The URL can be used to link to this page

2008-09-16 Packet~~~~ ~ ~ CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA t' ~ ~~ SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 - -- - 6:45 P.M. Time: Tuesday, September 16, 2008, 6:45~p.m. Place : ~~,~~ ~~~,~~.~ ~, ~~,~~~~ ~~~~~~~:~,~~ ~,o!om, City Hal 1, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street Agenda: 1. Roll Call - City Council 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only Anyone wishing to 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 LEGAL COUNSEL - ExISTING LITIGATION X54956.9} Name of~case: Collins v. City of Alameda 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment - City Council Beverly J n, ayor ~~~ c~ ~ ~ CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA ~ `~ ~ 4~3~ SPECIAL MEETING OF COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 - - - 7:25 P.M. Location : pity C~u~~.~i~. C~.~e~~, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Commission on agenda items or business introduced by the Commission may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subaect is before the Commission. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL -- CIC 2. CONSENT 2-A. Minutes o~ the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on August 19, 200$; and Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting of September 2, 200$. City Clerk? 2-B. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute an Amendment to the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris & Associates for Engineering and Construction Support Services for the final phase of the Bayport Project by adding additional budget authority in an amount not to exceed $198,000 Hof which $104,000 will be reimbursed by the homebuilder for In-Tract Plan Review and Inspection. Development Services 3. AGENDA ITEMS None. 4 . ADJOURNMENT -- C I C Beverly Joh o hair Community Improvement Commission ~~~ V , n ' ~ ~x~ •` ~ a q~, ~` ~ ~~%4.Y Tk'.R ~~F ~~ ° G~Q~ CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: 1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the podium and state your name; speakers are limited to three X37 minutes per item. 2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally. 3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during Council meetings. AGENDA - - - - - - - - - -- - REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - - - - SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 - - -- -- 7:30 P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall, Council Chambers. corner of Santa Clara Ave and oak St] The Order of Business for City Council Meeting is as follows: 1. Roll Call 2. Agenda Changes 3. Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day and Announcements 4. Consent Calendar 5. Agenda Items 6. Oral Communications, Non-Agenda Public Comment 7. Council 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 6:45 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda Closed Session SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT 7:25 P.M. COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Separate Agenda 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3-A. Proclamation honoring Bananas for thirty-five years of service. 3-B. Proclamation declaring September 21 through 27 as Fall Prevention Awareness Week. 3-C. Presentation regarding the Fiscal Year 2007--2008 Facade Grant Program. Development Services} 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal far discussion or explanation is received from the Council or a member of the public 4--A. Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on August 19, 2008; the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting, the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on September 2, 2008; and the Special City Council Meetings held on September 3, 2008 and September 10, 2008. City Clerk} 4-B. Bills for ratification. Finance} 4-C. Recommendation to authorize execution of a Grant of Easement to Pacific Gas & Electric for the Webster Street gas line relocation. Development Services} 4-D. Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Webster Street joint trench and utility relocation project, No. P.W. 08-08-23. Development Services} 4~-E. Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency for the implementation of the Webster Street SMART Corridor Management Project in the amount of $1,10D,000, and to execute all necessary documents to implement the Project. Public Works} 4-F. Adoption of Resolution Supporting Measure WW, the Extension of the Regional Open Space, Wildlife, Shoreline and Parks Bond. ~ C a. ty Manager } 4-G. Public Hearing to consider an Amendment to the Grand Marina Village Master Plan to adjust lot lines for five parcels in the development and adjust the boundaries of open space and a park within the development; and Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan Amendment PLN08-0181 Adjusting Lot Sizes Within the Grand Marina Village Master Plan. Planning and Building} 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 5-A. Adoption of Resolution Reappointing Lamont Carter as a Member of the Youth Advisory Commission. 5-B. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the July 14, 2008, Planning Board Approval of Major Design Review PLN08-0090, Allowing the Reconstruction of Building 1000, located in the Alameda Towne Centre at 2230 South Shore Center; and adoption of related resolution. Planning and Building} 5-C. Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Conditional Approval of a Major Design Review for an addition and a remodel that includes raising a single-family structure and constructing a detached two-story dwelling unit at 3327 Fernside Boulevard, within the R-2, Two-Family Residential Zoning District; and adoption of related resolution, Planning and Building? 5-D. Public Hearing to consider an Ordinance Amending Various Sections of the Alameda Municipal Code Contained in Article I Zoning Districts and Regulations} of Chapter XxX Development Regulations} to Prohibit Single Retail Stores Larger than 90,000 Square Feet in Size that Include More Than Ten-Percent Sales Floor Area Devoted to Non-taxable Merchandise. Planning and Building} 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA Public Comment} Any person may address the Council in regard to any matter over which the Council has jurisdiction or of which it may take cognizance, that is not on the agenda 7. COUNCIL REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item 7-A. Consideration of a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 12121 Setting the Order of Business of City of Alameda City Council Meeting. Mayor Johnson 8. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Communications from Council? Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on any Conferences or meetings attended 8-A. Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Economic Development Commission and Youth Advisory Commission. 9. ADJOURNMENT - City Council *** • Materials related to an item on the agenda are available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, City Hall, Room 380, during normal business hours • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-7538 at least 72 hours prior to the Meeting to request an interpreter • Equipment for the hearing impaired is available for public use. For assistance, please contact the City Clerk at 747--4800 or TDD number 522-7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request • Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4800 or TDD number 522-7538 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the meeting UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA} AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC7 MEETING TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 19, 2008 - - - 6:00 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:15 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (08- CC} Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organization: Firefighters IAFF. X08- CC/08- CIC} Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties: City Council, ARRA, CIC, and SunCal; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received a briefing on an offer made by IAFF; no action was taken; regarding Real Property, Council, Board Members, and Commissioners received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiators regarding price and terms for conveyance and development of Alameda Point; direction was given to Real Property Negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lora Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 2008 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA}, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC} MEETING TUESDAY-- -AUGUST 19, 2008- -7:27 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:01 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson ~- 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note: Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on the August 5, 2008 minutes.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ~*08- CC/*ARRA/*OS- CIC} Minutes of Special ARR.A meeting held on July 1, Zoos and the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on August 5, 2008. Approved. [Note: Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on the August 5, 2008 minutes.] ~*ARRA} Recommendation to authorize negotiation and execution of a Sublease for Rockwall Wine Company, Inc. at Alameda Point. Accepted. ~*ARRA} Recommendation to authorize negotiation and execution of a Sublease for Auctions by the Bay, Inc, at Alameda Point. Accepted. ~*ARR.A} Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to enter a Contract, through PM Realty Group, with General Construction Company to Dredge the Alameda Point Channel and Turning Basin in an Amount Not to Exceed $2,586,675. Accepted. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 1 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 1.9, 2Q08 AGENDA ITEMS ~~S- CC/ARRA/D8- CIC} Recommendation to concur with the Non- Binding Summary of Terms and Conditions for a transfer of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda Point LLC to a New Entity with D.E. Shaw or transfer of an Ownership Interest in the SCC Alameda Point LLC to D.E. Shaw; and SOS- ACC/ARRA/0$- A CIC} Recommendation to authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to negotiate a Second Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda Point LLC. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting, Proponents ~In favor of the staff recommendation}: Michael Krueger, Alameda; Helen Souse, Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense; Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative. Neutral: Richard Bangert, Alameda; Elizabeth Krase, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that a financial partner is being considered; density and transportation issues are not relevant tonight. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested clarification of the confidentiality of the term sheet. The City Attorney stated the term sheet is a confidential real property document and is being negotiated; discussing the document in Closed Session is appropriate. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the term sheet would be disclosed at some point. The City Attorney responded the term sheet would be disclosed once the project is finalized. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated everyone is encouraged that the Master Developer is able to secure a funding partner in difficult economic times; the Master Developer is willing to pay for the planning process as well as the $10H.5 Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 2 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 20Q8 million conveyance cost; written assurance is being sought to ensure that D.E. Shaw and SunCal would be committed to each other for the duration of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ENA}; a commitment has been made on behalf of the community; a lot of momentum has been generated; the process has been open and straight forward; she supports directing staff to ensure that the ENA reflects the City's commitment to have SunCal selected as the Master Developer and to ensure that the timeline in the term sheet between D.E. Shaw and SunCal comports with the timeline expected for the planning process with SunCal. Councilmember/Board Member/Commission Matarrese stated that he wants to ensure that the City would have the ability to terminate the ENA if SunCal was removed from the position of Master Developer; D.E. Shaw would be a financial partner, not the developer; the timeline should be kept the same; direction should be provided to the City Manager/Executive Director to negotiate the amendments to the ENA. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan requested background information on the timeline. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated currently, the ENA has a twenty-four month term; the City is thirteen months into the term; the ENA expires July 19, 2009; the ENA has a provision for progress expansion and mutual extension; the ENA allows for an automatic progress expansion if the project moves forward; a mutual extension could be granted for up to twelve months if there are third party entities; when the ENA was initially approved, requirements were not in place mandating that a conveyance term sheet be completed within nine months from the effective date of legislation; legislation may be approved next month or may not be approved until March, 2009; SunCal has a land plan that would require approval by initiative, which is not a timeframe that is consistent with the July 2009 expiration. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the ballot measure would be, The Base Reuse and Community Development revealed a land plan showing 4,000 units; 6,000 in the event of a long-term transit not consistent with the City's Charter; recognizes that the land plans would need and be approved by initiative. Manager responded SunCal units could increase to solution; both plans are SunCal understands and to qualify far the ballot Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 3 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 2048 there is a land plan that represents Measure A. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal is not working on a Measure A compliant plan as part of the community process. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would have a fallback position if the measure did not qualify. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded staff would recommend terminating the ENA at that point because there would not be a project. Councilrnember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would be willing to stay in the project if the measure did not pass. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal might be willing; stated the question is whether the City would be willing to keep SunCal as a partner. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what SunCal's position would be if the measure did not pass. Pat Keliher, SunCal, responded that SunCal wants to have some type of fallback plan; stated SunCal is looking at Measure A compliant plans internally. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would still be willing to be in the process if the plan was Measure A compliant. Mr. Keliher responded that today, SunCal would not want to walk away from Alameda Point; stated SunCal would like to look at other alternatives. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal was in for the long-term, to which Mr. Keliher responded of course. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked SunCal and D.E. Shaw for transparency and honesty with the public; stated the City went through a very long, public process to select SunCal as the Master Developer; D.E. Shaw has a lot of say in the term sheet provisions regarding what could potentially happen at Alameda Point; that she will be looking very closely at the Operating Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 4 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 2008 Agreement to ensure that SunCal remains the Master Developer; SunCal has been straight forward with the City; appropriate protections need to be in place to protect the community and retain SunCal unless a mutual decision is made that the project would not work or would not be feasible; a commitment was made to SunCal, not to a third party. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the purpose of the ENA is to drive the City to a Development Agreement with SunCal as the selected developer. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation including a provision stating that the City could terminate the ENA if SunCal is terminated for reasons other than illegal activity or other malfeasance; the timeline being capped to take out some of the flexibility for an automatic extension; milestones being adjusted to meet the current progress and state of the project; and the matter being brought back for public review. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested that the motion include language for material cause for termination. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese agreed to amend the motion. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan requested clarification regarding the timeline. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the timeline should be capped to take away the automatic extension flexibility in the current ENA; staff would come back with a proposal. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired who was the original financial partner. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal anticipated self-financing the ENA period; stated SunCal identified the need to bring on a financial partner sooner given the real estate market. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Lehman Brothers has an investment in the project. The Base Reuse and Community Development Brothers has some holdings within D.E. Shaw; billion hedge fund; D.E. Shaw is SunCal's Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 5 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 200$ Manager stated Lehman D.E. Shaw is a $40-$50 existing partner for a big project in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how D.E. Shaw builds assets. , The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded D.E. Shaw is a typical hedge fund; stated D.E. Shaw's wherewithal to finance obligations pursuant to the ENA has been verified. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Lehman Brothers was ever a partner of the Alameda Point project, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the negative. The Assistant City Manager stated D.E. Shaw is a privately held hedge fund; investors are confidential. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated cross- default is a concern because of all the projects that SunCal and D.E. Shaw have together; the City wants to ensure that any ripples stop before reaching Alameda if something happens to another SunCal project . Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese restated the motion to move approval of the staff recommendation with direction to: 1} negotiate a second amendment to the ENA, which would include a provision that the City would have the right to terminate the ENA if SunCal was removed for any reason other than illegal activity or material cause; 2} place a cap on the timeline to remove the flexibility of an automatic extension; 37 insulate against the possibility of cross defaults; and 4} establish mandatory milestones which would be synced with the status of the project. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ~ARRA} Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board ARAB} representative. Board Member Matarrese stated the August 13, 2008 Chronicle had an article about the Army giving the Fort Ord Reuse Authority 3,300 acres and $100 million for remediation; inquired whether information is true, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Board Member Matarrese stated the City needs to talk to its federal Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 20Q8 elected officials to find out why the City cannot get less acreage at no cost and receive money for cleanup. Chair Johnson inquired whether $100 million is enough to clean up the contamination. The Assistant City Manager responded the Environmental Protection Agency ~EPA~ believes the amount is sufficient; stated the Army would be liable for the waste. Board Member deHaan stated the [Fort ord] Reuse Authority would be dissolved once the land is transferred. Chair Johnson stated cleanup would be privatised; working with the Army is different than working with the Navy. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was pasted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 7 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 2008 UNAPPRQVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC}, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~HABOC} MEETING TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 - - - 7:25 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Torrey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL -- Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Commissioner Torrey and Mayor/Chair Johnson -- 6. Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM X08- CIC} Recommendation to approve a long-term Lease of the Esperanza public housing complex from the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda to the Community Improvement Commission; X08- A CIC} Recommendation to approve the Housing Authority to enter into a Management Agreement with the CIC to manage Esperanza; ~HABOC B7 Resolution No. $03, "Regarding Disposition of Public Housing." Adopted; and X08- CC} Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter in support of the dispositian of the Esperanza public housing complex to the CIC through a long--term lease arrangement. The Housing Authority Executive Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how long Esperanza has been operating in a deficit, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded three years. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether deferred maintenance is the result of the on--going deficit. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated several kitchen cabinets need to be replaced as well as tub surrounds. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether deferred maintenance would continue if the recommendation is not approved. