zhuo Heng then, a resident of Bay Farm Island, Alameda. I strongly oppose the planning of construction of ten office building in the last bay farm island shoreline open space. Can you please send the direction to the April 15th city council meeting to me? Thanks, Zhuo You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http:lltc.deals.yahoo.comltclblockbusterltext5.com CC: ~Itam@ci.alameda.ca.us>, ~ddehaan@ci.alameda.ca.us>, ~mgilmore@ci.alameda.ca.us>, ~fmatarrese@ci.alameda.ca.us> Lara iger The ESPLANADE ~, wvn+~ww~F~~+++c+k,naumwa>rw,. ~.,~s ~,~,~.~~,~ .~~~,.,~,,, .~.. ~....~, ~~. ~w., :..:.n. , ,.u.My~..~..,. ~.~ ' r~w awrxaw ~e1S :,wwtwux+aro>»wnmr~r~.'+nwx~oumouru+Mxa ex: e:.w,•n.,».,•rraxoxmwr•+w.,r, rvch. .. .. ~ ... . :.r ~, . ,w,,.,~. ~~ a„x ,.:: , w~~.,,~~.,wy.,o-:..r~,,,.wx ~...:~,,Y~.,,r,~..r, 9e .~~ ~... ,w Pa From: "alamedalinda" ~alamedalinda@mymailstation.com~ To: LWEISIGE a~ci.alameda.ca.us Date: 4/1/2008 3:54:38 PM Subject: The ESPLANADE Good morning, Mayor Johnson. 1 am a Senior resident in Bay Colony on Bay Farm Island and am very distraught by the present plan for the ESPLANADE. I cannot be present at the April 15, 2008 meeting when you will be discussing this matter, unfortunately. Please hear my plea in this email format. 1 am in full agreement with the RRD Residents for Responsible Development} whereby we want to see this development redesigned and reduced to create more open space, less traffic and better neighborhood compatibility. Please DO NOT ALLOW the Alameda Planning Board to go any further with this plan. It is being done in a rush. .. I regularly walk on the Bay Trail to keep my diabetes under control and also take my 4 young grandchildren there to teach them about the environment and how to respect and retain it. Your attention to the will be very much appreciated Please let me know that you received this email as 1 am writing it on an email station, not a computer. Thank you. Sincerely yours, .Linda B. Allen 129 Bannister Way Alameda, Ca 94502 Telephone 521 1991 Agri 19, 2008 ~~~~,~~~i~~~ Honorable Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda Lena Tam, Vice Mayor, City of Alameda Doug deHaan, Alameda City Council Member Frank Matarrese, Alameda City Council Member Marie Gilmore, Alameda City Council Member R~: Appeal of April 15h regarding the Esplanade Project Dear Mayor and Council Members: 2W8 APR -9 P 3~ 39 CITY CL~~~~~`5 DFFiCE we are writing to inform you that we are opposed to the proposed Esplanade Development as approved by the Planning Board on February 25, 2008. only immediately ad jacent residents were notified of the hearing. However, this is a pro jest that will at~ect countless residents an Harbor Bay and Bay Farm. Mast residents, we believe, had no knowledge of the project. However, as they've become aware of it we've seen increasing community-wide concern about the proposed project. As information has spread, we have begun to collect signatures. To date we have collected several hundred signatures and are continuing to collect them. we will be submitting these petitions to you in the near future for your consideration, Gf course we intend to speak with you, in some depth. Gn April 15~ regarding our concerns. However, in brief our concerns revolve around the following aspects ofthe project: Traffic and inadequate Parking: We believe this office condo project will generate greater traffic than if it were individual homes, due to the higher number of office workers per thousand feet. However, the City has allowed a variance fur substandard parking according to the City's requirements. The Ferry parking lot aUready is virtually foil at a time when we are continuing to try to increase ferry ridership now and into the future. The overflow of parking in this project will negatively impact not only future ridership but the current ridership as well, we will soon need mare parking for the fe ~y commuters even with public transit-shuttle improvements. Gverflaw commuter parking xs a current concern ~n the ad jacent neighborhoods. The proposed project will only exacerbate a problem, which already exists and need to addressed, Traffic congestion, the ingress and egress of cars at Mecartney and Delphi and through the Ferry Parking lot and the inadequacy of the developer's narrow service road are also factors which require current traffic studies to be undertaken. l~ conjunction, the City should be studying potential traffic impacts of future develapnlent an the 20 acre parcel immediately south of this parcel. we must address these problems now and come up with a solution rather than deal with these issues after the project is completed. After completion our options for solutions wilt be greatly limited and inadequate. Lack of Qpen Space and Design: This is a unique parcel of bay front open space. It is visually and esthetically connected to the many Harbor Bay homes and neighbarhaods surrounding it. It is visually separate from the rest of the Harbor Bay Business Park, Harbor Bay residents take great pride in the appearance of their neighborhoods and amenities. As part of the Shoreline Park hundreds if not thousands of Alamedans en joy this parcel for walking, biking and dishing. It is very important that the development design incorporate open space and special design features which will reflect the best of Alameda, especially since this area is the Gateway to Alameda because of its proxunity to the San Francisco-Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal. However, as designed, the Esplanade Development falls far short of good design qualities for this parcel and for this area. Firstly, the design is not compatible with the neighboring homes which surround it. ~t also lacks sufficient open space within the design, and there is an overall lack of imagination. we strongly urge the City Council to please vote no on the Planning Board's approval of the development and instead refer this project back to the Planning Board for scheduling ofcommunity-wide workshops and further dialogue Thank you. Chad Qtten Haney Wilson viola Qtten Reyla Graber Tam Lynch Pat Gannon ferry Long Lara, d.,A ..peal of Pro osed Ess lanade Pa µe 1 '- vUeisi er Fw o Business Par ~~ r ~~ - .,«~.,~~„~Y.p~~w.v Y,~~~~~+~,,Y~P+~,..~,~k~Y~:~.~?~w'.,~~~H~.Y~:.~..~~~4ffice Park at Harb r Ba ~.~:.~...~..~,~.~. /~'.'~{~ kme+v+Ana.Ya+..e.~w+wY;,~~a~•'caawtteevem. wattvmvm..::~+n' ., ,~ ~x,+m+'~•<asrava,,•:.xe:.~x,e.awnnw va~'un++oooo->w~~~a~ .. _~cwwu M..::.,~ 4~xtttn+um+efOPWH~MYF'.Y:t~:l~'A'.+f•:, '~rlA'Ya'a'in'imwua rMr~Hrkl~l.~vr~i;.rmwu+lie,.:NWFIX~~r~'n'/~Y~:'~~~:r~;,:;; :..'.re'Mb'~W~':~M:eM+.'N/+^' From: Beverly Johnson To: CITY CLERK; Debra Kurita Date: 419120D8 5:37:36 PM Subject: Fwd: Appeal of Proposed Esplanade office Park at Harbor Bay Business Park »> ~chadwotten~aol.cvm> 4171244810:14 AM »> Dear Mayor Johnson: We are opposed to the proposed Esplanade development as approved by Planning on February 25th. Unfortunately, notice of the hearing and the proposed project was inadequate although technically compliant} as only the immediately adjacent residents were notified of the hearing. This is a project that effects countless more residen#s of Alameda, most of whom were unaware of the project. Nonetheless, we are opposed to the density of the development as the total square footage of buildings proposed are too impactful on the site and neighboring properties and therefore the scope of the project must be mitigated. The following are some of our concerns: The ferry parking parking lot is already vir#uallyfull - at a time when we continue to try and increase ferry ridership. The overflow of parking from this projec# onto the ferry parking will negatively impact not only future ridership but current ridership as well. overflow commuter parking is a current concern in the adjacent neighborhoods. The proposed project will only exacerbate a problem that already needs to be addressed. Traffic congestion, the ingress and egress of cars and buses at Mecartney and Adelphian and through the ferry parking lot, and the inadequacy of the service road are all concerns that require some current traffic studies to be undertaken. We need to address the problems now and come up with a solution rather than try and deal with them after the project is completed. Our options at that time wil! be greatly limited. This property is a unique parcel as it sites directly on the waterfront and at the entrance to our residential neighborhoods. we have the opportunity to create something special that works for everyone. The proposed development plan falls short of that. we would welcome the opportunity to meet with you or speak with you before the hearing next Tuesday. Thank you. Get the MapQuest Toolbar ~ htt :llwww.ma uest.comltoolbar?NCID~m ma 00030000000003 }, Maps, Traffic, Directions & More! meat r~. ~ ..~.. ~..a_..~,.... mm_~.. N,a rge ~,~w e e Lira - e~s r wd~ Es lanade D v to Pa e ~ ••:r.:. ,x.:,,z:u: uc++>w+v~wor KOraws.~~ a~eeeom+xcm~,wawowroa:,~ amaxan•w+•wnr~~aka•.r,:~-;r~e~a~~~nnn,,~n~m,~na~rmro,~;~~~voeeow~~mwvor•:v~~»»•::~;x:e.e,,.,r..,ru~eeeeau,,nra.+w+wa+vn.,.w~~..e: ewewwero;,••;ar•~x+>••rr~rr ~~~ee:eeew,en,~a,+rMn+~~~,ae~w~n~o~•nk••:•axu....~rxnrrr+eeeooon+nw>++wrx«r ouro+~,~;wxawwr~xa.+swa.:uev;nounenaw~+m+.»v~;,vw~~vn,:~m;>w»:;.xsrra»ve,;..e,:cro>,v.,~~~;,r„r ,,,::,:,»v.,.~,.~r;wr.xr+~roMM~~r~m,v :,v.,~~~~~,+ww+v; ~~ ' g : From: Beverly Johnson To: CITY CLERK; Debra Kurita Date: 41912048 5:38:08 PM Subject: Fwd; Esplanade Development »> "Denise Cahalan" ~denisecahaian(a~att.net~ 4/812008 8:44 AM »> Dear City Council Members: I am writing to express concerns about the Esplanade project which the Alameda Planning Board has just approved. I respectively request that the development be redesigned and reduced to create more open space, less traffic and better neighborhood compatibility. I will be vn vacation during the next city council meeting when the matter maybe considered. in lieu of attending the meeting, I am expressing my concerns in writing to you as Alameda City Council members. Thank you very much. Denise Cahalan Ph: 52~ -2583 ._ ~„ h ~;,..~.w Fwd... ~~....~. ~N:~~w~, ,~.~..N_.M..~..,H ~ ...~......_..~...~.. ~ ,_.~,~ w~~._.~. ~. [ Lara Weisiger - p The Es lanade ~.., •,,..Y . , ,L,.u,,, *~ Page 1 ~~ n'.vxt.[..n 'r,MM'n41+P',fY,10frMV'1 „v~,;'~11~[rc~m+wf%-0PIP'~WWIX YU,1'Mvr,'.+VS4':.I+:.v [,:•••5'^~.' ,i[ulndxmbumeeeeue~~vwrv[,[..,~-0,{~'~1+,4rvM'4'{!H•vJeky./••,n„rc...3..tutttt[u~Ir,Vrrv.., rMO%S 1~fS•••:':',;.ah'lt/N,t [feeeOW~+' •[[~vr<fN[~Y•wn'~v;:A,~,v..ye..n.e[utue%n U0W+e1'W~v.+1'~+'i/'.'Yvtamr/eie,f',YFFWUK«f[NiIY. I.: ,Y:.,]1rc~.vW.hF F.!.f.+:[vrl .,.1[,1d/++W 111rudm0[-0W ..:•'Fn YJ+~~S, +c, From: Beverly Johnson To: CITY CLERK; Debra Kurita Date: 4!912005 5:38:41 PM Subject: Fwd: The Esplanade »> Pat M Gannon ~pmgannon(~iuno.com> 4/812008 8:53 PM »> April 8, 2008 Honorable Beverly Johnson Mayor, City of Alameda City Hall Santa Clara at Oak Streets Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Mayor Johnson: RE: The Esplanade Development I am writing to express my opposition to the Esplanade project as proposed and approved by the Planning Board on February 25, 2008. The project would produce an increase of approximately 1000 car trips per day spilling over onto our already choked residential streets. Planned parking is below City standards, which would force cars into the Ferry parking lot and nearby neighborhood streets. The design of the project is inappropriate and incompatible with nearby homes. The Last remaining bay front open space on Bay Farm Island will be paved over. This parcel is home to the burrowing owl, a species of special concern, as well as rabbits and squirrels, egrets and herons. Walkers, bikers and joggers will face increased risks in the narrow space between buildings and the shoreline pathway. I recommend that the Esplanade be returned to the Planning Board to be redesigned and reduced to create more open space, less traffic and better neighborhood. Sincerely, Patricia M. Gannon 1019 Tobago Lane Alameda, CA 94502 h Wnvn„ wa w.a,~...~;,m-,.wFi-•,.e .. wr.q,. ~-W ' ,{, wW.a. w.rw.vnvn•,w4.wn..J.....nw ~Lara•„Weisigrer -Fwd: ,UNIQUE BFI SITE DESERVES MUCH BETTERµ- NQ on ta~.,,w..w~,~,~.,~.~,~~,.~a.~,~:h~~ Esplanade! Page,,1 +:+•<xm ,.,u.~ a a+ati+~xt a, e..mr a, e,.~. n~.ew tutwacac•+.+ca.;aa•,<mcaxne~+een+n+en+eovo»+wwr»++cu:;..:wn,uuarxeun•,~wmwcawao~.,nn~,ueee,eeru+anx'aaaaac~weov~wa±evmwwti r,.»+~~~xr Ma+cr.:..~a•,,, ran, ,u,uun+aieoxomixao . ~iew•.nw •rrrRrcau~~•r sra•.n arr,:.~„v:m,a rra.,r,»„x~w~~~.r:.u.,.,:..,,nv~,+n+<~.<~.... ro„a~,,.nmve.awnwFwa.rexnn,,,....~~,,,,,.,r-.mi ., r,.a.6 From: Beverly Johnson To: CITY CLERK; Debra Kurita Date: 4/9/2408 5:39:09 PM Subject: Fwd: UNIQUE BFI SITE DESERVES MUCH BETTER - N4 on Esplanade! >?> "Germaine Long" ~charliedog2004~a,earthlink.net> 419/2008 3:26 PM »> UNIQUE BFI SITE DESERVES MUCH BETTER - N4 on Esplanade! Dear Mayor Johnson: The proposed Esplanade development site is unique-- it is Bay Farm Island's last large waterfront open space, and the unobstructed view of the Bay and western hills from San Francisco to San Mateo is unequalled. The natural beauty and peaceful feeling of the area calls for a quality development that respects this and is in harmony with the existing community of homes and extensively-used recreation land. SRM wants to fill virtually every usable square foot of the lot with hulking brick buildings next to acres of asphalt -totally out of character with the existing community. This would create a 30+ feet high wall of dark, blocky boxes along the present bike path for nearly the entire length of the lot, with only small breaks between the buildings. Buildings of this design and density belong in an area of office buildings -not here. Once the buildings are up, the damage has been done and is expensive to correct. WE MUST STOP THIS DISASTER! Send this debacle back for redesign and downscaling - a plan worked out COGPERATIVELY with input from neighbors and recreational users. Challenge SRM to create a design that will respect and compliment the natural beauty of the area, not destroy it. Make the project a good neighbor, not an eternal eyesore which will make future generations wonder why it was ever allowed to be built. The vast majority of BFI residents knew nothing about the plan, but those informed and shown the drawings were strongly opposed. This developer's arrogance in totally disrespecting the existing community is an insult #o us all, and the development, as currently designed, is guaranteed to generate maximum and long-lasting ill-will. Thank you, Germaine Long, 165 Bannister Way, Bay Colony, Bay Farm Island Germaine Long charliedo 2004 earthlink.net CITY OF ALAMEDA RESGLUTfGN NG. ~~ a` a a~ v a a ',~ APPRGVING TENTATIVE MAP 9689 FILE NG. PLNOl-0061 } FGR THE SUBDIVISIGN GFA29.31 ACRE PARCEL 1NTG 14 PARCELS FGR THE DEVELGPMENT GF TEN GFFICE BUIDLINGS, ASSGCIATED PARKING , LANDSCAPING AND GTHER fMPRGVEMENTS WHEREAS, an application was made on November 13, 2007, by SRM Associates requesting approval of Tentative Map TM 9689 File No. PLNOl-0051 , ... } for the subdivision of a 29.31-acre parcel into 14 parcels, including ten parcels for a proposed development of ten office buildings and associated parking, landscaping and other improvements on 9.22 acres, four parcels for future development on 18.11 acres, and dedication of a portion of Harbor Bay Parkwa y on 1.98 acres at the northernmost end of Harbor Bay Parkway, and; WHEREAS, the Tentative Map was accepted as complete on January 24, 2008; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Business Park on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C-M-PD, Commercial, Manufacturing, Planned Development, Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planned Development for the Business Park was approved by PD-81-2, and subsequently amended by PDA-85-4 and PDA05-0003; and WHEREAS, the City Council on April 4,1989, approved an Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report of the Harbor Bay Isle Development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a publichearing on February 25, 2005 for this application and examined pertinentmaps,drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board made the following findings: 1. The proposed subdivision is in substantial conformance with the General Plan and Planned Development for Village V, Harbor Bay Isle, which specifies commercial developmentforthissite aspart ofthe Business Park land use designation. 