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the Special joint Meeting 1 Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and housing Authority Board of Commissioners September 2, 2Q08 affirmative; stated nationwide, $25 billion is needed in capital improvements for all public housing. Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed maintenance and earthquakes. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated that the staff recommendation is appropriate and is a creative conversion to access more funding for deferred maintenance; opportunities for affordable homes would increase. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendations and adoption of resolution. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Abstentions: Commissioner Torrey - 1. A~JOUR~yMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special joint Meeting 2 Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board o~ Commissioners September 2, 2008 CITY OF ALAMEDA MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Chairand Members of the Community Improvement Commission From: Debra Kurita Executive Director Date: September 16, 2008 Re: Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris & Associates for Engineering and Construction Support Services for the Final Phase of the Bayport Project by Adding Additional Budget Authority in an Amount Not to Exceed $195,000 Hof which $104,000 will be Reimbursed by the Homebuilder for In-Tract Plan Review and Inspection} BACKGROUND Harris & Associates ~"Harris"} was selected in 2001, through a formal competitive selection process, as the City Engineer for the East Housing and FISC Catellus Project. As the designated Gity Engineer for the Project, Harris is responsible for plan review, development approvals, and ensuring compliance with all City Public Works standards. Harris also resolves any non-standard design issues or exemptions with Public Works as required, and serves as the City's construction inspector for both private in-tract and public backbone improvements on the Project. The proposed amendment to the Agreement will add additional budget authority in an amount not to exceed $198,000, of which $104,000 will be reimbursed by the Bayport homebuilder for private in-tract infrastructure inspections. The attached spreadsheet contains the details of the amended activities and cost. DISCUSSION Under the terms of the Agreement, Harris is compensated pursuant to costs estimated based on the Project schedule for various activities. These include: program management, technical reviews, construction services, special assignments, and acceptances for both public and private in-tract demolition and infrastructure improvements. The current project schedule shows estimated completion dates for the following remaining work: • Public Backbone Infrastructure Improvements and Acceptances (East Bay Municipal Utility District repair and Stormwater Treatment Pond): October 2008 CIC Agenda Item #2-8 49-16.48 Honorable Chair and September 16, 2008 Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 3 • Warmington In-tract Infrastructure Improvement Inspections and Acceptances: March 2009 • Off-Site Traffic Mitigation Projects Webster StreetlRalph M. Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Mariner Square DrivelConstitution Way Intersection Improvements} Inspections and Acceptances: December 2008 Final construction of Bayport and all sales of Bayport homes are projected to be complete by the spring of 2009, not spring of 2008 as previously anticipated. The declining housing market in the Bay Area has slowed sales of Bayport units, as well as construction of in-tract and final backbone infrastructure improvements. As a result, the Bayport completion date had to be extended. This extension requires that Harris remain under contract for over a year longer than originally anticipated, therefore requiring an Amendment to its Agreement. In accordance with the Disposition and Development Agreement ~DDA}, as amended, consultant services related to the Community Improvement Commission's ~CIC} Project obligations are paid from revenues generated from the Project, including traffic mitigation fees. Consultant services related to in-tract improvements are paid for by the Developer. Services that Harris will perform for in-tract improvements are estimated at approximately $104,000, while the CIO's portion of the contract is approximately $94,000. The Amendment to the Agreement will increase the total Harris contract by $94,000 from $2.77 million to $2.86 million. This increase represents approximately four percent of the CIO's total $71.4 million Residential Infrastructure Project Budget. MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE The proposed Amendment to Agreement is in conformance with the City's Fiscal Neutrality Policy. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT The proposed Amendment will be funded from Bayport project revenues pursuant to the DDA and Traffic Mitigation Fees. As noted above, because of the additional time to complete the project, the $94,000 in new funds far engineering services will be a new Bayport expenditure to be paid from Bayport revenues. No General Fund monies will be used to implement the Project. RECOMMENDATION Authorize the Executive Director to execute an Amendment to the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris & Associates for engineering and construction support services for the final phase of the Bayport Project by adding additional budget authority in an amount not to exceed $198,000 Hof which $104,000 will be reimbursed by the homebuilder for In-Tract plan review and inspection}. Honorable Chair and Members of the Community I mprovement Commission Respectfully b itt d, Le ittle Development Services Director B : ebbie Potter Manager, Base Reuse & Community Development Division . ~/ Jen if Ott Redevelopment Manage DKILALIDPIJ~: do September ~ 6, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Attachment: Alameda Bayport Development Project -Harris Associate Project Tasks v .~ 0 L a 0 .r.. v 0 c~ m W RQ a c~ A~ .~ 0 a .~ v 0 a .y i °o 0 0 ~ °' a~ °a o a G~ -. ~ ~ a~ acv ~ c ~ o ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N~ ~ ~? o ° ~' ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ r ro L C Y O Q O ~ d r 64 ~ . U } c ~ ti o h ro ~ ~ - m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro o ~ ~ ~ E o a~ ~ r m ~ ~ ~ 0 ~~ 0 ° °o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ~ ~ N ro ~ ]+ 'O 7 m L ~ O = ~ C G.1 N ~~ N ±.. ~~ +, Qy ~E ~~ N .~ ~ O C ~ ~ r ., °? o~ ~ a~i'~ ~ ~~ cm o ro o ~ .N N N ro ~ 3~ ~ N LI?~2c o N N ~. r~ _ ~ ~ ~ •p ~ ~ Ur N a? ~ C N 0 'C7 ~ ~ '- N • ~ C N C N ~ ~ ~ C ~ li ~ a~ a°'ia aimcn ~oy E~~~ o~ L~~ ~ omY'o W ~~~.~~ Z ~/} ~ U ~ qCj ° L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= C a C U N = • ' ~ +, a ~ 0 ~ O C C U O1 ~ M li ~E my ~ UO}~ ~ a?•p ~ ~... U ro ~, o a ° c •c ~ ~ ] ~ E ~ aU m 0 a~ o c~ 'y ~ro~ Y *~ a Q a ~ ~y ~. rov, ~r i c ~ ro o a~ E ~-v rnN m ~ ro ro ~ m ~ a ~m v, V 7 ~~~ ~ W ~ aai C ~, .~ ~ ro a~ E ~ a~ E v o ~ a ~ ~ ° ~ o•c~ c Q *+ a~vro ~ a ' m y ~ ~ m ~ v c ~ ~ L~ ~ o~= ~~ ~ ~ c~ ~ C~ ~ `~ c C ~ v'o ~r a O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ° o = ~ c c a Z - LL N -v roroc °? o°•~ {gym ~I-~ ~-- ~ roa~iv;'c ~ 0 ~°~'°~ J L ~ a r• W ° ` W~r~U~ coo No~caroi mo ~~~ ~ o~ ro N ro•- ~ r N ro a .0~'U ~ ~ o°p ccro o v, c•v o O cc o~ ~ ~ N ~ 7 ~ f'~ N~ o ~ ~ '~ ~ E~ O N~ a N O cn V Y ,•, W O U ~ C V V ~ r O II~~rr++ C N ~ •O Q1 C 0 O U U ~ 'D ++ J ~ N """ ~ II~~ V N L • ~ N Q .~ O} . ( ~ N d ~1 3 .n a~ ~ m~ C cn ~ cN c• Nc ~ ro o~ ~ • li 0. :p ~ a N ~ ro ~ S a c o •o o c,~L N am v~ Z J No~ a v•L~ ~o~NC ago cn.NN ~'~ o cod o~a~oro E~, ~x~, c E ro '" W ._ ~c ~a ~o .~. EcnL Gy~~~~' ~ Q ~, a ~ ~r.o as Qa~~ ~•-ro~o CCN ~.~ Ea ~~, V c ro o•- m ~'3 N ° ~ 'S •c °~r~ ~' ' Z croo• i,~oc ~,. ~,ro SOU ~ ro N~ °- 0 ~ roar ~ a a - ~ c~ro~~ om~ o~~c~ ~ro~ '~~.~ 0 m ~'cc~dU~~ .C~~v3 . o Z ' W ~ ~, ~, ~ omrom Eoc ~U~oo vrN ro:ro ~~oa o L a~ o ~, ~ rn r~.N = m~ cro ~° o • ~ a Y E a~ ~ . ~ L ~C ro N c~ ~ c m o 0 ~ ro ° V! ~ ° N m ~~L • °mc N v i~~-a°~ ~ ~ aE a~>~U a o ? ro ~~ ~U ~ N () Q .La ~~c cn ~ oN^ Uromc N ~ W r ~.-, i ro~ E• y C N c m d ] a L ro g a~~~~c a~ L~,~ • ro~'vi'v L ~ ~ ~ N U V ~ crom• ~ Nm-o ~ ~ ' Z t _ N N N Q1 C ro O L /Y Q~ p E• C~ iy •, ~ ~• N ~ LL C C O ro ~ N O ... 7 C ? ~ U O ~ ~• U m O ~ .C, y p ~ ,V V~ C ~ ~ U ++ ~ (~ 11111 L 0 + Em E am ~' ° ~ ~ aE ccu N ~ ~o ~ E_ cW • ~ ~~•~ a~ 0 a~ c ~ c •- o ~ t ~N a ~~~ ~~ ~r U~ X00 L ~ ro 3 +~ U~ axe ~•cnv°U? a~~ ro aiN ~~c °? ro i~~ *+~~ ~av ~ ~ o~smo N ooNCn +a O ~-- • , r n . ~ ~ N ro ~_+ ~ ~_' N U U O U U •v ~ N ~ ~ s U a N ~ ~ ~ U N U ~ ~ ~ ~ U ro p 0 ~ ~ U` ~~ 0 U ~ N ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ N ~ w C ~~ QI `" 0 ~~ N y ,U ;,...A E N~ .3 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U sOn y p~ a O C a O c °o N ~ ~02~ ° c~ o~v o o C~ C o2 a A y U a 0 0 C ~ O C 3 O~ i 0 0 o ro a~i O,e Q o ro~ u i w L ~ L 'C ~ ~ ;-, v i ~ ~ ~ N tlCY ~ E ro U D} (~ •cd {~ ~ U ro o O1 .!} L +, }, N ~ C} N 0 .OU, •V ~ ~ N ~ 0 •N y c ~~ L o d a•~ °~ c'o ~~~ U~ c v1 4.1 O U. cn 'O U O L A L ~~ ° ~ ~ N o.N ~~ o N aaro ~ ~~~a m a ° ro~rop ~ ro a i o C~~ ~ a y ro o 0 0 .~~ m rna~ ~ m aiU E ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~~ ~. ~~ ~ r ~ •%a vi ~ ~ • a ~ a vL ~ ro ~E-E~~ r33 v~~ '~ o a~ ~ ~ 3N. ~ m a~ ,~ 0 •~ a o o o v N~ ~'~'~ o a~ ~'o ro~ ~~ ~ o~ ~UU.N~ ~~~ ~~~~m~~'~ ~~~ o ogro N aoC~ ~ ~~U.~~ ~.~.N~ B o m a a ~~+NC LL ~, N ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ;;, ~ C ~ C ~ N C ~ ~ ' C ~ ~ ~ ro Oy {!?o~ NON ~~ ~'c~ ~~~ ~~~ o~~ COy ~-paON ~~~ ~ro°o~~ a ~ H ~ ~'' o~ ~ U'~ ~ a~ ro a~ ~ Z ~ 1 ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ a~ ~ of aZ ~ N N O F- ~ ~ L ~ ~ L ~ Q.. :.. C~ ~ C C~ C C{A ~U)~ (~ ~ (~ Q Q~ m ~(!) ~ N(A BUJ ^ Proclamation ~U~~R~~l$, child care is a basic support in contemporary family life; the I majority of children spend considerable time each day in child care; and r children and families benefit from quality early childhood education; and • bU~~R~~[$, BANANAS is dedicated to im rovin the uali of life for children and P g q tY their families by providing a place where people and organizations with child care and parenting concerns can share ideas and get support; and ~ i:..:. ~~~., .. ;~~; :,«.. .~~' - ~ 'Si.: r' - u1~f ~R~~4$, throu h .~:hx~.`,~h;~r~•::~ualx~ .,;.','.ch'~~~:~r.~are:.:;~~e~e~~~al~ ~~~:~se'rvices handouts and ' ~ ~ _ ;f-j r~. ~r. ~,~r~~.~~~r,. , : 7:•~', L~?r r:~' •t:!A~ •r~ ~~i ~,'rpy;"~^;yr/;~{,'~~„~:r;'`~•' r;•7,ii ~ t 1~•„W '1 ~' '~.. _ iQ: iir,..'"r. •.','!,~•.:~j/,''r•~ii. '~. - Or~~ l;i, ~s• rr} [ ~ - ~`:~ :-~~'~,. ~, t':~ ';ti'4:.:ry•,y~>,~ _.~ ; :,:,•., a e is child work-s~~ sr~~.,~~,_e~'`' '.~1~~'ylan ~ Je;~,:~:;x'l~A~NAN~4:St:~,;`~~uts r n I' - f ~ :~ ~ / ~ . g ' p ' ~ , r , . ~I~J ,,yY S. ~(cr 4~ r llrY:~ ~;Yfr~ F, ,r~ ,~ 1 • ~~'~~,'r < « l: y.., 'I/ }I "~ JN `;4 :fy .Y' , :f:~ •y~:~l, ~j ~~' ~ r, i,`~!r ,vi-;•~.: ,:..~ 5 J. Z y 5 'Y,i ;•;.. r'k,C ~~s r•?; _~~:..::.~.5~ '!\' ~ .I!!: ,~:: *a, ,i; ,h ::, ~ ~~ -, :r1,' `,• r~' ;fin: n ~~.1. I~?q~l•,fi;#~~~,'~''^:, ir.. ~ ?•yv ~ •'Iri!~r• JS• 1:~.~,~:~~• ~• I• L • ~ ••~G ful information• care ~~~ov~;de~s;~f~rtd~~e~co m~;~~ ~;x~ :7~;:~0. ch-~~;w~•~~:` l , ,:Jr+7?•' 'fr,• h ~ ~'~')r:. 4. r"1,~ ~."til f• `1...•f..~'.r _;.~ p ,. f~:, r ' % ~ ' } • , ~ 3 ,, _5 _. 7r c~ •r~. Yl Y 1~~,~~ i,l~: r~:}~~.rr :{'ri}, ;i., •,,• - _r,~. ~l l• 11 ~': n~'' ~. v - ~ 'rr 5' ~ 'ill S l~17•i _ F•, :' ;'~, 'I~ft.'•- •- ' .•l;.il~l j`,".~ ~I'.NJ.•::~~S~ti~~,_iT.r~4.::i {•~~,.,r ~i:.F~~,•~l.4'r.•:l=•~~1-15:'', 3[I-,1'•,..,''I,.~'~ '~.1:' ~l~~''~I`~~r ' R.r ~, ?•f, rl:' ..f•' .. r. V - r1. '•Jr5 1':- ~I+ ( .•ti~:~-r ~.~ 1:~1't,t. rll~;• ~ =:':iir';F::~.';irr r>' :,'y',1': '~~nn ~i:• '•rlo,- ::r. ..iti'+:"h~•' r ;.yr T:: ;'r ', .'c : s:..'S/,;~;='f'''" ,~n:'~ti"-,75'~ -.r r •if, , 1''°' -~•„ t';~5~;: 5'f;'ti °~Jr"•.~..l4~In1 q.. ,,; '1~•;:; ;1•~.'f`-' ~11'6.l_r_!: .~:u:'i's'J;{~; },'l:~~;:.~~.} - ~ _ r r, r:~: F'r"~ ~.t' J~' :•r5•~~ .•:irr~., I.,.li'.y, ~.: ~~• 1 ~l:•~ •lrrrr...:r:~ ,1.;:, Nr' .Y `.7 •L:' '; %li: f~~• •il'l.:' ~.~1,.' 'il;~+~:...~, •r,r:.: ]: !r.... ~. `~1: •: is ,:r~' ~' %r. ~~,' - ,~-~ :: ~ : ,•r = 1 ! ' i i' ~ " '~ ' U ~ ~~ ~ $, _ . 7 ~~l r .~ l 'Q i?^,il:~.l ,,. r; ~ ! ~~r j~:, ri' 44~' ~I:(•' J:i1: YY~ , N •!~, ";hiJ„ ry:• :r11. .I~lr.~ 'lr~l ~.,`I, ', /'.rr, __ .:~F;--(' '.r •;i'~ ~•~, ~ '.!!,~' . 1J'(:. ~:.trr ni'[r' , v. , f I. rn7r';• r~ •'~~ . :, ~ r^!:•:'r'..~:: ~:}' ~ "h~. ,Y,r',:.-.vy: ;`~'.- - f;~.• .rJ l,r''::ii,,:-,~,•• •.1{~.,.rr .,.5-•~~• ~'~~1~` _ ~'S~• .. 'S,'~ ::12- '1. - .F• '.i•i'd'4'?i?r;r~4~~'"r,-~' ,',r :; I"'~' .7~ ;;~r •~ - _,-'. .';~r1'')!,''S-c4~, `L :'' ,rri;~•., y,.-•'l,t,,,4}.. .~k y ;~.~,.':r. - •+. •ai.; .~;,.. •,, r.. . >'.p; • .ate , yk~, ~Sh,~+y.' - '.w•~i;"•_•; ~::y;" -•; .r..': ~;~.'. ~I•: - thirou• xiun.ovati~~:~~r~ld~ca~re,:~~rainn! •~ari ,~4~`i.~~~ent ~~~~ '' 1 ~~~. ,wo~.k~ho s offered ,, ~ d ~ .T ~ " " ~ ~ ' • p ~ , Y, .. _ + q, .+, .;ri:`:,1::..:`,.'r;,':,;,~r7tip;K,r . ::,. , . '~:.:;~:, i'•i},a..' r.,. 'r~i.J ~;:•.,:~;~'~ _ i', ` , •'.~ _ r:f:~ r' 1~•'!. i'~.r~.. + ='W '1 -, :~ ~'7~•'.'rr • .•1~ ~+, "s: P' ~ r~ ~1.i I, :::•:: r `l,`"i•"..', '~ir'r~'+•~'~ r'~,L.:y.,y'~ •r' ~•r~'~h'I`r ~ q,y ' -••~;::1,-~•. ~'•;:;~Jtk~:_~r;:,''?•~I~~~'S~'?.,. ::4`,{,5,,.1..r, -r~` ~~~ ,^1 ~,c•.:. },;-~.;, u:. ~).,•~:;1.": :+,:?~..rr ~:~+ .,,~ r I•.. .a4.. r. .2 1 *t~ u. ~'f •n~': .•~ wnf•,b.L;~~r.'ri,._• ~. ~:.'. ~ '; ~i ; • i ~ ~ .~u/y.~~r~: ~'l,,ri r- - '~;,~f :"_~ ;v 5.r;`.~'•i:~~•i :"„!',~ ~~~f ~~5:'~,~`: in :r 'r~V~~~}l~•ylV•~' - :AS ~~;•; aren ~s ::,a~.d~:~:.~hild~ 'c - :e:r,; :::~ou~de~s`:~~ca~•~.-increase their ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ' • ••...,ffr l ~~ ,r5:, },c CJ1• r '}, 'J•.::,1 •r,., 4- • _: rr.' i. „ a s F~,,~~ - •.T :,, •o: E i•' - ~_ /•, •: M` .1''~ti7.. ~~l}i'~S';L''Yi Iv •(~,~~'fT~Yi7'; ~~i:.tiL'. '~I:r n?• _ -.}h~~~i:{;. ?r} : ' {Z`"~ Y„ rf ~, r. Ft~ ~I pp ,7,~ i~:''I;'%lf:.;~~•'~`^ir'; t:i i'~" ' n r :.~'•~~:~.. J' r."'' ii "Y-' i'Y.4.•~r 1 -VI r[r. ; ,L,.1I,'3-~ :.~1.~..~ r.:~ 1',,`f.r . '~~4;.1::•::1': r 7•.; •: r'+Vl F. _ `}j: si:4a i 5 wr ~d 1: ^`;"l.~1~,+~:: ;!~..i •N~ ~' ~ krr !: ~;i ~'•,~1'G:,j-:a:r': - '•Yii ~r _ _.l}.~ft'yi:, rrr.i<5 nr.~,i,;~.`.iv::' y~.. ;~~,.t~- ~ ~:f • - ~~,~:~ ~ r~l'~e~ct vet-ess;u~~-~dec~~sxon.=ri:akln •dF.•edrreair'rn. ~~t~chni •u~s•~~.and 'r ;' ''r ;..y :17. Ir, - - ':rr :'', _ .~~.~~ r' .y. .lt,:-'''':`-.~' .5...~.~•:-•.'.i5- ''~~' ,';f., ~~f ;irk. .Ff•' :~ 1',r .Y'.-:t. •sr,; ~r~,r, r .. I, ..,~l, ~~~', : y1 r ~: 1; ~ 1•: - r'~r, ~'.J, i ,'!: ;.s ~ •.t •, •:il. •..A C'yi v:~ _ ..1 - ••i'.r r7„'•~~ ;h'i"• I:;~, v rf ;::le { ` ~ ' i,J' ti,J ..d '.•'r'•'',V•. +r , ' •',~ iy ~ ~ ' • ~1 ~ ~~ ~ $, f.J ~ ~ ; i '.r~.r a rF; LrY:, . r ', ^;1 i (r. :y~~' - , of :4;.:',•~,.: :, ..,,.~~: 'z'', • `~;~, `.~,'.~,%; _ -- - rn"1,, .~.i Y~'i~:~~irJ ,•f,~:. !•,.• r><r'• ,5, ;. .,. .rl,i .,r'r,, :.,.;~:,;..• ;•titL° ~r :, I,~Nr~•; r.rv'• .rrf• •.tir~Ff,r .r '~" ~ _ - rr.~, .,1+~ ,l', .~I.~i, ,"r.~:;;~: ~, ~F. ••i h, ~. 'f •~r ` •.''j•: ~~ r.,ry~ ..~:: `.r;; ~;~~;'' 4•:• r :,~si •r :•ic'.~'_ .. c , r~li": .f~.ar,', n' f , rr! •.f i'J: ~' . Ir - ~'~{H~I . YIl ~'4 - cr .'tl,'rr.. :.; ~,: V/,•:~. .,~•,., 1 ! -fr'....! 'r ~:~...;~ • =NAA:S::~e' • .ri~isferi • ~~su: ' ~r' $`` aterit~, b: ~r: :;1:11 _ ~~,,~ ' ::: ~-1'.r. ',..Q. #~`.'+: ..~ r: .y., ,f ~., ~fhe:co ~rehensive :, ...; .y. ,-pp.r., ~: ~ ' - , fr, ~~ - .i.~ =~'•:~ :~ .r,. ~ . g;:r:•- ,~, Y l~Y? :.-: :r .': ~p ' , t f , : ,..;~.. , ., : r ,; J_ . • : , ..;,r1 ,''~i:,.-v:•S•,'Sr.r - s..• •.i..~••r,,.Y.:•::;'.~.•.,f._,:I~„~ r.'>r7;, .'T,~,., :e ;:I i" '.~t ,.i ,"l.' ti, ~i•r.s: - 'Sfr',; in '.;~~, ~: -"}`~'r:ni; ~r.,+.},J, r'.~ i~f' 'i ~ '. '•~~:{~;,r~J r - ~'j4•.~ ~~r:~1~Ffi rSf•y ~•'1: r.'~Y•~:i i1~ 1•r. •. :•• .~~ 1=' ~~1,'"''i i1r;.w:1: ~' 'l~ r , :~~;~.',~u~fo r~•ti~ :::on,,~v~`~~a~1e;~:~lild•~,c eJ=}cho~ce~~arid'.~rt~~~oura` ':~~ ~~~em to act - i:~ :}: ti•4r : r~r'~~ ,ti -;1~'~.i~:%rPSIS ~1' I f;;•:: ,CJ;y „"'r ,:~h47:'-Yr'{ ~•~'~} ::k%rSf, ~: }rl :•~: ~i~ : ~;f :'--'-'Y`•;: ~:~ •': V •;~!' . (i i^~ i; •;• ~I .+.~r; .>ti :y,,; ~.' ~i~':};: :{:~" ^7~ ~r~' `ij• ~'/ '3: ti::,r ;°~y~r. r.f'~:7~:', I i:~ ~; L,7;ti: r39t' " vl;+ d ' • ' ~ • , y . . , r : ~ ;l. ~iiTSll~;l~.r,'•,- '•' L:~ ~'~~, I+`i. ':'.',a:'.:.y~'.7;rv h,,t,~-~t~.4:=:::, ,:;'P~'e.Y .F 'r~' x'11:' '"'I:~•=..• ;,•~~, r,. r k - 'f;~ (} ~;`and~;~eelxn s~`~s~:the'~~. 1+~;o~-~t~xe~;~~:~Vr~~k~o.~fe~' .e :f~se~ect1::ch~~~:~ ai~e~ ;and g lC-~ ~ ~ _ ] . [ .~.,i~~,~:~{ti:l°l :fll:)•. J. ...,.. :, .I F•~~.: .;~.: ~.~`;{ f:, rJrr. .:'~~ 'C \. ~ ~~• J'~~ ,.i,.•: ,}••{.5~;~, ' ~1~ ~P~-:~1! }~' •4;'7,.1., C'•. .•tijr+ ,: ~i_:I'i:. ,y,I ':.~.+~"' i~;1,1'~..•~: - .~'1f:'~.t ~' ~' ~1. .: ,Y ~. ,,i ~:~~.!•. ;'J•r~ `~f.: !.<. -tir•',!~rr ! ~~f.r .',`. ii. .. ~ '~f i~`~_i~r: :'il'~, - 1,-, ?}~,: :;~;~ ;iil:r , i r! ~: :~;~~.. .. i r ~,r r r1'i ;~,~f:• s' • ' ' ' 1~~R~~4$ _ _ , r ; . : , . , r - _ •.l _ r.~ii 'L'~~sJ '~~,'•1~::•.I~ :r ~l I ~ _ :!(,ll'i •i "~''~'~• ~ii7. •' •~~4y'~I - 'f•,'•n;r .o-,. ,.`i.,,.,±;' -:'1r' ,t-' ti',,~I!~•i`!:::i' ~1rr'ri. s;lst;;i'.+:.I ~:,~ .:E. ~ :;~ ~~~ ..., `~'~;:r,'i - - .! + :•f. :.'+'F •i" '•1: `,•.'•+•i:lri;i .V~:, .•~~a',.J r . •:••:J•v~:.' ~,: •`-° -{~~~4A•~AS•'-~' ro~~}/~~','/~d~e° ~assisaance~<;• ~'aV'~a~}/y!~}•~for :~h~~d,~ carey-~,~unc~u~in yes ite ~.~ ,1.p..r: ''r •ti., .. ,~•• ,_ I if ~s I ~7~~ \!., 1~7 '..filj'r`x';~ ,~~(.~ ~}. "= rr g p 'tir + ~.~~'= l ' - 4rr~~:'": ~' ~i" i ~ ~ = ~' ~ ' - r 1 , y _ . . ;oj: . ~. : ~~1 ., ~: ~, ,,1r . :., , ..l• ir , : r, t ` r,;1~ ~•I '•~Y ~r ;! 'f'+.' ~'~F:.:••r:`~'?~;'.~}::7,::'xrr, y i,. .'•, ,, 4•• + _ 1 ~ . 11.~ - ,i Y:.' ,,r,. r4 •'• i.,~,_ ri• ~. y J... (,~,.1 -, ' ' ~1;•.: I; .i l r:l ~ rj ' i;~ ~,;I ` ~Y, ia~C4'4. :{ ',-~ . '."•i' 11ti! i~['rv •-}rf.i•:•~d-SJI.~r{•];+'•n,~,, !, •. .;l i 'r::'~r~. ' .!X::~ - ,r:..r~ :'; ,•1 • ,r. ~,~~.~are:~o~xl~aml~es "xt~;;~;sip;~a~~.~~'Jy~J+=~'J;~~:eritsl-.l,~~hYl'd~~en= an~:4;c~uldu~~care roviders ~~ .. .11. "~ 4/rl5 r• ll, r7: %: ` • r 4 ~• '1' p " I ~ ' ' `' ti,. . . ~ l l,; .I,i _ „ ;4'.,r ;P: ,s}a n 1 u. .j;_ y~7, .~'[ '~~;~~~ sir, :'~s ,I: ', .ti;iq,~.F;~'~;~':;~-r,:~~i_::~.~.!tz.: ;,'.,,=,ni~:;. • r;,, ,~,~.' .,I~:.:; - -;j =`i • J., •A ~~}r ~~. ,~f .I.. .1~'•'' :.%t~tl~rdf,il!~~"I •Y.Yi• ~i r•:. ~:i~J'~ - •.l'~~~, 1•~•'S~,t • •iff b r,-a~~.t~ul~tires;~~~ecorivnuc~,st~n~~n~ ,:: ~fariih:~ confi ~ rations h sical : ,, g ,..., :: _; Y-~-' . ; >! ~e,; -, ' ~~F '',, . : ~ p Y ~ '•E~ : ~ 5 `' ' ; ~ ~ , a,, r ~ ~ . fi .,~_,:~~_; :r~r: .~;,~,~J,:}., ir :'r~ . ~!~ ,; i~..:;' .4 .:1 . i-, ;L;'.-:.';...u;~ , .•.r, T '' ~~..,,,.~.,,. ,ti; r;fir,:; J. +' .a- ~" ri: ~~ ~. .;fir r;} ~ ir.:jAL.jl~ 1 y. 1 lll~;f .. •.. ,; •:~ 'S J- ., ~:. .,E '~ 4 ~ . ~rr 1 r:.:~•' ,-<'i i•• ' I 1 J .`J 17 w. h !. • ~ ^ } ~'•..1, ~ + ,' ~'il" •• k. l:i~ : T 4';1 a~~'~~~,~s~ ~~;~a e~ benefit-~~~ro~.~:~':~~~~AS.~,=`~~er~c~s~~l• d • . i - - ! T t ` ' ?.~ , :~ .:;y~ :,,. :.'Y t; - ~ :i ~''.:t~ 1~...'•...,G •~i nla.•l,~ . t :`~J ~:'''~ yY, F',ti .~, -. ~~' a :+. ;:?•. ^r'~~l . r• _ ,~`~.. -~ .l~ •.:) :-~:~", ly ~ h ~.~~•, ~(' °I':~~.. k.~~ti^- •,..~..y cW•`•'i'•!~~' r '-5•;~:•fr•.'F;; !~; i 't ` t ~ "'•r~~ ; ~: 5 I . , . , lY } :. , ~: ~7+~,.f t ,/~ Cr 5 ~ , , e L::' ~,i ,''; ~K I. ~ •`. ~ r!. i ~i• BANA~S '~-h'as:~ f 1~~`~i~, •e~~-ll~•o~s~~fo~.~, u~stxoris:zfrom arents, child care . I;a ~ti: r'.,i,:r J1S. ~',,i ~ 1, ':,~, yy-- ~.; •f:IL:ir ;~~~i;;!1.. • I~ 'r~ a}r ., , ' 4'~,~,6, r.;r F6. •~• _~;~ SS 11 r +,. {., ; ~.~'~ 1 ~~,'••' ,'-r:' , , providers and•~~~'e~';eomm~rii ~T~ at~`:~ar e,.Y~about children s behavior and development, and `h4a's ' `~'~'~'~icelped•• preserve uali child care q tY through advocacy and program implementation; and ; ~lI~~R.~f~$, BANANAS has been a forerunner in developing services for families and has maintained an outstanding local, state, and national reputation for the past 35 years. 1VOW, ~}f~R~~'OR£, ~~ IT R~SOLVfD, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby congratulate BANANAS for 35 years of tireless service to parents and providers of Alameda. ~ City Council Bev y ] so Agenda Item #3-A a 09-16-08 ^ ^ ~cr.~a~.~7roa~ W~~R~~4S, it is estimated that nearly 15 percent of Alameda Coun citizens, over 220,000 people, are 60 years of age or older and that one-third of adults over the age of 60 and 50 percent of adults over the age of $0 will f all each year, with medical costs of each fall-related hospitalization estimated at $37,000; and u1~f~R~~4S, falls are the leading cause of injury deaths anion eo le over the a e of 60, gp p g and the leading cause off. docfor~~ws~~$~~~hospital admissions, and emergency room visits, and ~, ' . ~ •- , ~ ~ . • .; ,. .j;:~~: / •`' •''1'.}::,}. '~ i. :.'N.•,•,C,3 i,;~~rJr _'ii,';r`.' ~ rr'r'r.~,)~.••'1:~.' ''I ~''~! -r r •Vu'i~ / / . W~f ~R~~[S, in 2005, 2 51~2~~:o~der:~~adul~s~.;iri~,.Aa :` ~~ ~~ ,Y. .., ~n~eda;:.:~+~un~ i~fsuf f er~d ~n urges f rom a f all •::.,i~i '~I'.~- ~I''~ ~~~r'; :;~...~f~~ 7:i~-~, :/.~rti•'••:)~:::~ •.t:'GiI,"-'`;~,''~~ri:.~:,lr'i/',r ''~~ ~r~• "1' 1`; r;~ ,.'r••+ ,r ''i're - , a', ` "~JJ t r.lr;,,: •,... , . ti;~•,. r. , '~• 1 :r.:.. -. - ,N''' <'f+1 ~~ •` 4' ~ r~it'l_ i i 11.4•.• , (". •%.(c` .~,/ 1: f;::r: ~' - ~ ,~~.- .1. f ./.~i- {u,:.", )~ .I'rr ~~r 1' ~' 4- Ian i~~ "L~'ti;`~; ';" ~<i~ i. r,,; ~~ ;: r..s;: 'i'.1:7r`~,: r;4 , i•~r J1i ~~.;'~;'= ', • rest enou~V•~h'~`.to::res~•~t;~'~ri~~o~, i. ,l,• r, - ~.~ ~:..~ .~,: g - g , ~a ~a't~'o~.~ ' ad;.f ~X~~~~n •. ~a,~~1 the f ear of fallYn r ~n, ~ ": „1'•''r'~,;; u, •rrr:':,Y^ Sr, i"' !:.,i` ' , l;rg..l„ F', :/n' .:le. i'!71r," :,r.: ~'1~,~'., rf,: ri~i • - .,v i•;ni~r.;• .:i:)r~, .'fin; ;",~7,~1 :: 1: „~-~`.-::5' r:it ~.~`:,r - J ,P'.''i• ~r ry;•,:, I;l~ .,Y,.: ~~,r~~ -prh •,' r'•i~'r+~ r ..rL ~Z~.,;r'r!.,r., {Tr;. r: - •:'~ .r'i. 1,~t :%:;-:'•+:'f~'..'t~ ii`~•~~;~u';ir;::':in'i:r•_I:~~.::~;Irrfi~ ''+~/s '~'•^J~,~rlrrirr .Ir,= ,.~ {- ~ ::ice. s,14~•;^,; ' 'ir:ti_I: I•t~ r5~ :Il.' ~, r, 1'!F {•. ~~'. - ~~1, - .5.•~ ,J, .,1:.•~ •7~''J; ~. •: J',".,".•. k;: r./r',S ./ i~''fs jl~ t(:y,: ~1r.. ~ '.ll~lr ri;,•!,:. Can ~ s; 1 _'4 6'' :}-`;b~M1, r •.~. ''}~. _ J• . lead;~•;~o~.der .,~e sro ~ ':~• •~ola~. n:'~ 1~, r:' r> , ~ .,,; fil'.~I• r~l=~..$:- ~ .,~ o;:.~,~a'~;.,"xnis~k~e~~~~n~., , -~I-~ ~~ ~ar~d,~~~oss of f unct~onal c~l ,5,i•.j''i ,inl:~~ ='~".rS•r ,,tir`..~r~ ,.~`;''•' -- .~t. ~~~r,.'I~: .,;4`,i 54i7.~ ., r.. ~frJ,dL_ r'}~,1. `f~c•; ~~:..z•;;~,.7.1~~ ,~ :1. ~gra'rtY,7~;i_,~;~~• .,},.' ,e..;,;.~~. ,~~4' ~,rn,. f jr••r,:;- ~{,.,.rd,.'r~;y. rr~,. ~ .1:••; 'rr:~ 'JS"~ :,N'-,=r,r.•~~ .7r!'• _ .,,~,:~;•'::a:. ,.:n '1fs'.~nr'i:~:: ':"! .1: ,I,i r .ti:> ,;h ']+; • •i;: / :~1 ~i'r ;tiNr ~ Y .•~•,i~5 - , li.. ;'4'~• 1'rl iy~!1.'r.r,-"~~• '.~ !•.,.,(•. 7': '• •'+Jrl:•', Ll~r,: ~., ./..: 1 , i.rV r,y;i~ `~ ~~,". ~'::i ; r~ ~ ~ i, y,'; 'i .. ~.r. .. t;:.,,. 