2. The Tentative Map is in substantial conformance with the land uses development regulations, parking standards, and park and o en s ace . p I~ guidelines established ~n the approved Planned Development for Villa e V, g Harbor Bay Isle BPD-81-2}. Resolution #5-C ~4-~ 8-48 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed officelbusinesspark ro'ect p1 on the proposed ten parcels totaling 9.22 acres File No. PLNOl-0061 . } The site will be graded to accommodate the proposal and is located adjacent to existing infrastructure that has the capacity to accommodate the proposal. 4. The site is physically suitable for this type of development. The ro osed pp density of the 10 parcel, 9.22-acre project is less than the maximum 35% - 40% lot coverage established by the Planned Development for Villa e V, . g Harbor Bay Isle. A future change in ownership pattern will have no effect on the appraved density of the site. 5. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage orsubstantiallyandavoidably injurefish or wildlife or.their habitat. An Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Harbor Bay Isle Development was appraved by the Cit , Y which evaluated the environmental impacts of the Planned Develo meat p and established measures that would mitigate potentially significant im acts p to a less than significant level. 6. The design of the subdivision and its improvements will not conflict with easements required by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. The project will include public right-of-way that will enhance public access through the properk ,and all Y ex~stfng easements will be preserved or relocated, and additional access and other easements are being provided. Easements for parking, traffic circulation, surface drainage runoff, and utilities are required as conditions of the Final Map. 1. The design of the subdivision and its improvements will not cause serious public health problems. The proposal fortes parcels totaling 9.22 acres is for an officelbusiness park and will not cause serious ublic health p problems. NGW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESGLVED that the City Council of the Cit of Y Alameda hereby finds and determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the previous EIR for this project fully analyzed the potential environmental effects of the project and that no further environmental review is re uired for the q proposed project because: 1. None of the circumstances necessitating additional CEQA review as specified in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including without limitation Public Resource Code section 21 ~ 66 and Guidelines section 15162 are present in that ~1 }there are no substantial changes proposed in the ro'ect or . p J the circumstances underwhich the project is undertaken that would re wire . .. q mayor revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and ~2} there is no "new information of substantial importance" as described in CEQA Guidelines 15162~a}~3}; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby approves Tentative Map 9689 ~PLN07-0061 ~, subject to the following conditions. Public UVorks: Conditions Applicable Prior to the Approval of the Final Map by the City Council: 1. The final map shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act, Alameda Municipal Code regarding Real Estate Subdivisions Regulations, Planning Board and City Council Tentative Map Resolutions applicableto the Final Map andshall be acceptabletotheCity Engineerand Planning & Building Director. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Building Official shall establish addresses foreach lot, which shall be included an the Final Map as a separate sheet. The separate sheet shall be a site plan that shows the buildings, parking, and landscaping in addition to the proposed property lines and shall be labeled "FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY." The Final Map shall be prepared to satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City's consultant surveyor. 2. Mylar copies of the retarded Final Map shall be provided to the City Engineer. AutoCad CD-Rom copies of the Final Map without signatures} shall be provided to the City Engineer. 3. The subdivider shall post a refundable cashier's check in the amount of $140 per final map sheet to guarantee that a Mylar copy of the recorded Tract Map is provided in the form approved by the City Engineer. Public ~Uorks: Conditions Applicable Prior to Construction Im rovement Plans,,_Specifications,_and Engineer's Estimates 4. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be prepared by the developer's engineer and shall be provided as either part of the building plans or separate from the building plans for review and approval by the City Engineer, Specifications may be incorporated on the improvement plan sheets. 5. Specifications shall incorporate waste management practices and use of recyclable materials to the extent possible and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. Improvement plans and specifications shall include an erosion and sediment control plan incorporating best management practices. 7. Geotechnical, sails and environmental assessment reports shall be provided. A letter from the geotechnical engineer shall be provided to the City Engineer stating that they have reviewed and approved the plans. Sanita Sewer Facilities 8. Sanitary sewer calculations shalt be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sanitary sewer mains not within the public right-of way shall be private and shall be maintained by the property owners. City standard manholes shall be provided where the lateral connectswith the streetmain. Sewer lateral within the street shall be PVC having a minimum SDR thickness of 26. Standard City of Alameda cleanouts shall be provided at the upper ends. Storm Drain Facilities 9. Storm drain calculations shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Calculations shall be provided that the existing storm drain line has adequate capacity to handle the proposed development. If there is insufficient capacity the developershall upsize the existing pipe or install a new pipe. Design for pipe size and capacity shall be based on a 10-year storm. 1 g. The storm drain lines and inlets not within the public right-of way shall be private and maintained by the property owners of the subdivision. 11. Roof leaderdawn spouts shall not be connected directly to the storm drain line butshall daylight in landscape orpavementareas. Catch basin inlets in the parking lot shall have canister type filter cartridges for urban runoff control measures and shall be maintained under an operations and maintenance agreement. Utilities 12. The developershall underground all new utility lines and shall complywith the requirements and standards ofthe utility provider. Cit Ri ht of VIJa Im rovements 13. All curbs, gutter, and sidewalkswithin the City right-of-way shall be installed in accordance with City of Alameda standard plan Drawing 6291, Case 24. Reinforcing bars should be installed in curbs where subsidence is predicted. 