's=ir r` ~ 1~ 1 - ri ~~,y ai ~:~r =: r'irr~, 'i; _ •'.i .~~::L' f'1'•''j i'ti~x'r• •; ~+-~.'•~ ,1~'.-~•^'i ~'~~~.~i;:~ ,'j `r' ind •n i ~ ,:r' li:' rti';', - .ri•J; :, ~; '; _11'r: ~rC;yr],;~4'r~:. li`;:.fr,. :,Irv: '; i"', `Y,' p ~ rJ~. .-. r:•rfY!y ,• x~ ~_ I:" 1:, ~:=,• - - r.l~. r::'~'i Y;' ~~1~,, i `,~ill'4,+,.,~ .', ~' ;.1.. Jr' .'S}'.':j Q,//1 - 1•. .,lf,f. ;.4. ,~'r.'~,•'' J.~-.' ',''1„ ~ 1: ~. r ri 1. ,~,~: Y•..,',: 1~ i'`' r~W>1 :• i5 r 1'41: - ~.5{:, 1v. f•=.,i ..:5': :Ti, f•, ~•; a!; :,' ~;.: ,:"r~ 'li'i.`'I~~i,_ ~~••'Y,;''r nl1`~'r= 'tir_:;,~•, r' ~t~,• •Y. ''.I: .r f.• :t1F 1 •. _r.l., :'~' 1+~• :, ,•lL,s1:~,=C:.'~:I.',i., . ~~' :~ .'~'~~ ~''i~r 1,: ."r`'I~, - - ;tin N ~~.' :,;,',.;': 1'.'..'',': - ~`~ •t.C''~r~~ ~ r: ~ :'r' - 1„ , x•11.?•r•;'; ;1 ~.!;'. ~'I. .,a1,ry;.: ens:. ~ ~ ~ ,i'..~ ;;. 'r'i' H'i`s t• =ri 1~J ~ ~~ in _ uri ~ f r. _ ~ R S e5 .om~>:~~~lfs~:are~r` ;~•a~ ~~el`:~ ;w .,, , : r . ~,,- , L ~ r~ V,,: ; ~:~~e .entab~~e~~:=c~mrnurix; - ~;~:~:eal rob lem and ' ~7.~Ir•11. ,+ii, '.i.' ,ri •. r;.~:i~ ,~J;; r:'~.,~-:•r:5: i,rl'~ 'r~~i:1:~ ~I:r~r,V ~' _ `1: - p 1 - J.' I.r ~' ;:A='Li ~,''~'.: ; j.~ ~::. ..r~.l' ~:i L':~: - .)~ y~ •:.~~:i ~::~. r `.. I.. ` r r~l.f. ~~ :~j~ - - ~.1, - ..1'• - _ dlr. - :"r' Vii' f' r,. - r ;'7r ,.G..•.r,~r::: ', •r-: ,.~•.~ _ - ,?. ''Ir - '~'~Y.'~..r riff '.} r - .J' 1.4• ~r f:. r. r ~'I, r'. 1 ~:~ - '~1. '~~rr. '!, - '~ - - 1~I ~ ~ f ~~ ~4 all ~•'`~ ~ s ~a R S .ca•s,~'~ ;b,•`~ :::m~~ ~: an •• :~~a~tors~-: ~~.'in~l ~~~ diri : ,l`~`'• ~:~;~ ~1, .d~~ 1 .,,,, . u ac~C...c~~f ~~~s:~r~_ri~ -. in the lower ~,,::,,i. ;~,' ->!';.>~., ~ ; ny:r ~ a' ~,' ,.:-, .;;.r r ., 1 1;'..: r,r.; = rig .!5, ...7.., rl'. l:l:, - .f ,i j.: ;t„F':.'. '~'. r!I:, ~I il .•}. -~1•;~,~ _ 41,•1 - Jf•r ~,' ex •i~ - ,: , • tre ti~ es~• ''e:~:~~'se~H~ ~. r~ .o~~-:rrt~~t~~`~!~~~'~e~~~.medi~ations ~'reduced:..~riy`•~•:~... ',=. .. s o~ c oni 1 ,:,,, :.. z,:, ':,,: rr: i. ;:~:•,,',.+ _ .,.r,l,,.r - ,•, .v,.r:,,.,..,,..I,~:.:. :,~ c ea th 1' Ji:'•,A:.1"~ifi,i ir•. .i~hl' !.~ •~lri - :.~i:'Ir:~1r•,,. 1•~ •:''1r;•. =.;y:1 :;~u~ - •`,r:,;;~i•:r;,6•' •1- -•r. ,r - ''..,1.. ~~~ ,,~ ,.. •li!;, r•r 4~:. ':~' n1.:.;, . - - .,,o~~~s~; ~a~d~i ~ i, _L-:r;. r rs., - ;r.. roble`~ `s~~~~a~r~~:~un~~fe~~f,envxr.~~`~ ~ - - , ;~j: ...~', X1'1:. - rr.i-'. ,;:lf;'•f.:r :-+,• `= il'~, fir ~'~l•r 'i rr - .f - 1~ =;1 tit1 ~ f ~R~~45 concentrated•~r~~ xrorts ~:aye ~ b•~i~ . rn' 7•:;r ~~•• .y. ::~f}.,, - .~a~e:•;~.z~.,;A~~aQda~,ou --rto reduce falls and ~,~'1: 'f~ - '- - :.~•'i?Y 5. - •r•r' ~ - •I;;iil.,;^ar.r h-~:••,~~ `~''T+~ ;,<" _ ,:r; .vr ..,rJ~.,_L," .. fir ~r'.':,,f -:3•„rrrl'~,, ':~,,,rnr; " .I'' ,.1•; ~r:~:l~:~-~•'i~7:;.•.,,.~' ~:j,.',;;':, ,r.,.' (:I,f=;'i:!,;:`= L r•.,- .a:. •' ~ r'• •.:,i;.:'r ::T. "1!r;' - •;~yr'~~i,~ •~/}, ..1•Y ',,,,~, r~l•,}.; :`.-(Il~',''r•- fall-related~7u1 urr~ `~~~:,. • . • :,:: .~:,.,, , ::. ~... J.•.::` .,. es;';~:~:V-:usiri}/y}~•fmult~~~fa_eet~e~d• :nte~~en~~.~or~sti•and r,7Yr-~.-n:;r, i7' f'ir' '.Y,.•.~: r lJ 1, •. ., I,r.,,,.,• y ~ _rr _ •'1.; - •f '~1!.42 `~~~'~';. ~'',~'il '~'J~~i~ ~:Il~ ~5: ".1,I.:r•..5• _ A},rte i. ,f''' rr •, •I i,7• •l~i..~• tr,..l. ~RrtiiJ'.'` '_r::.n ..•F:, i.l `•~':. .'~ • bV~f ~R~~4S, the State has as~se•d ~.a'•,aaw~~,d~~ ~~ - ~ '_ :,~ ~ ~: eek f f each p - ;, s, ~t}}j`•~J~~~~hel f~rsf-`: o all ear as Fall • 'iii ,... V•'; 'a, 5 f.,, ri•' y f~': Il.l'~11 ;•rl •. ''._I 1':.{ ..iur y~l~i' -5. .. •rf ;l._•:,';. - .1' Prevention Awareness~~~V~~P;ek~~ ~~•. ` r•f. ~ • ,,.~ ~~~ .?V. -..1r' •-a~d•ri~-~~.ti~.:'r'r,.r:=7n':nf, •,r.1~• - W~E~R~~IS, at the federal level, the Safety of Seniors Act of 2007 (S. 845) calls for the expansion of public health programs, educational outreach, and research activities related to fall prevention. NOW T~f~R£~OR~, ~£ IT R~SOLV~~, that I, Beverly j. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim the week of September 21, 2008 as fall i'revev~.t[ov~.fiwarenzs~Wee~~ in Alameda and call upon our residents and interested groups to observe the week with appropriate activities that promote awareness of f all prevention/ City Council Agenda Item #3-B ever ~ 09-'16-08 r UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA} AND COMMUNITY IMPRQVEMENT COMMISSION CIC} MEETING TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 19, 200$ - - - 6:00 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:15 p.m. ROLL CALL ~- Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson -- 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: X08- CC} Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee organization: Firefighters IAFF. ~08-~ CC/08- CIC} Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: Alameda Point; Negotiating parties: City Council, ARRA, CIC, and SunCal; Under negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received a briefing on an offer made by IAFF; no action was taken; regarding Real Property, Council, Board Members, and Commissioners received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiators regarding price and terms for conveyance and development of Alameda Point; direction was given to Real Property Negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lora Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 20Q8 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA}, AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC} MEETING TUESDAY-- -AUGUST 19, 2008- -7:27 P.M. Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:01 p.m. ROLL CALL -- Present: Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note: Cauncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on the August 5, 2008 minutes.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ~*08- CC/*ARR,A/*OS- CIC} Minutes of Special ARRA meeting held on July 1, 2008 and the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on August 5, 2005. Approved. Note: Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore abstained from voting on the August 5, 2008 minutes.] ~*ARRA} Recommendation to authorize negotiation and execution of a Sublease for Rockwall Wine Company, Inc. at Alameda Point. Accepted. ~*ARRA} Recommendation to authorize negotiation and execution of a Sublease for Auctions by the Bay, Inc. at Alameda Point. Accepted. ~*ARRA} Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to enter a Contract, through PM Realty Group, with General Construction Company to Dredge the Alameda Point Channel and Turning Basin in an Amount Not to Exceed $2,586,675. Accepted. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 1 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 2008 AGENDA ITEMS X08- CC/ARRA/08- CIC} Recommendation to concur with the Non- Binding Summary of Terms and Conditions for a transfer of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda Point LLC to a New Entity with D.E. Shaw or transfer of an ownership Interest in the SCC Alameda Point LLC to D,E. Shaw; and X08- ACC/ARRA/08- A CIC} Recommendation to authorize the City Manager/Executive Director to negotiate a Second Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda Point LLC. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting. Proponents ~In favor of the staff recommendation}: Michael Krueger, Alameda; Helen Souse, Housing opportunities Make Economic Sense; Doug Biggs, Alameda- Point Collaborative. Neutral: Richard Bangert, Alameda; Elizabeth Krase, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that a financial partner is being considered; density and transportation issues are not relevant tonight. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested clarification of the confidentiality of the term sheet. The City Attorney stated the term sheet is a confidential real property document and is being negotiated; discussing the document in Closed Session is appropriate. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the term sheet would be disclosed at some point. The City Attorney responded the term sheet would be disclosed once the project is finalized. vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated everyone is encouraged that the Master Developer is able to secure a funding partner in difficult economic times; the Master Developer is willing to pay for the planning process as well as the $108.5 Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse ~ and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 2008 million conveyance cost; written assurance is being sought to ensure that D.E. Shaw and SunCal would be committed to each other for the duration of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ENA}; a commitment has been made on behalf of the community; a lot of momentum has been generated; the process has been open and straight forward; she supports directing staff to ensure that the ENA reflects the City's commitment to have SunCal selected as the Master Developer and to ensure that the timeline in the term sheet between D.E. Shaw and SunCal comports with the timeline expected for the planning process with SunCal. Councilmember/Board Member/Commission Matarrese stated that he wants to ensure that the City would have the ability to terminate the ENA if SunCal was removed from the position of Master Developer; D.E. Shaw would be a financial partner, not the developer; the timeline should be kept the same; direction should be provided to the City Manager/Executive Director to negotiate the amendments to the ENA. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan requested background information on the timeline. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated currently, the ENA has a twenty-four month term; the City is thirteen manths into the term; the ENA expires July 19, 2009; the ENA has a provision for progress expansion and mutual extension; the ENA allows for an automatic progress expansion if the project moves forward; a mutual extension could be granted for up to twelve months if there are third party entities; when the ENA was initially approved, requirements were not in place mandating that a conveyance term sheet be completed within nine months from the effective date of legislation; legislation may be approved next month or may not be approved until March, 2009; SunCal has a land plan that would require approval by initiative, which is not a timeframe that is consistent with the July 2009 expiration. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what the ballot measure would be. The Base Reuse and Community Development revealed a land plan showing 4,000 units; 6,000 in the event of a long-term transit not consistent with the City's Charter; recognizes that the land plans would need and be approved by initiative. Manager responded SunCal units could increase to solution; both plans are SunCal understands and to qualify for the ballot Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 3 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 2a0$ there is a land plan that represents Measure A. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal is not working on a Measure A compliant plan as part of the community process. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would have a fallback position if the measure did not qualify, The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded staff would recommend terminating.the ENA at that point because there would not be a project. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would be willing to stay in the project if the measure did not pass. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal might be willing; stated the question is whether the City would be willing to keep SunCal as a partner. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what SunCal's position would be if the measure did not pass. Pat Keliher, SunCal, responded that SunCal wants to have some type of fallback plan; stated SunCal is looking at Measure A compliant plans internally. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal would still be willing to be in the process if the plan was Measure A compliant. Mr. Keliher responded that today, SunCal would not want to walk away from Alameda Point; stated SunCal would like to look at other alternatives. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether SunCal was in for the long-term, to which Mr. Keliher responded of course. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore thanked SunCal and D.E. Shaw for transparency and honesty with the public; stated the City went through a very long, public process to select SunCal as the Master Developer; D.E. Shaw has a lot of say in the term sheet provisions regarding what could potentially happen at Alameda Point; that she will be looking very closely at the Operating Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 4 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 200$ Agreement to ensure that SunCal remains the Master Developer; SunCal has been straight forward with the City; appropriate protections need to be in place to protect the community and retain SunCal unless a mutual decision is made that the project would not work or would not be feasible; a commitment was made to SunCal, not to a third party. Councilmember/Board Member/Cammissioner Matarrese stated the purpose of the ENA is to drive the City to a Development Agreement with SunCal as the selected developer. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation including a provision stating that the City could terminate the ENA if SunCal is terminated for reasons other than illegal activity or other malfeasance; the timeline being capped to take out some of the flexibility for an automatic extension; milestones being adjusted to meet the current progress and state of the project; and the matter being brought back for public review. Mayor/Chair Johnson requested that the motion include language for material cause for termination. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese agreed to amend the motion. Councilmember/Board clarification regar~ Councilrnember/Board timeline should be flexibility in the proposal. Member/Commissioner deHaan requested ding the timeline. Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the capped to take away the automatic extension current ENA; staff would come back with a Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired who was the original financial partner. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded SunCal anticipated self-financing the ENA period; stated SunCal identified the need to bring on a financial partner sooner given the real estate market. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Lehman Brothers has an investment in the project. The Base Reuse and Community Development Brothers has some holdings within D.E. Shaw; billion hedge fund; D.E. Shaw is SunCal's Manager stated Lehman D.E. Shaw is a $40-$50 existing partner for a Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 5 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 20Q8 big project in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired how D.E. Shaw builds assets. The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded D.E. Shaw is a typical hedge fund; stated D.E. Shaw's wherewithal to finance obligations pursuant to the ENA has been verified. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Lehman Brothers was ever a partner of the Alameda Point project, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the negative. The Assistant City Manager stated D.E. Shaw is a privately held hedge fund; investors are confidential. Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated cross- default is a concern because of all the projects that SunCal and D.E. Shaw have together; the City wants to ensure that any ripples stop before reaching Alameda if something happens to another SunCal project . Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese restated the motion to move approval of the staff recommendation with direction to: 1} negotiate a second amendment to the ENA, which would include a provision that the City would have the right to terminate the ENA if SunCal was removed for any reason other than illegal activity or material cause; 2} place a cap on the timeline to remove the flexibility of an automatic extension; 3} insulate against the passibility of cross defaults; and 4} establish mandatory milestones which would be synced with the status of the project. Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote- 5. ~ARRA} Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board ARAB} representative. Board Member Matarrese stated the August 13, 2048 Chronicle had an article about the Army giving the Fort Ord Reuse Authority 3,340 acres and $100 million for remediation; inquired whether information is true, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Board Member Matarrese stated the City needs to talk to its federal Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Author~,ty, and Community Improvement Commission August ~.9, 2008 elected officials to find out why the City cannot get less acreage at no cost and receive money for cleanup. Chair Johnson inquired whether $100 million is enough to clean up the contamination. The Assistant City Manager responded the Environmental Protection Agency ~EPA~ believes the amount is sufficient; stated the Army would be liable for the waste. Board Member deHaan stated the [Fort ~rd3 Reuse Authority would be dissolved once the land is transferred. Chair Johnson stated cleanup would be privatized; working with the Army is different than working with the Navy. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at $:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse 7 and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission August 19, 208 UNAPPRQVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD PUB} MEETING TUESDAY - - ~- SEPTEMBER 2, zoos - - - 6:3o p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:35 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson; Board Members Hamm, Holmes, Kurita, McCahan, and McCormick - 10. Absent: None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: X08- } Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision fib} of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: one. Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council and the PUB received a briefing from Legal Counsel and outside Counsel regarding anticipated litigation; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeta.ng Alameda City Council and Public Utilities Board September 2, 2Q08 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC}, AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC} MEETING TUESDAY -- - - SEPTEMBER 2 , 2 0 0 8 - - - 7 : 2 5 P . M . Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:55 p.m. Commissioner Torrey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Commissioner Torrey and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 6. Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM (08- CIC} Recommendation to approve a long-term Lease of the Esperanza public housing complex from the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda to the Community Improvement Commission; (08- A CIC} Recommendation to approve the Housing Authority to enter into a Management Agreement with the CIC to manage Esperanza; (HABOC B} Resolution No. 803, "Regarding Disposition of Public Housing." Adopted; and (08- CC} Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to Sign a Letter in support of the disposition of the Esperanza public housing complex to the CIC through a long-term lease arrangement. The Housing Authority Executive Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how long Esperanza has been operating in a deficit, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded three years. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether deferred maintenance is the result of the on-going deficit. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated several kitchen cabinets need to be replaced as well as tub surrounds. Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether deferred maintenance would continue if the recommendation is not approved. The Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the Specia}. joint Meeting 1 Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners September 2, 2008 affirmative; stated nationwide, $25 billion is needed in capital improvements for all public housing. Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed maintenance and earthquakes. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated that the staff recommendation is appropriate and is a creative conversion to access more funding for deferred maintenance; opportunities for affordable homes would increase. Vice Mayor/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the staff recommendations and adoption of resolution. Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5. Abstentions: Commissioner Torrey - 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 8:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara weisiger, City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special joint Meeting Z Alameda City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners September 2, 2Q08 UNAPPRQVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- --SEPTEMBER 2, 2008- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:09 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (OS- } Presentation by East Bay Regional Park District regarding Measure WW on the November 4, 2008 ballot. Doug Sider, East Bay Regional Park District Board of Director, gave a Power Point presentation and provided a handout. Vice Mayor Tam stated there is a correlation between population and the amount of allocation; inquired whether funds would go into an earmarked fund within the Park District or whether cities would select projects for funding . Mr. Sider responded the process is the same as the State's in terms of acquisition. X08- } Proclamation declaring the week of September 15 through 21, 2008 as National Pollution Prevention Week 2008 and September 20, 2008 as Coastal Cleanup Day 2048. Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Sharol Nelson- Embry, Supervising Naturalist, East Bay Regional Park District Crab Cove Visitor Center. Ms. Nelson-Embry stated that she is pleased to partner with the City and Alameda County Industries; thanked Council for the proclamation. X08- } Presentation of the official poem commemorating the reopening of the Historic Alameda Theater, written by Alameda Poet Laureate Mary Rudge. The Development Services Manager introduced Poet Laureate Mary Regular Meeting 1 Aiameda City Counci]. September 2, 2008 Rudge. Poet Laureate Mary Rudge read the poem. Mayor Johnson thanked Ms. Budge for the poem. Ms. Budge invited all poets to read their poems at the Main Library on the first Wednesday of every month from 6:00 p.m, to 8:00 p.m. X08- } Presentation by the West Alameda Business Association on the Webster Street Jam. Kathy Moerhing, West Alameda Business Association, presented mugs and wine glasses and provided a handout; stated the name of the festival has been changed to Webster Street Jam because Skippy Peanut Butter is no longer on Webster Street. (08- } Presentation regarding the Community Health Action Team and code compliance activities. The Code Compliance Officer gave a Power Point presentation. Mayor Johnson stated different methods have been tried with blighted properties in the past; the receivership process has been successful; thanked and congratulated everyone who worked on the matter. Councilmember Matarrese requested an explanation on decentrali2ed decision making. The Code Compliance officer stated Police and Fire Department staff are involved in addition to the Senior Code Compliance Officer and Building official; a collaborative approach is used for decision making. Councilmember Matarrese requested an explanation of the receivership process. The Code Compliance officer stated property owners are given ample opportunity to comply [with Code Enforcement] requirements; the Court is petitioned when there is no other available remedy, and the community is affected; the Court appoints the receiver, who becomes an agent of the Court; the receiver becomes the master lien holder and rehabilitates the property to minimum code compliance; the receiver reports back to the Court on a monthly basis; the property owner has the opportunity to get the property back, minus the City's legal costs and the receiver's costs; the Judge could order the property to be sold if there is not enough equity if Regular Meeting 2 Alameda City Council September 2, 2008 sold; the receiver receives money, the City's legal costs are paid, and the property owner receives any money left over; the City is not involved once a receiver is appointed. Mayor Johnson stated the historic Central Avenue structure near Encinal High School was demolished without permits; inquired whether staff considered a receivership for said property. The Code Compliance officer responded that the property owner is working with the Planning and Building Department; stated staff is very optimistic that improvements will be made within the next two or three months. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*08- } Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on August 19, 2008. Approved. (*OS- ~ Ratified bills in the amount of $3,100,317.95. (*OS- } Recommendation to accept the quarterly progress report on implementing the local Action Plan for climate protection. Accepted. (*OS- ~ Resolution No. 14263, "Approving an Amendment of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the Alameda County Waste Management Authority." Adopted. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (OS- } Resolution No. 14264, "Commending Audrey Lord-Hausman for Her Contributions to the Alameda Community." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson read the resolution. Ms. Lord-Hausman thanked Council for the resolution; stated that she has had the pleasure of working with so many committed people. Regular Meeting 3 Alameda City Caunc i ]. September 2, 200$ X08- 7 Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report for the period ending March 31, 2008. The Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson stated first quarter 2005 Alameda Towne Centre sales transactions increased by 11.40 compared to first quarter 2007; current sales tax revenue is less than in 1999; inquired what was the reason for the significant drop in first quarter of 2000. The City Manager responded Lucent Technology left; stated the numbers are gross sales tax per capita. Mayor Johnson stated per capita sales tax was $89.00 for the first quarter in 1998; current per capita sales tax is $76.00; a lot of work needs to be done; residents are spending money in other communities. The Interim Finance Director stated sales leakage is high. Mayor Johnson stated that she is pleased with the numbers for Alameda Towne Centre; the City cannot hang its hat on one tenant at Harbor Bay Business Park. Councilmember deHaan stated the good news is that business-to- business has increased. The City Manager stated that a business relocated from San Leandro and contributed to the increase. Councilmember deHaan stated the Bridgeside Center shows a major increase; the work at Bridgeside has been going on for six years. Mayor Johnson stated the work at Bridgeside started ten years ago. The City Manager stated that this is the first time that Alameda Towne Centre has not been reported as being under construction. Cauncilmember Matarrese stated staff should be able to measure some Theatre and parking structure investment return soon. The staff recommendation was approved by consensus. X08- ~ Discuss and take a position on Proposition 11, the California Voters FIRST Act. The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation. Regular Meeting 4 Alameda City Council September 2, 2aa8 Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Proposition has a formula that the proposed Commission would use to establish districts. The Deputy City Manager responded the Commission has guidelines. Mayor Johnson stated the guidelines are vague; that she is not sure whether the measure would solve the problem. Ms. Quick, League of Women Voters of Alameda, stated there are a series of requirements regarding how the districts would be drawn; districts must be drawn according to clear mapping rules in the following order: 1~ equal population between districts, 2~ respect for the Voting Rights Act, and 3} respect for County, cities, and communities of interest. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Voting Rights Act applies to federal districts also. Ms. Quick responded in the affirmative; stated Congressional representatives do not want to include Congressional districts; the process is very transparent. Mayor Johnson stated federal districts are as bad or worse than some of the State districts. Joanne McKray, League of Women Voters of Alameda, stated the Voting Rights Act is a result of the Civil Rights era to protect minorities from abuse; the courts have not been kind to the Act; the courts state that legislative privilege takes preference over the Voting Rights Act; the Voting Rights Act would be strengthened if the Proposition passes and would be part of the California constitution for the first time. Mayor Johnson stated the political system is not working very well; that she is worried that the system would be substituted with another political system which would allow people to fight with communities of interest to create voting districts. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the measure because the redistricting process would be open and has rules. Councilmember deHaan stated gerrymandering has worsened over the years; that he is surprised that the issue is still discussed. Ms. McKray stated that California has been dubbed as one of the dirty dozen. Regular Meeting 5 Alameda City Council September 2, 20Q8 Ms. Quick stated that Hispanic and African American communities have been cut up because of legislators' self-interests. Councilmember deHaan stated that he supports the Proposition. Vice Mayor Tam stated the matter is not an issue in Alameda; the Proposition is a substantial improvement; that she was involved in the 2000 redistricting process; everything was done behind closed doors and there was no transparency; the two-thirds vote requirement is one of Sacramento's gridlock symptoms; the Proposition is a good step forward; San Leandro, Berkeley, and Hayward are supportive of the Proposition; supporting the Proposition is appropriate for Alameda. Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of endorsing Proposition 11. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Johnson stated closed-door meetings happen at the State level all the time; inquired whether anything can be done about the matter. Ms. Quick responded the State League of Women Voters addresses the issue often. Mayor Johnson stated that she does not understand why governments are afraid of being open; Alameda is very open. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA X08- } Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed the open meeting process. X08- } Mary Rudge, Alameda, thanked the League of Women Voters for the hard work; stated women were not able to vote ninety years ago. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS SOS- } Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Youth Advisory Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Lamont Carter; stated nominations would be continued for remaining vacancies. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 2, 2008 ~ X08- 7~ Councilmember deHaan stated the Buena Vista Commons has eight new owners as a result of collaborative efforts with Alameda Development Corporation; Habitat for Humanity was the driving force; he hopes that additional partnerships will occur in the future. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at x:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting 7 Alameda City Council SeptEmber 2, 20Q8 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 - - - 6:00 p.m. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:20 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: X08- ~ Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators: Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organi2ations: All Bargaining Units. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators on the status of negotiations; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council September 3, 2008 UNAPPROVED MINUTES CF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WEDNESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 - -- - 6:00 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (08- ~ Public Employee Performance Evaluation X549577; Title: City Manager. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council reviewed the performance of the City Manager; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further busi~less, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council September 10, 2009 CITY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Ann Marie Gallant Interim Chief Financial officer Date: September 16, 2008 Re: List of Warrants for Ratification This is to certify that the claims listed on the attached check register and shown below have been approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, representfair and just charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers 213145-213484 EFT578 EFT579 E FT580 EFT581 E FT582 EFT583 EFT584 EFT585 Void Checks: 212876 213186 210832 203939 GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Chief Fin n ial Officer Counci! Warrants 09116/08 Amount $1,681,040.07 $999,563.37 $239,151.28 $80,655.96 $142, 971.96 $2,493,345.93 $2, 847, 993.75 $28, D55.71 $51,191.49 x$93.26} ~$fi69.53}~ x$491.17} x$748.40} $8,561,927.16 B1LLS #4-B 9116/2008 CITY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: September ~ 6, 2ooa Re: Authorize Execution of the Grant of Easement to Pacific Gas & Electric for the vllebster Street Gas Line Relocation BACKGRGUND The City has been working for many years to design, plan, and implement the Stargell Avenue Extension Project project}. The project includes a new fully signalized intersection at ~lebster Street and Stargell Avenue and an extension of Stargell Avenue to Fifth Street. The project is critical to the redevelopment of the City's west side, which includes Alameda Landing and Alameda Point. The City received final approval from Caltrans on its 140°/o construction drawings; $4 million in State Transportation Improvement Project ~STIP} funds are scheduled to be allocated by the State Transportation Commission this month; and all required agreements and rights-of-way acquisition for the project have been approved. Pacific Gas & Electric LPG&E} utilities need to be relocated out of the vtilebster Street right-of- way ~RCVII} and into Neptune Park prior to construction, which is anticipated for March of 2009, This utility relocation is an important component of the larger project. PG&E, which is funding the utility relocation and managing the construction project, requires an easement in Neptune Park for the relocation of the gas line. DISCUSSION The proposed PG&E Webster Street Gas Line Relocation project consists of relocating existing below-grade vUebster Street PG&E utility lines to a below-grade trench in Neptune Park to allow for the widening of 1lvebster Street and enhanced transit and pedestrian accessibility to Neptune Park and the Alameda Landing project. The proposed grant of easement to PG&E is needed _ in order to make way for these critical transportation improvements. The easement grants PG&E the right to: ~~ }excavate, install, repair and replace the gas line within the Neptune Park easement area; ~2}access the easement area from other City lands; City Council Agenda Item #4-C 09-16-~8 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 16, 2008 Page 2 of 3 ~3} maintain the easement area free and clear of trees that present a hazard to the underground gas line; and (4) clearly mark the easement area. As part of the easement, PG&E agrees to: ~1}backfill any excavations made to access the gas line and repair any damage to City lands or irrigation and drainage lines; ~2}obtain prior approval from Alameda Park & Recreation Department ~ARPD} for the type of soil to be imported for backfill; ~3}restore any drainage or landscaping improvements damaged or removed due to the installation of the gas line, including but not limited to grass restoration, tree replacement, and brush planting; ~4} indemnify the City against any loss and damage which shall be caused by any wrongful or negligent act or omission of PG&E; and (5) not fence the easement area; It is currently estimated that the gas line relocation will require the removal of 12 trees, a[I of which are in poor or fair condition. All of the trees have been reviewed and approved for removal by the City's landscape architect for the Stargell Avenue Extension Project and the Park Manager for ARPD and will be replaced by PG&E. None of the trees to be removed were deemed to have significant value. BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIALlMPACT PG&E will fund the cost of the Webster Street Utility Line Relocation project. There is no financial impact to the City's General Fund budget. ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIEW Qn May 21, 2002, the City of Alameda, in its role as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, adopted Resolution No. 13455 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration ~MND} for the project. On February 13, 2006, the City prepared an addendum letter to the MND regarding a minor realignment of Stargell Avenue. in addition, the PG&E relocation project, which is a part of the larger project, meets the criteria for a CEQAINEPA Categorical ExemptionlExclusion Determination. The Programmatic Section 4~f} evaluation addressed the effects on Section 4~f} lands Honorable Mayor and September 16, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3 Federal Park lands} and completes the documentation and supports the Categorical ExemptionlExclusion Determination for the new Stargell intersection within the existin . g Webster Street R4vll and the minor encroachment of the sidewalk and utility relocation into Neptune Park. RECGMMENDATIGN Authorize execution of the grant of easement to Pacific Gas & Electric far the Webster Street Gas Line Relocation project. Respe~tfull s b itt r Leslie Little Development Services Director By: bbie otter M ager, Base Reuse & Cor~munity Development Division By: Jen r tt Red elo ment Manager DKILALIDPIJG:dc Attachment GAS LANE TRANSMISS[GN -"A"(REV. 02107) RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN T0: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CDNIPANY 245 Market Street, NIOA, Room l 015 P.D. Box 770000 San Francisco, Carl, f orma 94177 Location: CitylUninc Recording Fee $ Document Transfer Tax $ [ ]This is a conveyance where the consideration and Value is less than $100.00 ~R&T 1 ~ 911). [ ]Computed on Full Value of Property Conveyed, or [ ]Computed on Full Value Less Liens & Encumbrances Remaining at Time of Sale Signature of declarant or agent determining tax (SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY} LD 2302-04-0217 EASEMENT DEED 2008003(22-07-085)01 081 Webster Street Gas Line Relocation CITY OF ALAMEDA, a public body of the State of California, hereinafter called Grantor, in consideration of value paid by PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation, hereinafter called PG~iE, the receipt whereof is hereby ac- knowledged, hereby grants to PG&E the right at any time, and from time to time, to excavate for, install, replace oaf the initial or any other size}, maintain and use such pipe lines as PG&E shall from time to time elect for conveying gas, with necessary and proper valves and other appliances and fittings, and devices for controlling electrolysis for use in connection with said pipe lines, and such underground wires, cables, conduits, appliances, fixtures and appurtenances, as PG&E shall from time to time elect for communication purposes, together with adequate protection therefore, and also a right of way, within the hereinafter described easement area lying within Grantor's lands which are situated in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda ,State of California, and are described as follows: ~APN 074-0905-005-06} The parcel of land described in the quitclaim deed from The United States of America to the City of Alameda dated May 29, 1881 and recorded in as Instrument Number 81-106155 in the Official Records of Alameda County. The aforesaid easement area is described as follows: See attached Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof . City Council Attachment to Agenda Item #4-C 09-'I6-08 Grantor further grants to PG&E; ~a} the right of ingress to and egress from said easement area over and across said lands by means of roads and lanes thereon, if such there be, otherwise by such route or routes as shall occasion the least practicable damage and inconvenience to Grantor, provided, that such right of ingress and egress shall not extend to any portion of said lands which is isolated from said easement area by any public road or highway, now crossing or hereafter crossing said lands; fib} the right from time to time to trim and to cut down and clear away or otherwise destroy any and all trees and brush now or hereafter on said easement area and to trim and to cut down and clear away any trees on either side of said easement area which now or hereafter in the opinion of PG&E may be a hazard to the facilities installed hereunder by reason of the danger of falling thereon, or may interfere with the exercise of PG~E's rights hereunder; provided, however, that all trees which PG&E is hereby authorized to cut and remove, if valuable for timber or wood, sha11 continue to be the property of Grantor, but all branches, brush, and refuse wood shall be burned, removed, or chipped and scattered by PG~E; ~c} the right to use such portion of said lands contiguous to said easement area as may be reasonably necessary in connection with the installation and replacement of said facilities; ~d} the right to install, maintain and use gates in all fences which now cross or shall hereafter cross said easement area; and fie} the right to mark the location of said easement area by suitable markers set in the ground; provided that said markers shall be placed in fences or other locations which will not interfere with any reasonable use Grantor shall make of said easement area. PG&E hereby covenants and agrees: (a) not to fence said easement area; fib} to promptly backfill any excavations made by it on said easement area and repair any damage it shall do to Grantor's private roads or lanes on said lands; ~c} to obtain prior approval from the Alameda Park & Recreation Department Head for the type of soil to be imported for backfill for excavation; ~d} to indemnify Grantor against any loss and damage which shall be caused by any wrongful or negligent act or omission of PG&E or of its agents or employees in the course of their employment, provided, however, that this indemnity sha11 not extend to that portion of such loss or damage that shall have been caused by Grantor's comparative negligence or willful misconduct; (e} to obtain approval of Alameda Park & Recreation Department Head prior to removing trees for installation of gas line In the event PG~E shall make any excavation on said lands pursuant to this grant, PG&E shall restore said lands as nearly as practicable to their condition prior to such excavation including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, pavement, sidewalks, lawns, trees, shrubs, irrigation or drainage lines or related appliances. Grantor reserves the right to use said easement area for purposes which will not interfere with PG&E's full enjoyment of the rights hereby granted; provided that Grantor shall not erect or construct any building or other structure, or drill or operate any well, or construct any reservoir or other obstruction or plant deep-rooted trees within said easement area, or diminish or substantially add to the ground cover over said facilities, or construct any fences that will interfere with the maintenance The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto, and all covenants shall apply to and run with the land. Dated 20 CITY OF ALAMEDA By By Area 2 General Office Gas Transmission T02S, R04VV, MDB & M SEC 02 PG&E Drawing Number B-b317 LD 2302-04-0217 Gas line easement Grder 706b271 JCN: 22-07-085 County: Alameda Prepared By: Daouda Ba Checked By: Robert Sullivan Revision Number 1 LD 2302-04-0217 2008003 (22-07-085) 01 081 Webster Street Gas Line Relocation EXHIBIT "A" (APN 074-0906-005-06) The strip of land situate in the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, described as follows: A strip of land of the uniform width of 20 feet extending from the easterly boundary line of Webster Street northerly to the northeasterly boundary line of the parcel of land described in the quitclaim deed from The United States of America to the City of Alameda dated May 29,19$1 and recorded as Instrument Number $1-1061 b5 in the Off vial Records of Alameda County, and lying 10 feet on each side of the line described as follows: Beginning at a point in said easterly boundary line and running thence ~ 1 }north 31 °59' 49"east approximately 20 feet to a point which bears north 80°33' 00" west 574.00 feet distant from the found Standard Street Monument in Bartlett Drive as said monument is shown upon the Map of Tract 6$77 fled for record April 22,1997 in Book 231 of Maps at Page 15, Alameda County Records, as marking the southerly terminus of a course shown upon said map, which course has a bearing of N 04°16'30" E and a length of 9.19 feet; thence continuing ~2} north 31 °59' 49" east 151.34 feet; thence ~3}north 1°18'53" west approximately 237 feet to a point in said northeasterly boundary line. The foregoing description is based upon a survey made by Pacific Gas and Electric Company in December 2007. The bearings used are based on said map. CITY nF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: September 16, 2008 Re: Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids for Webster Street Joint Trench and Utilit Relocation Pro'ect No. P.W. 08-08-23 BACKGRGUND The construction of the Willie Stargell Avenue Extension, which is anticipated to start construction in March 2009, is critical to the redevelopment of the City's west side, including Alameda Landing and Alameda Point. Prior to the start of construction, Alameda Power & Telecom SAP&T} utilities need to be relocated from the Webster Street right-of-way into a new joint trench in Neptune Park. The Public Utilities Board PUB}appropriated the funds forthis work on September 15, 2008. DISCUSSIGN The construction of the new joint trench will allow for the widening of Webster Street and will include conduits and vaults for primary and secondary electrical lines, street lights, and future utilities. The relocation will also include a secondary service box to provide power for the future Willie Stargell Avenuelvllebster Street traffic signal. The joint trench will require the removal of three trees, two of which are in severe decline. The three trees will be replaced in-kind. A copy of the plans and specifications are on file in the City Clerk's office. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT The project is budgeted from Electric Reserves and is included in the budget for AP&T that is being considered by the PUB on September 15, 2008, MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. City Council Agenda Item #4-D 49-'16-08 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW September 16, 2408 Page 2 of 2 On May 21, 2002, the City, in its rote as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, adopted Resolution No. 13455 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration ~MND} for the project. On February 13, 2006, the City prepared an addendum letter to the MND regarding a minor realignment of Stargell Avenue. In addition, the utility relocation, which is a part of the larger project, meets the criteria for a CEQA Categorical Exemption SCE} and a National Environmental Protection Act Exclusion Determination QED}. The Programmatic Section 4~f} evaluation addressed the effects of Section 4~f} lands Federal Park lands} and completes the documentation and supports the CEIED for the new Stargell intersection within the existing Webster Street right of way, the minor encroachment of the sidewalk, and the utility relocation into Neptune Park. RECOMMENDATION Adopt plans and specifications and authorize a call for bids for Webster Street joint trench and utility relocation project, No. PW. 08-08-23. Respectfully submitted, r ~l r Leslie Little Devel m t Services Dire for y By: J n if r Ott Redev lopment Manager ~~~~~ Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director ., Girish Balachandran General Manager LL:MTN:GB:JO:gc CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: September 16, 2008 Re: Authorize the City Manager to Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency for Implementation of the Webster Street SMART Corridor Management Project in the Amount of $1,114,000, and to Execute all Necessary Documents to Im lement the Project BACKGROUND The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency ACCMA} is implementing SMART Corridor projects along key corridors in Alameda County to address traffic congestion, improve transit service, and enhance emergencyaccess. These projects are designed to improve existing transportation infrastructure efficiency without increasing its physical capacity. As part of this effort, the City is working with ACCMA to implement a SMART Corridor project along the Webster Street corridor, including the PoseylVlJebsterTnbes. DISCUSSION Webster Street north of Buena Vista Avenue carries an average of 23,100 vehicles per day ~vpd}, and the PoseylVlJebsterTnbes, which are the sole ingress and egress forthe west end of the City, carryan average of 54,610 vpd. The ACCMA has declared theconnection from the Posey Tube to the I-880 northbound ramp at Jackson Street in Oakland to be a deficient segment under the requirements for the Congestion Management Plan RCMP}, because a Level of Service F condition exists. During the morning and evening commute hours, trafficcongestion inthe tubes results in queuing in Alameda and Oakland, impacting transit and emergency response times. In addition, congestion in the Posey Tube due to vehicular incidents affects the traffic operations of other crossings in the City, as traffic is diverted to the Park Street, Miller-Sweeney ~Fruitvale Avenue}, and High Street bridges. This causes these crossings and the streets leading to them to become congested, resulting in substantial delays. The proposed project will extend from the Webster StreetlCentrai Avenue intersection in Alameda to the Harrison Streetllth Avenue intersection in Oakland. The study intersections are as follows: City Council Agenda item #4-E o~-~ s-os Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 16, 2008 Page 2 of 3 Webster StreetlCentral Avenue Webster StreetlSanta Clara Avenue Webster StreetlLincoln Avenue Webster StreetlBuena Vista Avenue Webster StreetlPacific Avenue knew signalized intersection} Webster StreetlAtlantic AvenuelRalph Appezzato Memorial Parkway Harrison Streetllth Avenue The proposed Webster Street SMART Corridor project includes the following elements: 1. Traffic Signal Priority for Transit - AC Transit Lines 19, 51, 63, 0, and W operate along the Webster Street corridor. A recent AC Transit study for Line 51 highlighted the need to improve operations along the corridor to reduce delays. In addition, Line 63 connects to the Main S#reet Ferry Terminal, and improvements to the transit service along Webster Street will also enhance the connectivity between these two transportation modes. The project will implement traffic signal priority along Webster Street to allow buses additional green time to travel through intersections, thereby improving transit service delivery and possibly attracting additional riders because of improved reliability. The project will also include real time information on bus arrival times for passengers, similar to the Next Bus system. 2. Traffic Signal Coordination - To improve traffic flow and reduce air emissions caused by idling, the projectwill implementtrafficsigna!coordination along Webster Street. In addition, a new traffic signal will be installed at the intersection of Webster Street and Pacific Avenue to enhance the signal coordination along Webster Street. 3. Intelligent Transportation System SITS}Elements -The project will install Microwave Vehicle Detection Systems ~MVDS}along the WebsterStreet corridor. MVDS isan ITS element that uses microwaves to collect real time traffic speed, volume, and lane occupancy data to improve traffic monitoring and signal operations. In addition, the project will install monitoring cameras that will be linked to the East Bay SMART Corridors Program web site, and provide real time information tothe public to choose appropriate transportation modes and routes during or before initiating the journey. As part of this project, the City will also incorporate Changeable Message Signs CMS} at key locations in the City to advise motorists of delays and vehicular incidents in the tubes and guide them to alternate routes. The signs will also be used during emergencies, such as an earthquake, to provide guidance to the street users. 4. Traffic Signal Preemption for Emergency Response Vehicles - The WebsterStreet corridor is used by the Fire Department to access the Trauma Center in Oakland. The project will install signa! preemption equipment at all traffic signals along the Webster Street corridor, which will allow emergency vehicles to control the operations of the signals and result in improved emergency response time. Honorable Mayor and September 16, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3 In addition to ACCMA, the West Alameda Business Association, the City of Oakland, AC Transit, Caltrans, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTC} support this project. Through the implementation of this project, the City will join the East Bay SMART Corridors coalition, which is comprised of 25 local and regional jurisdictions. Staff is currently working with MTC and Caltrans to develop additional projects that will complement the SMART corridor project. These include: $92,000 from MTC for the installation of traffic monitoring cameras in the Webster and Posey Tubes and $200,000 from Caltrans forthe installation ofa CMS on I-880 to provide real time traffic information along the Webster Street Corridor. BUDGET ANALYSISIFINANCIAL IMPACT The total cost of the project is estimated to be $1,110,000, with $420,00 in Transportation Fund for Clean Air's Program Manager fund, $340,000 in ACCMA federal funds, and $350,000 in Measure B funds. There will be no impact to the General Fund. MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE This project supports the General Plan Guiding Policies 4.1.k: "Study the potential for improving traffic flow [through] ... preferential signal timing , . , or by widening Webster Street ..." and 4.3.d: "Develop transit-oriented streets where feasible." In addition, the project supports the Climate Protection Action Plan, Transportation and Land Use Initiative #2: "Provide transit and shuttles with signal priority lanes and queue jumpers to make transit a more attractive alternative to the automobile." RECOMMENDATION Authorize the City Manager to enter into a MOU with the ACCMA far the implementation of the Webster Street SMART Corridor Management Project in the amount of $1,110,000, and to execute all necessary documents to implement the project. Respe tfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director By: ~~.~ ~~~~ Obaid Khan b~ q~ Supervising Civil Engineer MTN:OK:gc cc: Watchdog Committee CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: September 16, 2005 Re: Adopt a Resolution in Support of Measure ww, the Extension of the Regional Open Space, wildlife, Shoreline and Parks Bond BAC KG RO U N D At the September 4, 2005, City Council meeting, East Bay Regional Parks District ~EBRPD} Board Member Doug Siden gave a presentation on Measure ww, the extension of the Regional Open Space, wildlife, Shoreline and Parks Bond. If the voters approve Measure ww on November 4, the City of Alameda will receive just under $3.5 million for local parks projects. DISCUSSION Measure ww is a $500 million extension of Measure AA, a park bond measure passed by East Bay voters in 1988 that helped preserve 34,000 acres of open space, develop over 100 miles of new trails, and fund hundreds of local parks and recreation projects. If approved by the voters, the funds raised by Measure vVw will be used to continue to restore urban creeks; protect wildlife; purchase and save open space, wetlands, and bay shoreline; and acquire, develop, and improve local and regional parks, trails, and recreational facilities close to home for East Bay residents. Of the $500 million raised, $3l5 million will be used to fund Regional Park acquisitions and capital projects, while $125 million will go to cities, special park and recreation districts, county service areas, and the Oakland Zoo for much-needed local park and recreation projects. The fundin .. g for c~t~es, special districts, and county service areas will be allocated on a per capita basis. The bond extension measure must be approved bytwo-thirds of voters in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. This extension will not increase the existing tax rate for property owners because the issuance of bonds will be structured to retain the property tax rate at or below the existing tax rate of $10 per $100,000 of assessed value for property owners. !n Alameda, EBRPD will spend $6.5 million of Measure ww funds to protect wildlife habitat, create regional recreation opportunities on San Francisco Bay, and extend the Bay Trail around Alameda Point in cooperation with City of Alameda. An additional $6.5 City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4-F 49-16-48 Honorable Mayor and September 16, 2DD8 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2 million will be used to replace and expand the Crab Cove interpretive center; expand and restore the beach to increase space for beach recreation and protect the shoreline; and acquire appropriate surplus federal property if it becomes available. The City's per capita share of the funding, $3,465,489, will be used for a variety of park projects, including replacement of play equipment, resurfacing of basketball and tennis courts, and renovation of park buildings and picnic areas. Staff will bring a list of possible projects to the Recreation Commission for prioritization. BUDGET CCNSIDERATI4NIFINANCIAL IMPACT The City of Alameda will receive $3,465,489 from Measure WW should the voters approve it in November. The funds will be used for a variety of park projects subject to Recreation Commission prioritization and City Council approval. No additional General Fund monies vuill be required to complete the projects. RECGMMENDATICN Adopt a Resolution in support of Measure WW, the extension of the Regional Gpen Space, Wildlife, Shoreline and Parks Bond. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Goldman Deputy City Manager CITY OF ALAMEDA RESGLUTION NO. SUPPORTING MEASURE WW, THE EXTENSION OF THE REGIONAL OPEN SPACE, WILDLIFE, SHORELINEAND PARKS BOND E 0 ~a WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District has expanded by more ~~ than 34,DD0 acres of parkland and shoreline in the last 2D ears, far el as a Y gy result of funding provided by the 1988 voter approved bond Measure AA which ~ ;~ also provided $6D million in funding for local parks and recreation projects; and ~ WHEREAS, in response to continuing community interest, the East Ba ~a Y ~ Regional Park District Board of Directors approved placing a bond measure on ~ the November 4, 2DD8, ballot to extend the Measure AA ro ram; and p9 WHEREAS, the proposed measure would replicate and extend the successful $225 million Measure AA bond passed in 1988; and WHEREAS, the proposed issuance of bonds is structured to retain the property tax rate at or below the existing tax rate of $10 per $100,000 of propertyvalue forpropertyowners; and WHEREAS, the $500 million bond initiative must be approved by two- thirds of voters in Alameda and Contra Costa counties in November 2008; and WHEREAS, $125 million of the bond proceeds will fund local park and recreation projects through aper-capita allocation to cities and other local agencies; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda would receive $3,465,489 in funding from the bond extension measure; and WHEREAS, $375 million of the bond proceeds will fund regional park acquisitions, open space preservation, park development, habitat restoration and an emergency reserve, including projects at Alameda Point and Crown Beach. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Alameda supports Measure WW, the East Bay Regional Park District's extension of the Regional Open Space, Wildlife, Shoreline and Parks Bond. ***~*~ Resolution #4-F 09-16-08 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed b the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 16 day of September, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES NaES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIaNS: IN UUITNESS, VvHERE~F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this 17th day of September, 2008. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY of ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: September 16, 2008 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to the Grand Marina Village Master Plan to Adjust Lot Lines for Five Parcels in the Development and Adjust the Boundaries of Open Space and a Park Within the Development _ _ _ BACKGROUND On November 14, 2006, the City Council approved the Grand Marina Village Master Plan and associated General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Tentative Parcel Map, and Development Plan and Design Review applications to construct 40 residential units at the foot of Grand Street adjacent to the Grand Marina and the OaklandlAlameda Estuary. In accordance with the City of Alameda requirement for 26 percent affordable housing in the redevelopment area projects, the Grand Marina Village Master Plan included requirements for 10 of the 40 single family homes to be restricted for sale to very low, low, and moderate income households. On June 23, 2008, the Planning Board adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt amendments to the Master Plan to: 1. Allow the option of moving five of the required affordable housing units to an off-site location 2. Modify the site plan to enlarge five parcels and relocate some of the parkland to the waterfront edge of the site On August 5, 2008, the City Council considered the proposed Affordable Housing Agreement for the Grand Marina Village project, which provides Warmington Homes with the opportunity to investigate the feasibility of moving five of the required units to an off-site location. After considering the matter, the City Council decided to reject the proposal to relocate the eve units. Given the City Council's action on the Affordable Housing Agreement, Warmington has withdrawn its request to modify the Master Plan to allow off site housing, but wants to complete the amendments related to the change in parcel sizes. City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #4G 49-1 G-~8 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Gity Council DISCUSSIGN September 16, 2008 Page 2 of 3 The 2006 Master Plan included 10 lots that were slightly smaller than the other 30 lots. The 14 slightly smaller lots were designated for the 10 affordable units. VVarmington is requesting that the City of Alameda modify the Master Plan to increase the size of five of the 1 o small lots. Under the proposed amendment, the five enlarged lots would be developed with two story affordable homes. The proposed revised site plan is shown as Exhibit A to the draft ordinance approving the Master Plan amendment. To enlarge the lots requires two changes to the site plan: A. Eliminate a sidewalk in an allley_. The north-south alley located between and parallel to Hibbard and Grand Street includes a sidewalk on one side ad~acent to parcels 4, 5, 12, and 16. If this sidewalk is eliminated, parcels 3, 6, and 12 may be enlarged to accommodate either amarket-rate home or an affordable home. Staff does not object to the remava! of the sidewalk as alleys generally do not have sidewalks, and people typically feel safe walking down the middle of an alley given the small amount of traffic. None of the other alleys in the project or in other projects in Alameda have sidewalks. For these reasons, staff supports removing the sidewalk. B. Adjust parcel sizes and move open space. Vllarmington Homes wants to increase the size of arcels 38 and 40, which front on Fortmann INa . This p y would require that parcel 37 shift 10 feet into the small triangular park adjacent to the parcel. This change would result in the removal of 600 square feet X14' by 64'} from the triangular park. To compensate fior the loss of the 600 feet of open space on the small triangular parcel,lNarmington is proposing to slightly reduce the width of the widest market rate parcels on the east side of Hibbard. By reducing the width of parcels 17 through 24 to match the width of the parcels in the rest of the project, an additional 711 feet of public open space is provided along the waterfront park. Staff supports the proposed swap of 600 feet of open space on Fortmann Allay in exchange for 711 feet of open space along the waterfront park. Public Notification: This item was advertised in the September 5, 2408 Alameda Journal. Notices were sent on September 3, 2008 to residents and property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site, and to interested parties. Notice of the public hearing was posted at the site on September 4, 2008. BUDGET C4NSIDERATIGNIFINANGIAL IMPACT The proposed amendments to the Grand Marina Village Master Plan would not result in any financial impact on the City of Alameda. Honorable Mayor and September 16, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 3 MUNICIPAL CGDEIPGLIGY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE The proposed amendments are consistent with the Alameda Municipal Code requirements for Master Plan Amendments, Section 30-4.20. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE~IU The Grand Marina Master Plan proposal was evaluated previously in a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared by Lamphire-Gregory and approved by the City Council on November 14, 2006. Under Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} Guidelines, no additional environmental review is required for this application to amend the Master Plan. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, there have been no significant changes in circumstances that require revisions to the previously approved environmental documentation forthe Grand Marina project. The draft resolutions for this project contain findings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. RECGMMENDATIGN Hold a public hearing and adopt the draft ordinance amending the Grand Marina Village Master Plan to adjust the lot lines for fve parcels in the development and adjust the boundaries of open space and a park within the development. Respectfully submitted, Cathy bury Plannin anc~uilding irector By: A(ridre~i T~'omas Planning Services Manager cc: David Day, V1Jarmington Homes CITYQFALAMEDAGRDINANCE NG. New Series APPRGVING MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT PLN08-o181 ADJUSTING LGT SfZES WITHIN THE GRAND MARINA VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ` BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: E ~ Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30-4.20 of the Alameda ~° Munici al Gode, Master Plan Amendment PLNO8-o181 as shown on ~ ~ ~ « ,} p Exhibit ~ . ~ A is hereby adopted for al! the real property within the MX-zoned site situated ~ . Q within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California, located ~ ~ generally north of Fortmann Way and west of Grand Street. ~. ~° Section 2. The Grand Marina Villa a Master Plan is hereb amended b ~ ~~ g y y replacing Page TM-o1 showing the on inall ro osed arcel sizes with the g Yp p p ~~ revised and improved parcel sizes shown in Exhibit A. Exhibit A shall re lace p page TM-01 in the Grand Marina Village Master Plan. Section 3. This Grdinance shalt be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty X30}days from the date of its final passage. Presiding Gfficer of the City Council Attest: Lara Weisiger, City Clerk ~~~~~~ ~rdin~nce #4-G 49-16-45 o 0 n D r ~ ~ , m o ~ I! o ~ 0 0 ,r--~1 i ~ .._ ~ "~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ,-~ ~ ~ ~ ~; .c~~ if ,, . ~ ° s i ~ -- ~ # J ,-------__ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ {~ ~ I~ ~ ^ ~ rt , h ~ r / I L ~ j Cn ~ ~ ~ CD O N ~ `-~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ` _ ~ ~ I ~, .._...._~~..rt NIBBARD STREET PARCEL ~ ~~ ik ~J h I I . I ''``\ `y ~ `{ ~ ~ V V V V ~ ~~ r ~__ I + ~ '_ •-- °o ii ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ;,~ i ~ ~ H ,,~ i ~ ,;~ I i V ~ I ~, ~ Z;; I ~ ~ ~ f ` I ~~ i ~ 4 ~ ~ f ~ ~ `' ~ ~ r o, ~ ~ - ~~ ~~ _ ~ . I ~ I z ° s l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-N 1~~ ~~ I I ~ 0~ _ ~ r~ J ..._._-----....T-----.-----......_.. J .1.._ ..._~..._.... _---------~..~ ~' ' GRAND STREET ~~^~ ~ . '~~ J ~ ~~ a ~ O 3 ~ is 270014 Exhibits EX 19- MR Exhibik for Planning Board.dwg L4Yaut1 6-12--08 03: 9 Phi hmn~~rar ,~ \ ~ ~` L ,, \ , r W \~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ 1.~ ~ ~ \ J -, '. ` C~ ` `_ ~ ~ '~ ` N ~```''~ \~ fir. ~~ ~• .~ ,. ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ `~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ '~. i ~ y ~ ~ \ I ~ i ~$-' ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~~ 4 k `~ ~. ~1 ~- ~ ~ . ~~ . L ~ ~~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I `~ ~ ~~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, i ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o -- ~ .~ 1 I~ I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 16th day of September, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this 16th day of September, 2008. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY GF ALAMEDA RESCLUTICN NC. REAPPOINTING LAMANT CARTERASAMEMBER OF THE ~ ~~ ALAMEDA YOUTH ADVISGRY COMMISSION ~ BE IT RESaLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to ~ + ~ Section 2-19 of the Alameda Munici al Code, and u an nomination of the .~ p p ~ , ~, Mayor, LAMANT CARTER is hereby reappointed to the office of member of the ~ ~ ~ Alameda Youth Advisory Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term ~, ~ commencing September 16, 2008, and expiring August 31, 2010. ~~ *~***~ 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 1 Gth day of September, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN 11111TNESS, V1lHEREGF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this 1lth day of September, 2008. Lara Vlleisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution #5-A 09-16-08 CITY aF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: September 16, 2005 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Juiy 14, 2008, Planning Board Approval of Major Design Review PLN08-0090, Allowing the Reconstruction of Building 1000, Located in the Alameda Towne Centre at 2230 South Shore Center BACKGROUND an July 14, 2008, the Planning Board approved Major Design Review PLN08-0090, which entails reconstruction of Building 1000 fold Safeway building} in the Alameda Towne Centre for re-use by Orchard Supply Hardware ~4SH}. The project also incorporates various site improvements in the immediate vicinity of the building, including new landscaping, benches, and bicycle racks. The building has been vacant since Safeway moved into Building 200 in the same shopping center. The Planning Board approved the project plans as proposed with the requirement that additional landscaping be installed an the rear of the building. ~n July 23, 2008, an appeal of this approval Attachment 1 }was submitted to the City. The July 14, 2008, Planning Board report includes a more detailed description of the project Attachment 2}, Project plans are included as Attachment 3. The building wilt be reconstructed in its current location with minor modifications. In summary, the rear wall will be moved approximately 10 feet to the west, leaving an approximately 27-foot setback from the rear property line. The existing building includes approximately 37,230 square feet of floor area. The building floor area will be increased by approximately 1,500 square feet. The existing building height ranges from approximately 20 feet to 27 feet. The proposed parapet height will increase to 30 feet for the majority of the building, with a decorative parapet at the front of the building extending up to a maximum height of 35 feet. The existing loading dock, located on the south side of the building, will be relocated to the north side of the building. An outdoor garden center is also proposed for the north side of the building. City Council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-B ~9-'16.48 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council DISCUSSION Basis of Appeal September 16, 2008 Page 2 of 5 The appeal consists of four elements. These elements and responses are provided below. 1. "This application should have gone to the Economic Development Commission prior to Planning Board review." Response: The City Charter and Municipal Code do not require Economic Development Commission review of Design Review applications for individual buildings. Pursuant to the Alameda Municipal Code, the Planning Director and the Planning Board are responsible for Design Review. 2. "A planned development amendment is required to allow this renovation to go forward." Response: The Alameda Municipal Code requires planned development amendments PDA} when there is: 1 } a change in the uses permitted in the approved planned development; 2} an increase in floor area that is greater than 25 percent; or, 3} a building or use expansion that in the opinion of the Planning Director may have a substantial adverse effect on adjacent property. Additionally, the last approved PDA ~PDA02-003} modifies the AMC requirement by requiring a PDA for an expansion of over five percent of total shopping center floor area. The City Council recently adopted zoning amendments pertaining to large format retail businesses. Under these amendments new businesses that are larger than 30,000 square feet require use permit approval unless the business is located within an approved Planned Development. The proposed store is within an approved Planned Development and is subject to design review only. The proposal is permitted under existing entitlements subject to design review approval for the following reasons: 1} Hardware stores are permitted in the C-2 Zoning District and are not prohibited by existing entitlements. 2} The current shopping center floor area is approximately 598,536 square feet. The proposed 1,500 square foot expansion of Building 1000 would increase the existing shopping center floor area by less than 1 percent. This is well below the five percent increase allowed under the previously approved PDA and 25 percent increase allowed by the AMC. At the July 14, 2008, Planning Board hearing, some commenters asserted that the garden supply area should also be included as floor area. The garden supply area is not Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 16, zoos Page 3 of 5 completely enclosed, does not include a roof, and is not a building. However, if the 1,000 to 8,004 square foot garden center were included, this would represent a total increase of less than two percent, still well below the five percent increase allowed by the earlier PDA and the 25 percent increase allowed by the AMC. 3} A Mitigated Negative Declaration ~MND} was adopted by the City in 2003. The MND evaluated an expansion of the center to approximately 658,ODD square feet and included a 60,000 to 9D,OOD square foot store at the Building 1000 location. All required mitigation measures have been implemented. The current proposal is well within the scope of the previous environmental evaluation. Additionally, on August 11, 2008, the Planning Board cerkified the Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Environmental Impact Report HEIR}. This EIR evaluated the effects of an even larger structure, a 145,000 square foot Target Store. No new signifcant impacts that could not be adequately mitigated were identified in the EIR. The proposed building is approximately half of the size of the smallest store considered for this location in the earlier entitlement and approximately one-quarter of the size of the previously proposed Target Store. The project includes design elements that further reduce potential impacts by relocating areas used for outdoor activities further away from residential uses. Consequently, there is no potential for significant impacts to adjacent properties. 3. "The proposed orchard Supply Hardware store will directly compete with established Alameda businesses contrary to the City's guiding principle that new retailers should compliment, not compete, with existing retailers." Response: The economic effects of an orchard Supply Hardware store ~4SH } locating in Alameda were evaluated in The _Alameda Landing Retail Imps Assessment Update that was prepared for the recent) a roved Alameda Landin Y pp g project. The 4SH evaluated in that study included a garden center and was approximately 10,440 square feet larger than the currently proposed ASH at Alameda Towne Centre. It was determined in that study and in the Alameda Landing EIR that sufficient retail leakage existed to support the proposed ASH without causing adverse economic effects. 4. "As of the time of filing this Notice of Appeal, the finalized Planning Board resolution on this matter was not available to the Appellants. Consequently, Appellants reserve the right to amend the basis for appeal to address any and all issues raised by any deviation in the final resolution from the draft." Response: To clarify the record, the appellant requested the final resolution on Jul . Y 23, 20DS, at the same time that the appeal was submitted. The final resolution was provided to the appellant that same day. At the request of the Planning Board, the final resolution contains one additional condition that requires additional landscaping to be installed on the rear of the building. This requirement was Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 16, 2008 Page 4 of 5 discussed in detail at the hearing. There were no other modifications to the resolution. Public Notification: This item was advertised in the September 5, 2008, Alameda Journal. Notices were mailed on August 29, 2008 to residents and property owners within 500 feet of the Alameda Towne Centre and to interested parties who have requested to be notified of upcoming hearings for projects relating to the Alameda Towne Centre. The notice was posted around the perimeter of the shopping center on August 29, 2005. BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIALlMPACT No City funding is necessary to complete planning activities for this project. MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE 30-4.13.m Planned Development Amendments 30-4.S.a C-1 Neighborhood Business District Permitted Uses 30-4.9.a C-2 Central Business District Permitted Uses ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project consists of minor alterations to an existing retail building in an existin . 9 shopping center. It will not result in substantial changes in floor area, building height, lighting or vehicular traffic circulation. California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA . } Guidelines Section 15301~e}~2} exempts minor alterations to existing buildin s . 9 consisting of additions of less than 10,000 square feet from environmental review. In 2003, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration that evaluated the effects of replacing the existing building with a 90,000 square foot building on this site. Ail required mitigation measures have been implemented. Additionally, on August 11, Zoos, the Planning Board certified the Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Pro'ect .. ~ Environmental Impact Report that evaluated an additional expansion of shopping center floor area and included an evaluation of replacing the existing building with a 145,000 square foot Target Stare. The current proposal further reduces the potential for significant impacts. RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing, adopt a resolution to uphold the Planning Board's decision to approve Major Design Review PLN08-0090, and deny the appeal. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Respectfully submitted, !/~/ Cathy o bury Planni and Building Director ~ ~~ By D uo glas Garrison Supervising Planner Attachments: ~ . Notice of Appeal Dated July 23, 2008 2. July 14, 2008 Planning Board Report without attachments} 3. Project Plans September 16, 2008 Page5of5 J "~ nuwe~aiwo PETITION FOR APPEAL OR CALL FOR REVIEW This petition is hereby filed as an appeal or call for review of the decision of the {Planning DireckorlZoning AdministratorlPlanning BoardlHis#oricalAdvlsory Board} which ~' oef}~!T e/~ ~},D,d~A2~U~L for applicationf y~ ,~~~ ,raL~G 1~ (Denied/Granted/Established Conditions) (Application type) ~eNavi~Tid~ ~stvu~tu,~ ~ ~LA/~ g -~O 1~ at So ~1'i {Application Number} {Street Address} on u / l ~/ a? /Ja ~ (Specify Date) The basis of the appeal ar call for review is: ~ A r ~' r~ %~ ~If more space is needed continue on the reverse side or attach additional s e~ ~~ I ~a Appellan . ~ ~ +~ {Appella ame{s} lann Board Mem er or Council Member} ~~~- ~ o~ ~u~~ 1 ~ 8 ~~~e~ t L1.( ~ ~; HT1fICyPA ~ SheG~') ~ t Address. /~~ ~"~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ C~ {Appellant Address} ~~~~ ~ ~ e ~~ ~- AMC Section 30-25, Appeals and Calls for Review, provides #hat within ten {10} days a decision of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Board, and decisions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Board may be appealed to the City Council. !n addition to the appeal process, decisions of the Planning Director or Zoning Administrator may be called for review within ten {10} days to the Planning Board by the Planning Board or by the City Counci! and decisions of the Planning Board or the Historical Advisory Board maybe called for review by the City Council or a member the City Council, A processing fee of $100.00 must accompany the Petition for Appeal. No fee is required far a Call far Review. {For Qffice Use only} Received By: Receipt No.: ~y~T~wAw~w .1. M -. M•MF N~wl~wy/~1 1 ~~ Dt Sul z 3 zoa~ PE~~s~-~ ~~~rE~ A~AMEV~, r. ~ g~~~~ ~ ..........._...~..~w..,..,_.._.~ City Council Attachment 1 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-B 09-16-D8 ATTAC T~ PETTfz~N FOR APPEAL of a licatian PLN08-~0 The basis of the appeal (continued): 3} The proposed orchard Supply Hardware will direc#ly compete with estab~shed Alameda businesses contrary to the City's guiding principle that new retailers should ~tnplin~ent, not compete, with existing retailers, 4} As of the time of filing ties Noce of Appeal, the finaiia~ed Planning Board resolution on this matter was not ava~able to Appellants. Cansequen#ly Appellants reserve the right to amend the basis for appeal to address any and ail issues raised by any devia#ion in the fural resoiudon from the drab Appellants, in order of signature: Phillip Jabex (28Q1 Encinal Avenue, Alameda CA): George Jaber (2801 Encinal Avenue, Alameda, CA); Claire Risley (110 i Grand Street, Alameda, CA)) ~/2 ~~c f~u~ u i ~ 1, o~ CAS' ~ nc incz / ~1~, A~~3~P~i~~ .rrw'~~+.n~r~ .~ ..rw~.nw ri ~u~ z 3 cos RE~dN~i'T CENTER ALAMEG~,~,~ ~~.~ ~~~^ ~ _ .~~«. of 1M~~+v4V/ HJ~ ~ .+~• ~ r+w1N• r+r~1~ wrr~ ~~,a ~a ITEM 9-C PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT DATE: July ~ 4, 2008 TO: HONGRABLE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS G~ THE PLANNING BQARD FROM: Douglas Garrison, Supervising Planner 510.11.6875 dgarrisan@ci. alameda.ca, us APPLICATION: Major Design Review - PLNOS-0094 -~ 2234 South Shure Center - Harsch Investment Realty, The applicant requests Design Review approval to allow renovation of existing Building 1000 fold Safeway}, located in Alameda Towne Centre, far a new tenant. ZONING DISTRICT: C-2-PD Central Business Planned Development District GENERAL PLAN: Community Commercial EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant proposes to renovate Building 1000, located in the Alameda Towne Centre, and construct various site improvements in the immediate vicinity of the building, including new landscaping, benches, and bicycle racks. Primary alterations to this structure include relocating the existing loading dock from the south side of the building to the north side and the addition of an outdoor garden center on the north side of the building. Under the Alameda Municipal Code RAMC} and earlier. entitlements, renovation of this building is permitted, subject to Design Review approval by the Planning and Building Director and does not require a Planned Development Amendment ~PDA} or additional entitlements. The proposed renovation is allowed under existing entitlements and is also included in the plans for PDA45-OOQ4 which is also before the Planning Board for approval at this time. The project is consistent with City design standards. S#aff recommends approval of the project. City Council Attachment 2 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-B 09-16-08 Honorable President and July 14, 2008 Members of the Planning Board Page z of 4 BACKGRGUND This project includes the renovation of Building 1000 bald Safeway} and site improvements in the area immediately adjacent to the building in preparation for a new tenant, Orchard Supply Hardware. The building will be renovated in its current location. The rear wall will be extended approximately ten feet to the west, leaving an approximately 27 foot setback from the rear property fine. The floor area will be increased by approximatey 1,500 square feet. The existing building height typically ranges from approximately 20 feet to 2l feet. Proposed parapet height will increase to 30 feet for the majority of the building with a decorative parapet at the front of the building extending up to a maximum height of 35 feet. The existing Ivading dock, located on the south side of the building, will be relocated to the north side of the building. An outdoor garden center is also proposed for the north side of the building. Nv signs are proposed for the south side of the building, The proposed renovation is allowed under existing entitlements and is also included in the revised plans for PDA05-0004, which is also before the Planning Board for approval at this time. Previously, atwo-story, 145,000 square foot Target stare had been proposed for this site, A Target is no longer proposed. The economic effects of a larger ASH were evaluated in The Alameda Retail Landing Retail Impacts Assessment Update that was prepared for the recently approved Alameda Landing project. it was determined in that study and in the recently certifed EIR for that project that sufficient retail leakage existed to support the proposed aSH without causing substantial adverse effects to existing business districts or the local economy. STAFF ANALYSIS Architecture: The existing building design represents a dated shopping center style of architecture. The proposed renovation will improve building articulation by incorporating varied building materials and planes, recessed panels that include vine covered espaliers mounted an the building facades, and woad trellises. Exterior facades include materials and design elements consistent with other recently renovated areas of the shopping center and include horizontal woad plank siding, painted cement plaster inset panels, and vine covered wooden trellises. Staff has evaluated the visual effects of much larger stores that have been previously proposed for this site. In X003, the City adapted a Mitigated Negative Declaration that evaluated the visual effects of a 90,004 square foot store and determined that the building would not cause significant visual impacts. The final plans included a smaller building, approximately 60,000 square feet, than was evaluated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed modifcativns to this building are minimal compared to previous approved proposals. Honorable President and Duly ~4, 2008 Members of the Planning Board Page 3 of 4 Site improvements: The project includes landscaping, sidewalk improvements, new benches, and bicycle racks, Relocating the loading dock, the addition of landscaping, and prohibiting new signage on the south side of the building addresses comments received on previous proposals for this site from residential neighbors to south. Conclusion: Staff has reviewed the proposed design for consistency with the City Design Review Manual, existing and proposed Alameda Towne Centre entitlements and determined that the project meets the requirements established by the City. The proposed architecture is consistent with the design and scale of adjacent buildings and incorporates the same elements of the recently renovated buildings throughout Alameda Towne Centre. Plans also include enhanced landscaping and pedestrian amenities which are well integrated with existing and proposed shopping center plans. Approval of the project would not interfere with proposed future shopping center improvements that are required under existing entitlements or that may be required if the pending PDA is approved, FINDINGS Design Review Findings In order to approve the Design Review application, the Planning Board must make the following finding: 1. The project is compatible with the site, neighboring buildings and surroundings and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designa#sd land uses. The project consists of renovation of an existing building located in an existing shopping center. There will not be a substantial increase in building ,floor area. The proposed architecture is consistent with the design and scale of adjacent buildings and incorporates the same elements of the recently renovated buildings throughout the Alameda Towne Centre. Plans include enhanced landscaping and pedestrian amenities which are well integrated with existing and proposed shopping center plans. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project consists of minor alterations to an existing retail building in an existing shopping center. It will not result in substantial changes in floor area, building height, lighting or vehicular trafFc circulation. CEQA Guidelines Sec#ion 15301 ~e}~2} exempts minor alterations to existing buildings consisting of additions of less than 10,000 square feet from environmental review. Additionally, in X003 the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration that evaluated the effects of replacing the existing building with a 90,040 square foot building on this site. All required mitigation measures have been implemented. The current propose! further reduces the potential for significant impacts. Honorable President and July 1 ~, 2408 Members of the Planning Board Page 4 of 4 PUBLIC NOTICE A notice for this hearing was mailed to the property owner and properties within 544 feet of the perimeter of the shopping center and other interested parties on June 25, 2448. The Planning Board hearing notice was also published in the Alameda Journal and posted in public areas near the subject property. Staff has received one letter in opposition to this project and it is attached. RECOMMENDATION Approve PLN48-0494 based upon the f ndings contained in the attached Draft Resolution. RESPECTFUL Y SUBMITTED BY: Douglas ~ rrison Supervising Planner Attachment(s): ~ . Draft Resolution 2. Site Pfans 3. Public Notification Map 4, Public Comments REVf E1~VED BYI: ~~arew~mas Planning Services Manager - ,;,~: `r:!_. ,'~ i t '~ ~.~:~,~. I,, J i'+~~'~~ •'~'i~ f ail ' ,If Y. 'I ~~~~~7fTl.~ 14: ~~, f,J'SF ~I~; ~.~~t~M; ~~r; ~~ ~:~~~, :5+~~ ~., -' . ~~h ', F'ti}'~ •'I;a;r- .~-L1.~il ~]~ ~i. ~~~~~'.~_' ail ^~~yy'~~`,• f ~11i` ~.i:',4~.' .'~,i •': r~i~r.: ::' ~ ' a.Y ' • I `.~ t ~:i::''•i.'i:i: •ti 1'.'.:1,~is~~.'~ . I~ ~ . Y. ~, i, ~ ,?.. i'~ ~~~~.t~~~,`I`~zr~ ~~ ,'r,M"'i,I.~ 1C~~ A'(;j, ~:: ...5 ?jYl 'f .y ti ~ '[ ~~- ',1 - ~. c•;~ •.k , „I •~, ' , ~~~` ~'y Cl'~ - ~ ~: J ',e - :~ 'r , 1 ' T . ~. •~.~ I','}A 1 ~.:; ' .1. 'I _- I .I ``; ~ ~ ~~ .~ • :: ~~~~ ,;..~. ~~~ • • .'~, • ~.~~, :~ . 4~1~. ~ • ~;J {1 '. :1 .I`I~. (O ,, ~~ y ~~ F-I O N 0 N C W o z w ny ~ W W T~ 'Y W r °o Q o ~ C •~ city council Attachment 3 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-B 09-'16-08 ~" V~~ Z F ~~ ~~ 00 0 N w 0 a~ c W DC v ins Mo c ~ o Z r~ W v ~ w W _ ~ 0 z Q a° ~ o ~ ~ W C_ 'O m '.I' ~. ' '' ~ ~ ? . t ~' ~rN. .'{'l~~V a~ ' a I :,~~ ~~sh ~ ~~~,.. ' rl~Ni~ YI ~.ty1F ~f''`}4i~a f I , Sj ~ 4~ .'..~dy. } 1 ' ~~~ J: hi~Ml ~_ ,w ;i ,s~~rr .1'X'4" ~`~~si r.~ 'syr'~"~~ r . ;~:. : ~ n:~; . 5I:!],~~~J 5 •• . :~...:.:~~~.,f~ i~I~~;f;Y''~.. I.~ a:i.~.~~(. f 1!, ~, 2. ~~~ '.~ ,~ .4t,'s, • T?.. ,,'f tJ~, fit; - ..',.1 4 ' 'r'~~~ ,1 ..i ~.~ ~~` e - `i {- r1 i•.: .~-r ~~. .ti.,t ,e..~:•. ;r;~: :: ti :~f.1 • ~~it`, ~i~,~`=, i iM~i''~:;~i~Yl - ;iE1rY; ~~~~'~ - :t_. ;F~ . .-~* .~r~' ,~~~ 's. .Y~~ '!~ ~I.,1 L ..~ Z r F- ~~ ~~ 0 N 0 N C W O W ~ U v w W ~ ~ v ~ ~ p °o ~ o ~ cn W c ~ m Q ~4~ r~''~`1~~::~Si - ~~:~;, ~'~'~; . rt,~ I~If~n~~ f r . r~., ' ,j~h ~~~ -- ;.: :F. . }~, ',,I ~,K~ ~r~"~' .i~• ','r . r,•'9' •i.~•,.f .. - .~y y„ ~ ~ • ire. .:.: ~, ~~V;;. `_ ~~•S ~•I' r:'~'1 r - %~,~F;jS,'~1;i~. .fir f .~~+',I,~~~'=,1'-'`~ R ~~: r. ~, ~?'-~ r,i~ ~{ i I .. •::7,'i ~I '•,'';~ . :;~t~y'r it { , ~.~Nx1' .~. .1., ~ , n`, I,t 4`~ Ali.. ~, rr 4,: ~~ p ~ •~ .~ • - i ~ ,_ .: ;: ~'~',; ti'ffr~riE r `~4NC II '~l:• af'7r .iit1 ~. 'r +'1' •' I ., - - '1 1 I~r •• 1 / ~•~ . , •. r I ~ i' A ',;. 'r~..t ..I,- ' h, ~~:1h~~:'~i~,.r~ :. " ~. ~.yj'. :I ;~~ - ~ . 11~ ,.Y~ ;'~r 1 I' ':' Ir. l..;r •, .;:;~' - '~ rt.~". .. ~. '~~J~,. • -~~~ ~,~ if,'r 1 .,y~ J ~ ' ~, i,,.,'. !'. r` ,tl, ti i. ,4. ,,:; , _ a ..o ' . a J: :y ;~~! V~ z ~~ ~~ 0 0 N D N N W C r o z ~' W ^~ ~ W W W 1 rrd~ V! O O _C '~ m Q ~~ '" i r ~; ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ,t 4 __ , , ~~ ., !~ .I~..~1 ~ ~p .~ f ~ ~ f ~ y ~ } ~ ~ ~' 1 ' .+ r^.^...^.^...^^^.. • • 1 ~ , ~ ~ ~ 1 a 1 ~ ~ ly. 7 ~ , V ~ r J m J~ m s- ~_ I1 ~'x4. ~ 11 V~~ ~~ l A l `~ h l °" 1 I ~ 2 i ~ ~ U m J ~ ~y ` S ~ ~~ ,, ' 'SfiRVTCE ~pCK ,,,,,,,,,,,,, LOADINGDOp(WALL 3 I !r ~ ~ ~~ I i -rl~rlr~Y(1[sr~h ra , w ,p i r a r ~ ~ ~ i m d~ A .r ~ ~ ~ i ` ~ ~I ; ~' I! I ~ l ~~ ~ ___ _--- '~ l '~ 00 O N v N C W C L 7r ~ W U C o W U ~ a o Q o ~ ~, W m ~ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL September 10, 2008 The Honorable Mayor, Beverly Johnson Vice Mayor Tam Councilmember deHaan Councilmember Gilmore Councilmember Mata.rrese RE: Appeal of PLN08-0090; 2230 South Shore Center; Renovation of Building 1000 (old Safeway) SUMMARY A guiding principle of this City is that new retailers should complement, not compete with existing retailers.' The proposed Orchard Supply Hardware (OSH) will directly compete with our locally owned, service oriented businesses, including Encinal Hardware2, Pagano's Hardware, Thompson's Nursery and Encinal Nursery. These businesses have long-standing roots in our community and have been enthusiastic supporters of Alameda schools, churches, non-profits and community events. OSH will have a substantial deleterious effect on their neighbors as well, leading to vacant, boarded up businesses and urban blight. It will not result in a significant increase in sales tax revenues, and may even result in the loss of some revenues. It will increase traffic, trucks and pollution in the adjacent residential neighborhoods, along the corridors leading to it and throughout our entire City. The procedural posture by which this came before the Planning Board is flawed. A planned development amendment is required before building permits may be issued for this project. This City is missing the opportunity to condition approval of this renovation on securing a tenant that will generate substantial new sales tax revenues. ~ This principle is articulated in the Economic Development Strategic Plan, The Economic Development Strategic Plan Update approved by the City Council on January 15, 2005},the Citywide Retail Policy, and ~t~ost recently in Alameda Ordinance No.2979, dealing with large format retail stores (adopted April I, Zoos}. `'Since Versailles Pharmacy is located within and closely related to Encinal Hardware, the establishment of an DSH at ATC will have a deleterious et~'ect on it as well. Re: Agenda Item #5-B 09-16-OS 1) EFFECT ON LOCAL BUSINESSES/URBAN BLIGHT OSH is essentially a big hardware store with a large garden center attached. It sells the same items as our local hardware stores, except that it does not offer the wide range of "hard to find" items that Pagano's and Encinal Hardware offer. It does not sell major building supplies, lumber, or doors and windows. It is not a "mini Home DepoY'. It also offers low to medium range garden supplies. It does not offer the range or quality of plants that our local nurseries do. Our locally owned retailers provide something that OSH does not. That is high quality, personal service that a large chain like OSH cannot provide. Our local hardware stores will deliver your new ladder, your lawn mower, or simply a sheet of plywood that's too big to fit in your car. The nurseries not only deliver, they will scour their wholesalers to fill their customer's special needs. Versailles Pharmacy not only makes routine deliveries if requested, but delivers bulky or heavy orders without request. Generally there is no charge for this service. An OSH at Alameda Towne Centre (ATC) will directly compete with our local, service oriented retailers, located in our neighborhood business districts. Its deleterious effects will spread to other nearby businesses that depend on foot traffic from their larger neighbors. When this matter was brought before the Planning Board the staff report stated "that sufficient retail leakage existed to support the proposed OSH without causing substantial adverse effects to existing business districts or the local economy".3 The staff report relied on The Alameda Landin Retail Impacts Assessment Update for this assertion. A careful reading of this report does not support this conclusion. This report grouped furniture, home furnishings, household appliances, lumber and other building materials, garden supplies, hardware stores, and miscellaneous into one major retail group with estimated tota12005 sales leakage of $52,806,000.Of this only $1,688,000 is attributable to "homes centers and hardware stores".4 This is 3.2% of the total for this group! ~ See, Planning Board Staff Report, dated July 1 ~, 2008, Item 9-C, page 2. ~ Alameda Landin Retail [m acts Assessment U date prepared by StrategicEconomics, dated June 7, 2006, Appendix A "2005 i.eakage Analysis". 2) LOST SALES TAX OPPORTUNITIES We are all aware that the desire for increased sales tax revenue is a factor that is given consideration in the planning approval process. No new sales tax revenues will be generated by OSH. There will merely be a shift in the tax collection agent, from our existing local businesses to OSH. It is even possible, if our local retailers are forced out of business, that some sales tax revenues will be lost as local residents are forced to go "off island" to purchase the high quality, wide range of goods that are currently available from our local retailers. A much better alternative for the old Safeway site would be a furniture and home furnishings retailer, or a household appliance and electronics store. Off island sales of these items are a significant source of sales tax leakage. According to The Alameda Landing Retail Assessment Update sales leakages in these two categories totaled $32,453,584 in 2005, compared to leakage of a mere $1,687,954 in the "home centers and hardware" category.5 Since a planned development is required for this renovation (See,item 4 below) the City is in a position to condition its approval upon securing a tenant that will generate substantial sales tax revenues. 3) INCREASED TRAFFIC. TRUCKS AND POLUTION If OSH is permitted to locate in ATC, traffic that now frequents our locally owned hardware stores and nurseries will be redirected to ATC resulting in even more traffic flowing through the adjacent neighborhoods, the North/South corridors and Otis Drive, including many residential neighborhoods. That traffic will include a large percentage of trucks going to OSH. Patrons going to hardware stores typically do not frequent additional retailers at the same location so these trips will truly be `additional', further compounding the noise, pollution and vibrations that are already annoying and frustrating the residents along these corridors, and jeopardizing their health. 4) A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED FOR THIS EXPANSION. This matter came before the Planning Board as a "Major Design Review" only. The Planning Board members were clearly told that their iAlameda Landir~~~tail Impacts Assessment U„plate, prepared by 5trategicEcanom:cs, dated June 7, 2~~6, Appendix A " 2Q05 Leakage Analysis". 3 discretion was limited to design review because planning staff had made the determination that neither a PDA nor an environmental review was required. Essentially, what planning staff has done is attempt to remove these decisions from scrutiny by both members of the Planning Board and members of the public. This determination should not have been made by non-attorney planning staff members. Their lack of legal expertise and their lack of neutrality in this matter negates any deference which might otherwise be accorded to this determination. There are three distinct reasons why a PDA i s required for the proposed expansion of building 1000: 1) The Alameda Municipal Code, Section30-4.13(m)(2)(d) requires a planned development amendment whenever there is a more than 25% increase in the floor area of an existing commercial structure. When this matter came before the Planning Board, staff member, Doug Garrison, stated that the proposed OSH would be about 35,000 to 36,000 square feet. Additional square footage of approximately 1,500 square feet6 will result from the proposed expansion. What staff failed to include is the approximate 7,600 additional square feet attributable to the proposed garden center and an undetermined additional square footage attributable to the new loading dock. Planning staff could not cite any authority for excluding this square footage from their calculations. The testimony of the OSH representative was that the permanently walled garden center would be a sales area with plants and garden supplies with a cash register(s), at least during busy periods. It would be accessible to customers only by walking through the main building. It will have permanent electrical and plumbing. When added to the additional 1,500- 1,575 square feet these areas constitute an increase in square footage of from 25% to 26.2%. These percentages do not take into account the new, expanded loading area. There is no ~ Tate agenda and Notice of Hearing stare that it is f,57S square fe~;t. ~ ~l`his number was given by Mr. Garrison to the author. 4 existing PDA that approves this expansion. Under the provisions of the Alameda Municipal Code a PDA is required for this proposal to go forward. 2) The developer and planning staff mistakenly rely on the entitlements granted, in PB-03-40, appended hereto. However, that resolution specifically disapproved any changes in Building 1000. In addition, Section 24 of that resolution clearly states that prior to the issuance of building permits for building 1000 (and several other buildings), the applicant shall apply to the Planning Board for a PDA. As of this date no such an amendment has been granted.g 3) Planning Board resolution PB-03-40 also disapproved proposed changes in building 1000 by reference to the phasing plan. Building 1000 was in Phase III.9 PB-03-40 specifically disapproved phases III, IV-b and later phases. The resolution states on page 3, part 1(e) that: "phase III, IV-b and later phases are specifically not approved...". What can be clearer than this language? The resolution further states that the developer may seek approval of the specifically disapproved phases at a later time by submittal "of a new environmental review... and a new planned development amendment".10 A new planned development has not been approved. Approval of the environmental review is under appeal. (Emphasis added.} On April 2, 2008 the City of Alameda adopted Ordinance No. 2979 which requires, among other things, that the planning Board make the finding, as g PB-03-40 states: "24. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SITE. This phase is denied without re'udice for the P~ current application. Prior to issuance of building permits for this phase including the present carwash site, and Building I SUO together, or for Building 1000 and subsequent phases, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Board for Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review a plan for site improvements and elevations, playas, drives, landscaping which provides a water orientation far this 2 acre portion of the site, with pedestrian use and unified design theme." Emphasis added.} The phasing plan for PB-o3-40 ~s appended. It ~s important to note that subsequent to the adoption of this resolution the developer has renumbered the construction phasing. This, of course, should have no eiTect on which proposed changes to which buildings were approved. ~~ PB-o3-44 states: "e} Phase II1, IV-b and later phases are specifically not ap roved, exce t the edestrian P P P mall areas are included in tl~e approved phases.....However, the denial is without prejudice to a later resubmittal of a new environmental review with traffic study conforming to CaliBfornia Environmental Quality Act guidelines; and a new Planned development Amendment and Major Design review." ~F.mphasis added.) 5 part of the PDA procedure, that the proposed ASH "will not have substantial deleterious effects on existing business districts or the local economy."" Any subsequent PDA amendment must include such finding. 5) CONCLUSION This matter should properly have come before the Planning Board as a proposed Planned Development Amendment, with environmental review and major design review. The procedural posture adopted by City staff effectively removed two of these three determinations from the Planning Board. We ask you to make the proper determination that a PDA that complies with all Alameda ordinances, including Ordinance No.2979, and an environmental review are required before the expansion of Building 1000 can go forward. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE We hereby incorporate by reference all of the comments, both oral and written, of the other individuals and agencies who comment on this matter. Respectfully submitted, ~~~ ~ Claire Yeaton-Risley, Appellant ~ City u~ A~arneda (ordinance No. 2979, ~~9 and ~?. I - .~"` . .' , j I `•~- '~~ _ .;'- -~ _ a ,_i<,. zip . I i ~ I + , . I ,:11111 ~ L. ~ ' I , ,: I; . , ... _ Q111L~ii'1 i .!nll I ; ~ ~~ L - .. - ~ - ~ _ - ~ , I - .~ : r ,'~ • ~', ~ ~ ~ d ~~+,~,. i e ~I,iJ~~ l I~ : pll,ii±UhfG: 1340 _ • ~ _. ;. ._ . • . , , - ~ - ~ ..,. Yom. ~ I^;'~r~ ' ~I i :. .* .. ;_. .. .. `f'• .+ I l ~ - ~ ° e.ll'~161Y, DIY ~- I ~_~~ ~~•~ 11 _ ~~Ill.j f.`•'.; ~ I ~`L ~r~ .~~: ~ ~. i~ ~,, - ~ ~ ., - f ,,=, ... ~ ~V b ° Inc i~f,~I~ III' t v .i y ,~` I`` r. 1 S J ~ I yr ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~~~ - -- 4 I . ~ ~,! ua~, - _ - ~ , 4, ~~ , ,~ , y.~,. ~ ~ ~ ;I~ _ .'~r ~ Y I ~.~, _~. r y I ,~ f ~,: r L~I ~, .I~ I Iyi-~~- r -p; •II :.I I :~•ll~! ~i i i r~ ~,Vi ~;, 'I / r `1. ~ ~ • ~r H ~F/~flr ,III !~1 I ~ T , ~+ %r I~ fly ~~ 1~~ o 'C r I ~ 77 .% ` -I- - I .~ ~ ~r r ~v ~q n ~ ~~'" ~ Sk t`"~ ~;~ ~I .~ i ~ ~ ~ ,rte I ~.. , ~,. • 1_. _. ~ . • i V. _ c ~ 7 -y' - I III- 1 'Y117'jJ;L'~IIj'l]lyl~~'y ~.i',I,•I~jl1~ ~'~+~,Illilli~ji",'lly j;Y'~u,`,-:Iji'~i,_ _ - til~i 1.: ~ (~= - ii ~ ~ i -ter l_~~'i11. ~~.~" ~~w- ~ _• ~ .. Ir .. . _ - __ "" - - 1 CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BO ARD RESQLUTION NO. PB-03-40 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING $ PLA, QARD OF THE CITY OF ALAMED NNED DEVELOPMENT AMEND A APPRQVING MENT, PDA02-003, AND MAJOR D DR02-095 FOR .RECO~,TSTRUCT ESIGN REVZE~, zNG AND EXPANDING AN EXIST AT ~ 1 GO OTIS DRNE SO IlvG SHOPPING CENTER UTH SHORE SPlpppflyG CENTER WHEREAS, an application was made affiliate Har an July 30, 2002 by Harsch Tnvestznent Cv sch Investrn en t Real ty LLC 5 erg es C re l~ rp and r is PDA02-4o3and Maur ~ ~ q est~ng a Planned Development Amendment ~ Des~g~~ Review DR02-095, to ermit th ' foot shapphag center and add' . P e reconstruction of 545,000 square ~t~on of a net 112,OOQ sq~~~-e feet of reta~I amend~neut to parkin re ulatio and office floor area, a~~d g g ns far the Center; and WHEREAS, the application was detexrni Au st ~~ red to be incomplete forprocessin b let#e ~ ~ 2002; a~~d was subsequentl acce ted a g Y r dated Y p s can~plete on February 11, 2043 • and WHEREAS, the subject pro a is deli Pl p rtY grated as Comnlunxty Commercial o an Diagram, and n the general WHEREAS, the subject pro a is Iocat . Dev P rtY ed iz~ a C-2-pI~, Central Business Dis eloprnent Comb~rung Zo~~~n ~YSti"ICt' a triCt, Planned g , rid WHEREAS, the Board held a ublic hea ' Jul 28 200 P nn, on this appl~cat~on on May 12, 2003 canclu Y ~ 3, and e~caun~ned pertinent ma s, drawzn ded Jul Z l 2003 P gs, and documents dated May 31, 2~Q2 throw Y ~ ~s~te plank and .March 11,'2043 has~na gh Ala ~ plan, and WHEREAS, the .Board made the follow' ~n~ findings relative to the Platlned Develo pment. 1. The proposed Planned Develo ' pment ~s consistent with the General Plan which specifies commercial uses for the site C , which ~s deszgnated as Communi omrnerc~al. The Connmun~ty Commercial ~ of c des~gnatlon ~s intended for a wide ran e ammerc~al stores and servzces, rangrn I~orn small g businesses. The g stores to larger, auto-oriented proposed expa~~s~on of retail comn~erc~al, ~'estaur would be consistent with this d ~ ant and office uses _~ es~gnatlon. 2. The Planned Develo meet is a ~ ~ . p ~~are of fectzve arse of the s~ to than is ossi bl the regulations for the C-2 ~on~n ~ P e under g dastrict because a Planned Develo merit consal~dat~on of arkin an P allows for P g d driving aisles for parcels and a com r desig~~ ~ncludin buildin ~ p eher~s~ve site g g Iacat~on, parking Iot design, landsca ~x cir~'ulatian tv use a site which P ~g and internal I~~stor~cally has been Iinked in this manner. ~ ~ • J . + ~ 3. The Planned Developnlei~t, because it i~~co orates all the s ' ' rp nitigations of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, will not have a si~nif cant adverse of e f ct on adtacei~t land uses. WHEREAS, the Board made the following findin s relative to the Ma' g for Design Review. 1. The project will have no sign,i~car~t adverse im acts on ersoi . P p ~s or property in the vicinity because the design of the stares is of a si~~ailar horizontal low- profilenature to strictures in the area and have a unified style and theme ~ttin to the 195 ' - 1970's e ~ g 0 s p riod in which So~~th Shore developed as a xleighbarhood. 2. As conditioned, the project will be corn atibie and harmonize with P the design and use of the surrounding area because tlxe buildings would extend the materials , proportions and sizes of stores in the Shopping Center in a manner consistent with ast p practice. 3. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the Cit • y of Alameda Design Review Guidelines because the materials, surfaces, sha es and landsca in r l~ p g elate to nearby structures and provYde an attractive streetscape as viewed from ad'acent street J sand residential areas. WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared on the ro'ect ursuai~t ' P ~ p to the California Environmental Quality Act, State CIearinghouse Number 2003-042-07 . 