14. Provide individual lot final grading plans showing building foundation foot print, lot boundary, and offset dimensions of buildings to property lines, swafes and drainage inlets, hillowlspotlpad elevations necessary for final grading to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sheet size shall be 8~/2"x11 ", Public works: Conditions Applicable During Construction 15. Maintain traffic control and adjust accordingly as conditions warrant subject to approval of the City Engineer. 16. Limit construction activity to 1:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. perAfameda Municipal Code. Vvork requiring City Public Works construction inspection beyond 4:OO p.m. shall require payment of City inspector at time and one-half ~1- 112}. 1l. Maintain construction noise, dustcontroland sitecfeanupto Cityacceptable levels. Maintain urban runoff control measures. Sweep public streets daily or as necessary. Construction materials, equipment and personnel vehicles shall be stored on site and not on public streets. 18. Provide compaction-testing services foraccess driveways and right-of way improvements. The subdivider shall require the geotechnical engineer to submit all testing, sampling and reports to the City Engineer. 19. Upon approval of the plans and specifications by the City Engineer any changes to the improvement plans necessitated during construction will require approval of the City Engineer through achange ordersubmitted through the City's Permit Center by the owner's engineer. 20. A maintenance agreement for starmwater treatment measures subject to the approval of the City Engineer shall be recorded prior to the first certificate of occupancy. Public Works: Conditions Applicable to Acceptance of Improvements 21. All improvementsdamaged duringtheconstruction ofthesubdivisionshall be repaired to the satisfaction of City Engineer. Any excessive wearof the finished street pavement surface due to construction equipment prior to acceptance of the improvements by the City Engineershall be repaired by approved methods to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 22. As-builts of all improvement plans shall be prepared after construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shah be provided in Mylar form. Public Works: Conditions Applicable to Final Closeout 23. Upon acceptance of the improvements and release of letter of credit or deposit by the City Council the Public Uvorks Director shall file a 60-day Notice of Completion with the County of Alameda. Planning and Building: ~therConditions 24. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, shall defend with counsel reasonably acceptable to theCtty},indemnify, and hold harmlesstheCityof Alameda, its Redevelopment Agency, the Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Alameda, Alameda Redevelopment Agency, Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers ar employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, any approval or related decision tothis project. This indemnification shall include, but is not limited to, alt damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees arising out of or in connection with the project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shalt cooperate in such defense. The City may elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. 25. Ali Time and Material charges for this application shall be paid in ful! prior to the approval of Building Permits far the Project. 26. The applicant shalt acknowledge in writing all conditions of approval and accept this permit subject to conditions, with full awareness of applicable provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code for this Tentative Map 9689 to be exercised. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuan# to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety ~9o} days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. NGTICE. The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020~d}~1 }, these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day appeal period in which you may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 6602o~a} has begun, If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. *~**** 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regularmeeting assembled on the 15th day of April, 2008, by the following vote to wit; AYES; NOES: ABSENT; ABSENTICNS; IN vUiTNESS, UI~HERE4F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of April 24x8. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTIGN NO. UPHOLDING PLANNING BDARD APPROVAL GF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FILE NO. PLNOl•0061 ~ AT 2800 HARBOR BAY PARKWAY E 0 0 c~ a~ 0 a. a WHEREAS, an application was made on November 13, 2001, by SRM ' Associates for a Final Development Plan, Major Design Review, and Planned Development Amendment to permit the construction of ten office buildings and r ~ associated parking, landscaping and otherimprovements, Ioca#ed at2800 Harbor ~ Bay Parkway, and; ~a .~ ~ WHEREAS, the proposal was accepted as complete on January 24, 2008; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Business Park on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C-M-PD, Commercial, Manufacturing, Planned Development, Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planned Development for the Business Park was approved by PD-81-2, and subsequently amended by PDA-85-4 and PDA05-0003; and WHEREAS, the City Council on April 4,1989, approved an Addendum to the Fina! Environmental Impact Report of the Harbor Bay Isle Development; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a publichearing on February25, 2008 for this application, and examined pertinentmaps, drawings, and documents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board made the following findings relative to the Final Development Plan: 1. Condition #2 of Resolution No. 1203 which approved the Business Park requires that for each development proposal within the Business Park, a Final Development Plan be reviewed by Planning and Building Staff for compliance with the conditions of Resolution No.1203and then be brought before the Planning Board. This requirement has been fulfilled for this proposal. WHEREAS, the Planning Board made the following findings relative to the Major Design Review approval: 1. As conditioned, the project will be compatible with its site, adjacent or neighboring buildingsorsurroundings,and promateharmonioustransitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. Resolution #5~C 04-15.08 The project's site design takes into consideration the adjacentproperties by providing ample open space that is appropriately located to serve as transitions between the office park and the surrounding land uses, the buildings are grouped to create a sense of spatial units, and there are ample provisions for pedestrian access to the waterfront. The building design is horizontal and harmonious with the neighborhood, compliments the HarborBayBusiness Park, and hasan appropriatethemeandsenseof scale, utilizing high quality textures and building materials. The design also takes advantage of its location on the waterfront and maximizes its orientation to, and visual relationshipwiththewater. The landscaped areas have been designed to bean integral, harmonious, and sustainable partof the project, incorporating plant species that are attractive, native, and tolerant of the maritime environment. Additional amenities such as benches and bicycle rackshave alsobeen incorporated intothe landscape design. Finally, the traffic and parking system has been designed to promote safety and avoid conflicts between uses. The off-street parking is located behind the buildings, is attractively screened from the public right- of-way, and landscaping will be used to break up the interior. vVHEREAS, the Planning Board made the following findings relative to the specific design guidelines for the Business Park contained in Resolution No.1203: 1, The preliminary landscape plan is consistent with the required landscaping requirements of the Business Park. 2. The buildings are designed to project a low horizontal profile which reduces the apparent bulk of the buildings as required by the Architectural Guidelines contained in Resolution No. 1203, vvHEREAS, the Planning Board made the following findings relative to the Planned Development Amendment for reduced parking: 1. The development is a mare effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the district with which the PD District is combined. The development is a more effective use of the site because the reduction in land that would otherwise be devoted exclusively to parking will provide additional open space and outdoor amenities, particularly in the transition areas between the office park and Shoreline Park. In addition, Buildings B1 through E2 will have shared parking, thus providing greater efficiencies. The project is . part of the existing Business Park and will participate in an existing program that was developed to minimize traffic and parking demand, This program disseminates transit information, provides subsidized mass transit passes, cooperates with RIDES on car pool matching programs, provides shuttles to and from BART, and encourages employees of the Harbor Bay Business Park to use alternative commute modes. Additionally, a condition of approval requires the applicant to construct a new bus stop on behalf of the Harbor Bay Business Park, with funding for this bus stop currently available through existing assessments. The applicant, staff, and AC transit are currentlyworking todetermine its specific location. In addition to transit access the project location is adjacent to the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal, which provides commuter access to and from San Francisco. Finally, the proposal includes space for a restaurant or cafe immediately adjacent to the Ferry Terminal. The reduced parking allows for a mare extensive pedestrian network on-site, better landscaping plan, and the opportunity to slightly reduce impervious surfaces and surface runoff. 2. The project will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses. The proposed reduction in parking requirementsfrom 3.75 to of 3.51 spaces per 1,OOO square feet of floor area is appropriate in this case and will not adversely affect adjacent properties. WHEREAS, on March 5, X008 an appeal of the Planning Board's approval of the project was filed with the City of Alameda; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 2008, the City Council considered the appeal and the information relative to the appeal provided by the staff report and the public comments. NOUII, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda herebyfinds and determines based on substantial evidence in the record that the previous EIR for this project fully analysed the potential environmental effects of the project and that no further environmental review is required for the proposed project because: 1. None of the circumstances necessitating additional CEQA review as specified in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, including without limitation Public Resource Code section 21166 and Guidelines section 15162, are present in that ~1 }there are no substantial changes proposed in the projector the circumstances underwhich the projec# is undertaken thatwould require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified signif cant effects; and ~2} there is no "new information of substantial importance" as described in CEQA Guidelines 15162~a}~3}, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby upholds the Planning Board's approval of Final Development Plan, Ma'or . ! Design Review, and Planned Development Amendment PLN07-0061 subject to the following conditions: PUBLIC 1NORK5 Prior to the issuance of Building or Grading Permits: 1. The project applicant shall submitan lmperviousSurraceFormtotheGity's PubiicWorks Department~PWD}duringthe plan reviewprocess, indicating the proposed total change in impervious surface area for the project site. Land and Transportation Development 2. Prior to issuance of grading permit, a sanitary sewage flow analysis shat! be prepared bythe applicantand approved bythe Public~lvorks Departmentto determine sanitary sewage quantities of the proposed development. 3. Prior to issuance of grading permit, a storm drainage analysis including detailed calculations for bio-swales and planters shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department to insure adequate drainage capacity for the proposed project. Project proponent shall construct stormwater treatment measures} that meet the hydraulic sizing design criteria indicated in Provision C.3.d of the City of Alameda's municipal NPDES stormwater permit. Final Development Plan plans need to accommodate forthe propersizing design of the necessary stormwater treatment measures}. 4. Prior to issuance ofgrading permit, applicant shall investigate and provide to the Planning & Building Director for analysis, any opportunities to widen the private access road in order to provide additional space far a bicycle lane that are consistent with the project's approved elements. 5. Prior to issuance ofgrading permit, a geotechnical report, prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer, with recommendations to the findings shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department. 6. Bicycle parking rack locations shall be shown and shall be based on one space per 1 g vehicle spaces. Location and type to be approved by the Public Works Department. 7. Prior to issuance of grading permit, applicant shall prepare a traffic analysis in connection with the temporary rerouting of AC Transit buses during the reconstruction of the private access road that will include an evaluation of bus turning radii at the intersections of Aughinbaugh Way and Bay Edge Road, and Bay Edge Road and Harbor Bay Parkway. The analysis shall also include an analysis of additional bus loadings Equivalent SingleAxle Loading} along Aughinbaugh Way and Bay Edge Road forthe duration of construction related to the rerouting of AC Transit Line 50 along Aughinbaugh Way and Bay Edge Road. 8. The private ferry access road shall be reconstructed to accommodate bus traffic between the Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal and Harbor Bay Parkway. The Public ~Illorks Department shall provide a final Traffic Index DTI}for the street design. 9. Prior to issuance of grading permit, applicant shall indemnify the City and AC Transit for any damages arising from the temporary rerouting of AC Transit Line 50 during construction along Aughinbaugh 1Nay and Bay Edge Road. 14.Prior to issuance of grading permit, applicant shall provide an agreement from the owner of Bay Edge Road regarding the use of the road as a temporary reroute for AC Transit Line 54. Applicant shall also notify and provide contact information to the affected residential neighborhoods regarding thetemporary rerouting of Line 54 alongAughinbaugh VI1ayand Bay Edge Road. 11.~n behalf of the Harbor Bay Business Park, applicant shall work with the Public Works Departmentand AC Transitto determine the properlocation for, and install bus stops, bus shelters, crosswalks, and any associated improvements at or near the intersection of Harbor Bay Parkway and the private ferry access road. Additionally, applicant shall construct decomposed granite steps and install directional signs at the northwest corner of the intersection of Harbor Bay Parkway and the private ferry access road that connects the sidewalk with the paved pathway along the lagoon pursuant to approval by the PublicUVorks Department. 12. During the course of construction of the private ferry terminal access road, the applicant shall provide a letter of credit, deposit, or other acceptable instrument of credit to assure that the private ferry terminal access road is completed. The amount shall be based on the subdivider's engineer's estimate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall include 24°/0 contingencies. PreliminaryGrading~ Drainage and Utility Plan 13. Efforts shall be taken to minimize impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious surface areas. Roof leaders shall discharge onto landscaped areas. Additional design techniques can include, but is not limited to, the use of pervious pavement in parking areas. Landscaping P= 14. The final landscape plan for the area between the eastern edge of the private ferry access road and the sidewalk along the lagoon shall: a}Retain the existing healthy, mature #rees with some pruning along the road-side face of the trees to improve sight lines and remove overhanging branches; b}include the planting of upto fifteen 15-gallon evergreen trees of like kind to the existing with final planting location to be coordinated with the adjacent Freeport and Bay Colony Homeowner's Associations; c} be implemented using Bay-friendly landscaping guidelines in accordancewith Stopwaste.org; d} be subject to the approval of the City Planning and Building Director. 15. Forthe parking area in front of Buildings B1 through C2, a minimum of l5°l0 of the trees in the bioswale along thewestern edge of the ferry access road will be evergreen with an average mature height of 12' to 15' has shown on Sheets L1.1 and L2.2}. The final planting location of these trees will be coordinated with Freeport and Bay Colony Homeowner's Associations and shall be subjectto the approval of the City Planning and Building Director, 16, Tree clearances from utilities shall be as follows: a}Fire hydrant -- 6 feet; b} top of driveway wing -~ 5'; c} stop signs -15'; d} streetlpathway lights and utility poles - 25'; e} storm drain, sanitary mains, gas, water, telephone, electrical lines ~- 5'; f} front of electrical pad-mounted equipment -- 10'. Verify minimum clearance distances of street treeslshrubs from electrical transformers with City of Alameda Power and Telecom. 1l.Site traffic signing shall be to the approval of the City Engineer. Environmental Services -Urban Runoff 1 S. Final landscape plans should ensure that all landscaping and bioswales are designed to minimize irrigation and runoff, promote surface infiltration where appropriate, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to storm water pollution. As appropriate, integrated pest management IPM}principles and techniques shall be incorporated intothe landscaping design. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. 19,Stormwater treatment measures that function primarily as infiltration devices shall, where practical, protect groundwater from pollutants that may be present in urban runoff. The vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high groundwater mark shall be at least ten feet X10'} unless a collection system or another diversion method collects a reasonable amount of the infil#ration. 20. Trash enclosures andlor recycling areas shall be roofed andlor enclosed. These areas shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area and to contain litter and trash and pollutants, so that these materials are not dispersed by the wind or discharged to the storm drain system. For buildings having food service or restaurant use, their respective trash enclosure should have floor drains connected to the sanitary sewer system. The trash enclosures shall have a minimum floor area of96 square feetforbuildings 10,001-25,000 square feet in size and 192 square feetforbuiidings 25,001-50,000 square feet in size. The trash enclosures should have fire sprinklers if attached to the buildings. 21. Given that the total disturbed area for the project will be greater than one acre, the applicant must submit a Notice of Intent ~NGI} form to the California State V1later Resources Control Board ~SII1lRCB}, indicating the intent to comply with all requirements of the SVIIRCB Construction Activity Storm vVater NPDES General Permit Permit}. 22. In compliance with the N01 submittal to the SVIIRCB, the applicant for its designate} shall prepare and implementa thorough Storm vVater Pollution Prevention Plan ~SVUPPP} document to ensure appropriate protection of storm water quality during the project's construction activities. 23. The applicant for its designate} shall submit to the City's Public UVorks Department ~PVI1D} a copy of the completed project NGI and SvVPPP documents, as required for preparation by the SvVRCB, with sufficient time for both document review by the P1lvD and any necessary correctianslmodifications tothe SvVPPP bythe applicant for its designate} prior to commencement of any soil-disturbing activity. 24. Prior to the granting of a certificate of occupancy, an operation and maintenance ~G&M} agreement and G&M plan for all post-construction permanent} stormwater treatment controls shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval. The G&M plan shall include: treatment type, Iocation~s} of treatment measures, maintenance requirements, main#enance schedule, assurances of party responsible for ~&M, and assurances of access to inspect and verify treatment system G&M for the life of the project. 25. The developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors and sub- contractorsshall, during all construction activities, complywith the SINPPP elements, the City of Alameda's Urban Runoff Standard Conditions of Approval and the Best Management Practices ~BMPs} for construction activities indicated in the Alameda Countywide Clean vVater Program brochures during all construction activities. 26. Storm drain inlets in the parking areas shall have canister type filter inserts. All catch basins shall be clearly marked with the words "No Dumping! Drains to Bay" or equivalent, using methods approved by the City of Alameda's Public 1Norks Department. 2l. Plan sheets prepared for the construction phase shall indicate the specifications for the installation and upkeep of the erosion control mechanisms as described in the project SUVPPP. Specifications shall be provided for the perimeter protections},any silt fencing and fiber rolls used, the storm drain inlet protections, the stabilized construction entrances} and exits and vehicle tire wash areas}, the vehicle and equipment servicing areas} and the materials handling and storage areas}. These specifications should meet the same level oferasion and sediment control effectiveness identified for erosion and sediment control practices established in the San Francisco Bay Regional Uvater Quality Control Baard's Erasion and Sediment Control Field Manual and the California Stormwater Quality Association's Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook. 28. For projects creating or replacing greater than or equal to ~ 0,000 square feet of impervious surface, project proponent must submit a stamped, signed certification from a Civil Engineerregistered inthe State of California and working fora firm included on the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association ~BASMAA} list of Qualified Post-Construction Consultants for stormwater treatment facili#y design which indicates that the treatment measure design plan meets the established sizing design criteria for stormwater treatment measures. Environmental Services -~IVaste Management & Recycling Functions 29. The project is subject to the Vvaste Management Plan ~WMP}requirements of section 2~-24 of the Alameda Municipal Code. Transportation System Management 30. The applicant shall participate in the existing Harbor Bay Business Park program thatwas developed to minimize traffic and parking demand. The Harbor Bay Business Parkprogram is respansiblefordisseminatingtransit information, providing subsidized mass transit passes, cooperating with RfDES on car pool matching programs, encouraging the use alternative commute modes, and providing employees of the Business Park shuttles to and from BART. PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT 3~.The project shall be constructed in substan#ial compliance with the plans prepared by Fee Munson Ebert Architects, dated February ~ 2, 2008, titled "Esplanade, San Francisco Bay" consisting of 24 sheets, marked Exhibit "A", on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department. 32. At the common property line with the adjacent residential neighborhoods, the project will meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design BLEED} standard for light pollution reduction in residential areas. The following will be incorporated into the site lighting design: a. Use of pole lights with a maximum height of 25'; no building wall packs on the east building elevations excluding architectural andlorentry lighting such as sconces and soffit lights}. b. Fixtures andlor cut-off shields will be specified for exterior lights that mitigate direct view of the site lighting source form the adjacent residential neighborhoods. 33.Prior to issuance of building permit, applicant shall submit a photometric analysis indicating how lightwill be contained on the project site for review by the Planning & Building Director. 34.Any noise making mechanical equipment located on the ground, which generates noise exceeding ambient noise levels at the common property line with the adjacent residential neighborhoods shall be enclosed in a sound blocking enclosure meeting the noise standards established by the Alameda Municipal Code. The enclosure shall be built to standards approved by the City. 35. The Final Development Plan and Design Review approvals shall expire twelve X12} months from April 15, 2D4S, unless actual construction under valid permits has been commenced or the applicant applies for and receives aone-time twelve ~~ 2} month extension. PARKING/TRAFFIC 36. The parking plan shown on the application plans is approved based on the proposed officelrestaurant floor area. Prior to the issuance of building permits now or in the future, the Planning and Building Director shall be informed of the number of employees in the building and any changes in use. 3l. ~IVithin the Business Park, a Parking Management plan is required to minimize traffic and parking demand. This program can include, but is not limited to, preferred car pool parking spaces, bicycle lockers, cooperation with Regional Ride Share Program, car pool matching programs, disseminating transit information, providing subsidized mass transitpasses, membership in theAlameda Transportation ManagementAssociation and encouraging employees to use alternative commute modes. The Parking Management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Building Directorand the PublicVllorks Director, This Parking Management plan shall be in addition to the existing contributions to the Harbor Bay Business Park Association, which are currently required, AIR QUALITY 38. During construction, the applicant shall ensure that construction crews underkake a program of dust control including, but not limited to, watering soil surfaces as needed to prevent dust blowing, covering trucks carrying materials to and from the site, and frequent clean-up of soil carried by construction vehicle tires from the site onto roadways, Construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the Alameda Municipal Code, which restricts construction to the hours of 1:0o a.m. to 1:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:40 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday. Design specifications shall incorporate Waste Managementand Recycling elements for building and site demolition debris. NQ1SE 39.The projectshall notcause an increase in ambient noise levels in excessof those allowed in AMC. Prior to the issuance of building permits and prior to any future change in building use, the applicantshall submitan acoustical noise analysis demonstrating compliance with these Standards. The Planning and Building Directormayrequirenoisemonitoringandadditional project modifications if appropriate. S1GI~A GE 40. signage is subject to a separate permit. Ail signage shall be consistent with the requirements of the approved signage program for Harbor Bay Business Park. PR14R CQND1T10NS 41. Conditions relating to Planning Board Resolution Na. X203 are incorporated by reference. FEDERAL A V1A T1Q1V ADMlN15T14A T1QN 42, Prior to issuance of Building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Federal Aviation Administration a Form currently designated 7460 although FAA may designate a substitute form}, completed to FAA satisfaction,which describesthe electronic and light emissions and reflections from the facility toward Port of Qakland runways and related information. The FAA Form 1460or the equivalent regulates both building external elements and construction elements including temporary use of cranes, The applicant shall conform to FAA requirements in the Form 146 or FAA-approved equivalent process. The applicant shall conform to any process of the Alameda CountyAirport Land Use Commission and shall provide verification to the Planning and Building Director of compliance efforts. 4UTDGGR STGRAGE 43. There shall be nooutdoorstorage unlessapproved bythe Planning and Building Director, and any outdoor storage permitted shall be temporary for in-transit materials. WA E'ER AND SEWER UT~L~TIES 44. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall secure all necessary permit approvals from EBMUDregarding the installation of all revisionstowater or sewer lines necessary to install the project. Accumulated wastewater must be drained to the sanitary sewer. A sanitary sewage flow analysis shall be provided to determine sanitary sewage quantities of the proposed development in relation to prior proposed building usage and the City's line capacities. ALA~lEDA PQWER AND ~'ELECOM 45. Total load in kilowatts or kilowat#Ivolts ~KVA~ needs to be provided and location of the transformers to service these Toads must be approved by AP&T prior to building permit issuance. If necessary, the applicantshall provide at no charge to AP&T an easement and access to all AP&T facilities on the property priorto issuance of building permits. FIRE DEPA R TMEN T 46. Priorto issuance of Final Design Review and construction, the developersha!! show the location of fire hydrant spacing on all sides of the project. NDLD HARMLESS 4l. The Cityof Alameda requires as a condition of this approval thatthe applicant, or its successors in interest, shall defend with counsel reasonablyacceptableto the City, indemnify, and hold harmlessthe City of Alameda, its Redevelopment Agency, theAlameda City Planning Board and theirrespective agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Alameda, Alameda Redevelopment Agency, Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers oremployees to attack, set aside, void orannul, any approval orrelated decisiontothis project. This indemnification shall include, but is not limited to, all damages, costs, expenses, attorney fees or expert witness fees arising out of or in connection with the project. The City shall promptly notifythe applicantof anyclaim, action orproceeding and the Cityshall cooperate in such defense. The City mayelect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. 48. All Time and Material charges farthis application shall be paid in full prior to the approval of Building Permits for the Project. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more #han ninety X90}days following the date of this decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. NCTiCE. The Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66o20~d}~1 },these Conditions constitute writtennotice of astatement ofthe amount ofsuch fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and otherexactions. You are hereby further notified thatthe 90- day appeal period in which you~may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Cade Section 66020~a} has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90~ day period complying with all the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such fees orexactions. ***~*~ 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 15th day of April, 2005, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTI~NS: IN UvITNESS, VIJHEREDF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this day of April 2005. Lora lNeisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Donna Mooney Senior Assistant City Attorney Date: April 15, 2008 Re: Recommending CharterAmendments forthe November 2008 Ballot BACKGROUND The City Charter Subcommittee met after the March meeting of Council to further discuss potential changes to the Charter. The Subcommittee now seeks Council decision on which items to submit to the voters in the November election through a proposed resolution scheduled for the July 15, 2008 Council meeting. DISCUSSION The Cleanup, or Non-substantive, Measure At the March meeting, there was Council discussion regarding one measure for "cleanup" purposes, otherwise known as the non-substantive amendments to the Charter. A draft measure of more than 20 non-substantive changes was presented, addressing aspects such as eliminating the list of outdated salary minimumsforthe City Cferk, City Manager, and City Attorney, adding a provision that allows us to change all single-gender references of "his" to the inclusive "his or her,"and providing flexibilityforscheduling Council meetings, among others. Council also discussed several potential changes that had not been previously mentioned, among them the elimination of language in Article 1X Sec. 1~E} that subjects the appointment, discipline and removal of a deputy city clerk to the approval of Council. The Subcommittee recommends asking the voters to delete that provision from the Charter for the purpose of attaining consistency with other Charter provisions. The proposed deletion of the pertinent language in Article IX Sec.1~E} has been added to the "cleanup" measure. Substantive Revisions to Appear as Separate Ballot Measures A ballot measure to amend the Charter in such a way that would change policy rather than result in mere cleanup needs to be set forth separately on the ballot. ~o~y~ ~0~~~~6~ Agenda Item #5-D o~~ 5-os Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 15, 2005 Page 2 of 4 Separation of the provisions eliminates the possibility that voters will be confused or misled. It avoids a situation where a voter can cast only one vote but has opposite views on the policy matters. generally, the state constitution limits an initiative to a "single subject" for these reasons. There are other logistical constraints as well. The city attorney analysis that accompanies a ballot measure is limited to 500 words. Arguments and rebuttals are limited to 300 and 250 words. Accordingly, the cleanup measure should not incorporate items that change policy. The Subcommittee recommends selecting some if not all of the following substantive changes, to appear as separate measures on the November 2008 ballot: 1. Article IV Auditor. An additional qualification of a Certified Public Accountant license has been inserted, and a reference to the obsolete practice of holding a bond has been deleted. 2. Article V Treasurer. An additional qualification of a license as a Chartered Financial Analyst or Certified Financial Planner has been included. The duties have been modernized: to recommend, monitor and report rather than simply having custody of City money. 3. City owned public utilities established for the purpose of providing transportation are within the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Board, under Article XII Sec. 1~A~. The word "transportation" is eliminated in this measure. 4. New Article XXII Sec. 13 requires a written contract when the City must pay an amount equal or greater than an amount that would be set by Council ordinance, and declares the City is not bound by any contract unless i# complies with the requirements of the Charter. 5. Article XXVIII Sec. 5 provides that members of the Historical Advisory Board may be removed for three causes. These are being eliminated to achieve consistency among all boards. 5. Article XXII Sec. S is rewritten to allow Council to modify the business hours of City offices. 1. Council and staff have expressed an interest in submitting to the voters an amendment to Article III Sec. 15 to facilitate expeditious City response in the event of an emergency. Twa approaches are offered for further Council discussion, the first providing authority of staff to bind the City, the second requiring ratification by Council: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Cauncii April 15, 20D8 Page3of4 Approach A In the event of a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, ar essential public services, the City Manager ar designee may exceed the sum provided by general law and forego competitive bid. Approach B In the event of a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, arequiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or.impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services, the City Manager ar designee may exceed the sum provided by general law and forego competitive bid, subject to ratification by Council as soon as practicable. The difference between the two approaches is that choice A allows staff to create a binding contract with the provider of labor, services, or materials. No Council approval would be necessary to obligate the City to pay above the usual $15,000 limit on staff contracting authority. Choice B allows staff to take the initial steps toward retaining the provider, and the contract would not become binding on the City until the Council votes on the matter. Staff has indicated that a practical disadvantage of choice B is that providers may be more reluctant to begin performing, or want to charge a higher price for initial work, if the City's obligation to pay is not certain until the Council votes. Ballot measures to revise the City Charter must be forwarded to the Registrar of Voters by resolution of Council no later than August 1, 2008, to qualify far the November consolidated election. Public hearings ar workshops, if any, on the proposed revisions would need to be scheduled in May, June, andlor early July. For Further Discussion in 2049 The Subcommittee recommends that the remaining items previously discussed by Council should be raised with the public for continuing discussion and input. These items would not be brought to voters in November 2008. • The Mayor's compensation, at Charter Sec. 2-1.1, presently is set in the amount of $200 per month in addition to Council pay of $50 per meeting. • Council compensation is established in Charter Sec. 2-4, at $50 per meeting. • 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 City Council. • Councilmember deHaan seeks to amend Sec. 2-11 to read as follows: "Any incumbent of any elective Federal, State, County or local office shall be ineligible to hold any elective office or office of member of any board or commission created by the City Council or this Charter." Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 15, 2008 Page 4 of 4 • CouncilmemberdeHaan seeks Council nomination of members of boards and commissions. RECOMMENDATION Determine the number and content of ballot measures to bring to voters. Request placement of the resolution for a ballot measures} on Council agenda no later than the regular Council meeting ofJuiy 15, 2005. Respectfully submitted, ~/ l~~~~ Donna Mooney Senior Assistant City Attorney DMlcm