3, and was circulated for public review between April 12, 2003 and Ma 12 2003 ~ and no con Y ~ ~ ~nients were received which identif ed new signif cant environmental im acts which were not alrea P dy discussed or mitigated in the Initial Study; and wHER.EAS, an May I2, 2003 the Board found the Initial Stud corn 1 aver consideri Y p ete and correct, and ng public testimony including documents, adapted a Mitigated Ne ative Dec IS02-OOOG and ~ g laration, Mitigation Monitoring Program, to address the environme~~tal im acts r ro'ect findin n P elated to this p ~ g o significant environmental impacts from the protect as miti ated• g , THEREFGRE BE IT RESOLVED that tl~e Plannin Board of the Cit g yofAlamedaapproves Planned Development Amendment PDA02-003 and Ma'or Desi it R v~ ~ g e iew DR02-095, phases II-a, II-b and IV-a only, subtect to the following conditions: 1 • APPROVED PLAN. The project shall be constructed lit stibstant~ gal compliance with: a} the plans consisting of 30 sheets dated Ma 31 2002 throe I I ~' ~ g ~ . my 21 site plan} and March 1 1, 2003 by Field Paoli Architects, et al. includin Buildin g gs 100 and GOD ~DRD3-0038} and excluding phases III, N-b acid later hales exce t ed ' P p p estnan malls, for t1~e northerly sidewalk between Office Max and future Buildin 5 . ~ 1 D0, sidewalk width is ~ feet and travel lanes for vehicles are each 10 feet wide' } 2 b} a sign program adopted by PIanned Developi~lent Amendn~eilt PDA-97-o5 on Dec ember 8, 1997, as amended by tenai~t signage revision dated March 31, 2Q03 b Field P • y aoli Architects titled "Tenant Sign Design Criteria," in 18 pages; and c} communication dated April l i, ?p0; by Harsch Investment C arp, ,incorporating all mitigation measures of the Initial Stud into tlae ro'ect.. Y p1 d} U~here feasible, tl~e project includes si ns directed toward ' g pedestrians and other feasible i~leasures within applicant control to minimize any conflicting movements between pedestrians at the Washington Mutual ATM »~achii~es in the rear of the washi ngtan Mutual building aild the adjacent east-west drive aisle on the Center's arkin area p g , to the satisfaction of the Public ~Uorks Director. A pedestrian walkwa at least 4 feet w' Y ide shall be constructed prior to occupancy of Phase Iz-b, from office Max to the cuiT ent Chevron site, e} PhaseIII, N-b and later phases are specifically not approved, exce t that edestrian m . p p all areas are included in the approved phases. Building 1800 along Shoreline Drive a originally shown in Phase II-a, is specifically not approved. However the denial ' is without prejudice to a later resubmittal of a new environmental review with tr . off c study, conforming to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines; and a new Plal ~ned Development Amendment and Major Design review. I} The following guidelines are requested to be incorporated into resubmittal of t he phases not approved at this time; I } Provision of a site for future gasoline sales. 2} Shoreline orientation of the approximately ~ acres at Park Street and Shoreline Dive, including the current Picante Restaurant site and planned Building 1804. 3} Inclusion in future phases of bus stops, pedestrian and bic cle aths bic c y p ' y le racks, landscaping improvements equal to or better than the improvements showia in the approved phases. Such plans aiad letter constitute Exhibit "A", on file in the office of the Cit of y Alameda Planning Department, and are approved except as modified b the condition ' Y sxnthis Resolution. Z. VESTING, The Planned Development Amendment shall terminate on Jul 28 2 y , OQ4, unless actual constnrctlon under valid permits has begun, or the develo ei- a Iles for and is ant P pp gr ed an extension prior to expiration; the Planning and Building Director is directed b the Plannin Board to ru ~ y g le upon an extei~sion on tlxeri behalf. The Planned Develo ment P Airiendmeilt~approval shall not be in force and effect, and rlo btiildin ernaits will be is g p sued, unless and until the developer has co«~pleted a Lot Merger, Lot Line Ad'ustment or 1 Parcel Map to eliminate any encroacllmer~t of building walls over ro ert lines to the sat P P Y isfactron 3 of the Plaiu~ing and Building Director. The Desi~1 Review a roval pp shall terminate on 3anuary 28 , 2x04, unless actual construction under valid ~eimits leas begun o 1 ~ rthedeveloper applies for and is granted an extension prior to ex iratian: For initial p project vesting, construction within the timelines herein under DR03-035 'for Buildings 100 and G 00 with adjacent interior malls shall vest both PDA and Design Review for Plea - se ~~ a. Once vested, the PDA and Design Review are approved for a maximum of a Iinaited one and one-half year ~1 112 year coilstructio~~ period from the date of this Resolution and shall EXPIlRE on January 28, 2005 for any portion of this project a royal that has not b pP een vested and any additional substantial aItei•ation thereafter shall re wire a new PDA and ~] Design Revxew. PHASIIr1G THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. Phasing is tentativel i~ „ ~ y outlined in Exhibit A phasing sheet dated March 2003 from Field Paali Architects with col ors desig~~ating phases, subject to Director approval. Only areas shown in contruction o f Phases II-a, II-band ~V-a, which shall izlclude completion of lire ~ ~destrian mall areas Curie p ntly shown in Phases N-b and V, may be constructed. Phasing Amendments shall be as a rove pp d by the Plaruaing and Building Director, with balanced i~riproveil~ents to arkin , landsca in u L P g p g, p bloc facilities including drainage, utilities and transportation. AMENDMENTS TQ THE PLANNED DEVELQPMENT. P~irsuant to Al ' ' amedaMunlcipal Code, minor architectural changes suc1~ as storefronts, door and window openings with less than 5% five percent) change in floor area ma be a raved admini PI ~' pP strativeIy by the anning and Building Director in Desi~ri. Revxew. 3. LEASING . Tl~e applicant shall provide co ies of these conditions w' P nth each Iease over Io,000 square feet or to smaller leases upon request. 0 4. TRANSPORTAT~DN. Prior to issuance of a Building Pern~it for the site, the a licant shall exe pP cute an agreement with the Public Works Director to implement tl~e following measur • es. OT~SIPARK INTERSECTIQN. Currently dzirin Baseline conditions O ' ' g tzslPark intersection operates at LQS D with an additional I50 feet of southbound 17 ht turn lane. wit ' . g hen 6 months the Caty Public works Department DPW}will remove 150 feet of arki p ng on the west side to provide for a dedicated southbound right turn lame. burin BaseIi Condit' ~ g ne Plus Proaect tons tla~s intersection will operate at LOS E ~C5.6 seconds dune the weeken 7 g d ~n~d- day peak hour. For Baseline Plus Project it is r-e aired that the si nal be ch 9 g angel from pr e- tlmed operation to filly-actuated. This will ix~volve the installation of a . new signal controller, vehicle loop detectors, signal mast arms, traffc st~-i in modifcat' p g ions and all equipment necessary to frilly actuate the intersection. With these irn i-overnents the intersection LDS will in7 ~ p prove to C X24.4 secoi~ds~ during the weekend mid-day eak hour. Far Cui~aulative Plus Pz-o ect ad P ~ d~tional lanes will be i eq~ilred. At tl~e tinge tl~e total shopping center area increases be and 590 Q00 s ua y q re feet PW will requirethe appIicantto subi~litdesigndrawings withtl~eb~lildin ermit a g p pplicatioil. At the 4 time the building pernlit is issued, PW will require the intersection im rave~nents be p awarded far eonstructio~~. Tl~e City continl~es to wont with the applicant regardixxg his re nest for f ~ q xnancial assistance with co~~structlon of the s~g~~al. Certif cafe of occupancy w~II ~~ot be issued until construction of the required intersection in~proveme~~ts are com Ieted. Tl~e o p applica~~t will have 1 a0 /o responsibility for construction of these improvements, revYew, pennitting, inspection and processing. The applica~~t may elect to ~•equest the City construct the ~7nprovements and provide tI~e City ~vith tl~e necessary funding. If this option is selected, negotiations would be needed so that a design would be ready to meet the schedule identif ed above. The cost for additional l~u~es will be slaared between the City and the ap licant based P upon a prorated traffic contribution. CTISIPRDJECT ACCESS-TRADER JQE'S DRIVEWAY. Currently the unsi~nali~ed intersection of atislProjectAccess-Trader .roe's driveway operates at LAS C aid therefore no mitigation is needed: Tl~e sig~~al warrant associated with the northbound a roach from Pp tl~e shopping center meets the peak hour wart•ant for signalization during the weekda PM Y peak hour and weekend mid-day peak hour. At C~unuiative Plus Project the northbound lei turn movement will gradually degrade. Therefore, if applicants would like to instal] a sig~lal to improve the traffic operations at this location they will lave 1 Do% financial res onsibilit . p Y ~TrSIPROJECT ACCESS-EA~TERNM~ST DRIVEWAY. Based on observed a~~d ro'ect . pJ veh~cie queuing on Otis Drive during peak commute periods, it is required that this drivewa Y be limited to right•tl~rn-only inboundloutbound with a physical barrier concrete cl~annelization island to accommodate right turn in and right turd o~~t movement}. An azuzlzal monitoring will be conducted to review the co~~flict of right out 1~~ovement with Otis Drive eastbound through traffic. The applicant will have 10~% responsibility for construction of theses improvements, review, pern~itting, inspection as~d processing. PA.R.KIPR~JECT ACCESS NDRTH DRIVEWAY. With projected vehicle queues for the soutlbound right-torn movement from Park Street into the project driveway, it is re aired q that the intersection be monitored for potential vehicle queuing conflicts. An annual monitoring report is to be submitted to PW in apre-approved format. If the Public Works Director receives any objections to the traff c i~~to this drivewa the Director will 1 y~ gave the prerogative to request additional monitoring reports from tl~e applicant. Should vehicle queuing at this intersection for southbound right-tuns cause conflicts PW will re wire the i~lstall ~ q at~on of a separate right-turn deceleration la~~e. The applicant will have 10~% responsibility for construction of these improveme~~ts, review, permitting, inspection and processing. BICYCLEITR.ANSITIPEDESTRIAN. Based on meetings between AC Transit staff a~~d the developer, transit routing will be located along Whitehall Drive, within the Center. Traveling in the eastbound direction, a transit stop tivill be located along Whitehall at the far ~east~ side of the i~~tersection at South Shore Ce~~ter Drive. A striped transit a~~l 1~~;1e, 1 ~ y feet wide, will be provided far a bus to pull out of the tlu•ough traffic Pane when loadingl~il~loading passengers. Also alal~g Whitehall, i~1 tl~e eastbou~ld direction, a transit 5 stop will be located prior to the intersection with Park Street. In the westbound d2rect~on along V~hitehall, transit stops, includi~~ stri ed transit onI g p y Lanes C I O feet wide} w~ I I be located west of the intersectiol~ ~vitl~ park Street ad~acent t ~ ~ o Bt~~ld~ng I SOp} and at the near side of tlae intersection with So~~th Shore Center Drive. Back-out parking well loot be permitted along a transit route. Bus t~~n~outs ma not doi2ble as to truck loads y n~parary or perl~~ai~ent ng al eas. Bus turnouts gad platfon~~s l~~ust be consistent with A Standards Manual. C Transit There will be a ml~li~1~u~1~ of four ~4} transit sto locatio Center, two 2 ~n each P z~s within tl3e ~ } dzrect~ori. ~n add~t~on, the actual bus sto sl ads a transit ce P P t the m~iltz•~nodal rater should be constructed of concrete rather than as halt to r ossible as co~~frnled P p eve11t wear. wIaeie P by the Public Works Director, bus sto s shall be east of Center Drive. Th p So~ith Shop e e easterly 'L~Iaitehall transit ternlinal shall be se arated from the t - loadin area of Buildin IS P tuck g g Oa by landscaped trellises, walls and other barriers to c secure space for transit atroi~s. reate a P Signs shall be placed throughout tl~e sho ins center dlrectin~ lip ~ ~ transit pate ons to the new transit stops. Eacla transit stop will be outfitted with bus shelters an d bus benches consistent with ADA guidelines aild the AC Transit Standards Manual. . Crosswalks and ramps must be provided consistent with ADA guidelines. Bicycle parking throughout the Center will be held to a sf~in ~ '~ dard of one ~ 1 } bicycle parking space per thi~~y X30} auto parking spaces. Locations- and number of . bicycle parking racks throughout the Center will be agreed upon b the P~~blic Work D Y s Director or designee and the eveloper on a phase by phase basis. The total number of s ace p swill attempt to remain as close as possible to the 1 to 34 ratio within reason. Pro er ' P srg17age will be Iocated throughout the Center directing bicyclists to bicycle arkii~ locations. P g A 4 foot wide raised concrete pedestrian ails well be instal • P led fion~ existing Clxevron to existing Office Max on the east-west driveway to Public Woi-ks star .~ lards. Mere backout parking is adjacent to the main ~~ th gall buildings, every 1 a parking space in such areas will be sti-tped for pedestrian access to the mall ~ exc Af} ept that the pedesti~an space ii1 A parking spaces will qualify as the pedestrian access at that ' point. BUS SHELTER, Prior to iss~~ance of buildin ermits the a ' P g p pplicant shall sZ~bmit and obtain Iani~ing aril Building Director and Buildin ~ffic~aI a • v g ppio al for design of at least four ~4} all-weather bus shelters when the current bus shelter re wires q closui e or relocation, and shall install the bus shelter prior to appi-ovai of occu anc , p y Bus lines and shelters shall be designed to the satisfaction f o Alameda Contra Casta Transit and the Public Works Director. Should AC Transit decide to s~~spend bus service for any reasaia, the Public Works Director shall deteri~~ine that b~fs service t - ~eai tl~e Center well be a satisfactory substitute, prior to issuance of building eiinits fo - p ~ tl~e subsegt~ent phase. Bus shelter, bus bench and cross walks shall comply tivitll A~l~ericans with Disabilities Act Guidelines and be approved by the Public'~Vorks Director, Bus tu~~~out and latfo~zns ~ • p ale shown on Exhibit "A" grad shall be consistent with AC Transit Standards Manual an . d b~~s stops shall be located per the ma~~ual apart from one a~7other in an east-west direction unless modified by the Public Works Director. 5. ETHER PLANNED DEVELaPMENT REGULATIGNS. All regulations of the Al .. ~ ameda Municipal Code shall apply to tl~e Plalu~ed DeveIoprnellt of South Shore Sho ing Center as Pp amended, except where exp~•ess px•ovisions have other-wise been made in this Plalu~ed Development Amendment approval, 6. PARKING. The shopping center shall at all tii~~es operate with at [east 4.0 arkin s a p g p ces per 1,000 square feet of retail, restaurant or off ce area then bei»g occu led or constructed ~s greater conforming to City palk~izg design standards. Should tl~e slxo in Pp g center fall below the 4.0 parking spaces to x,000 sq~~are feet ratio, the owner shall reve~~t P const~~ct~on of additional suff cient retail and office space so that the project returns to the 4.01,000 parking ratio overall. All parking areas on all parcels shall be made accessible to all other portions of the center throl~gh ~•ecorded documents includin •oint acces . g ~ sand reciprocal parking easements to the satisfaction of the Planning and Buildin Director. g 7. S~GNAGE PROGRAM. All signage installed at the site shall be in coin Iiance p with the approved sig~lage progra~l~ for Soifth Shore Shopping Center, as outlined in PDA 97-05 xh~brt "C", consisting of nine pages, prepared by the applicant, stain ed received "C~ct P ober 24, 199 ,and on f Ie in the Planning Depart~~~e~~t offices, exce t as modified b Exhi • « „ p y bit A of this Planned Development Amendment. Back-lit aground mounted-li hted aim . ~ ~P trees are not ~s~g~1s, No sign shall be installed without prior issua~~ce of a si n ernlit. gP S. ALAMEDA PaWER AND TELECGM. The deveIo er shall install new sub P strictures including conduits, pullboxes, and transformer pads ~~ecessa to serve the ro ry p posed improvements. The developer shall grant all easements to Alameda Power and Telecom necessary for the provision and maintenance of electrical service to tl~e site. Easements shall include metes and bound descriptions and plats and shall be re aced b a li e p P y c used land survey or civil engineer qualif ed to practice lend Surveying. Existin ease~~~ex~ts that are no g longe~• applicable after the proposed improveme~lts are aperatio~xal shall be vacated at . the . d~rect~on of AP&T and City Engineer. Prior to issuance of ermits for lacem s ti•u ~ p p ent o f ctures, the approval of tl~e Planning and Building Director regardin location and g screening steal] be obtained. 9. STQRM AND SANITARY SEWER ANAYLSIS A licant shall rovide in coy PP p ~~u~lct~on with building and site inlprovemel~t pia;1 submittals, storm drain a~1d sanxtar sewer flow Y calc~llations of the existing and proposed develop~nezlt, Pipes shall be u ailed as recess I~~ any to meet increase flows if applicable. Existil~g saizitZZy sewe~•pipes rat re ui~•in re lace~nent q g P shall be inspected aid any i~~flow a17d i~~filtratio~~ from open joints, braker~ i e, etc. shall p p be 7 1 . rehabilitated by meads acceptable to tl~e Cit E~~U' y ~ineel ~i.e. slip lan~ng, pipe bursting, replacement, inversion lining, etc.} by hase. p 1 ~. PLANS. Site civil improvenlexlt, traffic si~ni U .. v . nom, stripi~~~al~d detourlr~g, landscape, ~r~=lgation, utility, and urban runoff (see below Ia~~s shall b ~ p e sub~~1~tted e~tl~e~• se aratel. OI• lip con~unctron with bi~~lding laps to Build~na ~ ~ p y . P ~ and Plann~n~ Services for review by the Cit Engineer, ~ y 1 1. FIRE DEPARTMENT, Prior to issuance of b~~' ~lding pe~-inits, the applicant shall rovide plans for approval of the Alai~~eda Fire De artn~e P p , nt. Tl7e bu~Id7~~g shall be fitted with automatic f re sprinkler systems to NFPA 13 sta~~dards to t he satisfaction of the Alameda Fire Depart~~lellt. Prior to raising b~rildin walls the g developer shall have already adjacent or xnstalI at hrs expense on-site one or more 3,000 allan er g p n~lnute f ie hydrants} be Ioca~ed and installed t~ the-satisfaction of the Alameda Fire De partment. 1 ~• tTRBAN RUNOFF. Redevelo ment ro'ects shall ~ ' ' P P ~ ~~in~m~ze starmwater poll~rtant dischai' es through implementation of construction sedin7el~t con • g ti of and post-construction design ar~d treatment measures, incorparatliag appropriate source control an • d site design measures to the maximum extent practicable per requirements of the Alameda Count ide Dtschar e Eliininatio y~' NonwPoll~it~tnt g n System NPDES} Mz~i~icipal Stor~~~water Pernxit. resolution does no Approval of this t Iock-in the current NPDES pennrttin~ re uirements f project. Subse cent chap ~ 9 or the Iife of tl~e q ages to the NPDES permitting requirements ma occur duri project phasing and shall be ~nco orated ' y ng rP into the design unless otherwise conditioned lender the NPDES permit regulations. a. Design review submittals shall include a table showin g the amount of pervio~~s and impervious areas prior to redevelopment aild the a~notlnt of ervious and i P rnperviaus area after redevelopment. Areas shall be iven in s care fe g q et. Conceptual proposals shall be included during design review rocess s P hOWZng methods by which impervious surfaces wi ll be minimized aid the ent o f of ry p lutai~ts to tl~e storm drain system ~vill be reduced. Such methods ilaay include methods such as pervious parking stalls using interlocking pavers, and sand filter rose ` rts aiid units within storm drain structures. b. Past-construction stoi~nwater treatment control t~~easui es shall be included Ynta project construction plans prior to issuance of an buildin ~ Q ' y g of grading permit. A treatment ~~~eastue opei•atio~~ a~ad maintel~ance ~O~M lan shall be . } P s ub~ ect to review and approval by the City EI}gineer. O&M Inns sha . p Il include treatment type, location, i~~alntenance requi~•einei~ts, i~~aintena~~ce sch edule and assurances of party responsible for 0&,M. c. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient in-i ation surfa ~ • . g to reduce runoff, proiriote ce inf Itratiai7, and ~~~a~~jna1Ze tl~e use of fertilizers and . pcsticides that can S contribute to stormwater pall~~tion. where feasible landscapinU should be desi~~ed and operated to treat stoj-11~water r~inoff d. Construction activities shall comply with Notice of li~tent NDI and Sto~n~ Water ~ ~ Pollution and Prevention Pian ~SWPPP} NPDES pel~~~itting re uirements. Deli n q g plans shall include a plan for ez-osion and sediment control measures that im lements p currealt Best Management Practices ~BMPs} duz-illg constil2ction activities. The erosion a.lad sedime~~t control plan is siEb-ject to review and approval b Cit Engineer. y Y e. Tr-asla enclos~~res a~~dlor recycling areas must be completely covered with no surface flows from other areas draini~ag into this area. BMP's shall be im lemented to P prevel3t potet~tial storllTwater pollution. Self contained trash com actors are P considered covered. These BMP's ~~~ay include, but are not limited to a regular program of sweepi~~g, li~lte~- control and spill clean-up. Mobile washing and discharges must be conducted according to tl~e Mobile Cleaner Best Management Practices for UVaste water Runoff developed by tI~e Cleaning E ui rnetlt Trade Ass ~ ~ p ociation. f. Loading dock areas should be designed to minimize tl~e amount of storm water run- ononto the loading dock area. Accumulated waste water that may contribute to the pollution of stornlwater must be drained to the sanitary sewer, or diverted and collected for ultimate discharge to the sa~~itary sewer, or i~~terce ted and retreated P P prior to discharge to the storm drain system. g. Food retailers ~incl~~ding restaurants and grocery stores} must be desi red to revent ~ p tl~e dischagge of wastewaters from the cleaning of mats, equipn~e~~t and containers to the storm dram systeYl~. Contained wash areas shall be covered ar desi ed to prevent run-on or r~~noff from the area a~~d shall not discharge to the storm drain system. BMP's shall be implemented to prevent potential sto~Ynwater ollution. These BMP's r P nay include, but are not llnaited to, a regular program of swee in , Pg litter control and spill clean-up. Mobi le washing ,and dischar es must be co7~ducted g according to tl~e Mobile CleanerBest Management Practices for waste waterRtrnoff developed by the Cleaning Equipment Trade Association. h. The property owner shall ensure that BMPs are ii~~plemented to revent otential p p stor~~~water pollution and to ninimize the an~our~t of flows to the sanltai-y sewer drains at locations indicated under e,f & g. above, The Qperation and Maintenance plans per Ztem #b above shall address these requirements. 13. LANDSCAPING. Prior to issuar~ce of building pena~its the a licant shall s ecif th Pp p y e size,. type and number of trees, shrubs and g~-o~zlid cover. Al] laildscapin and irri ation shall g g be ~nstalIed pi-~or to approval of occupancy. 9 a. Tlae developer shell be requil-ed to i~~stall trees as shown on the a • ppl oved laaadscaping plan for approved plaases~ ila Exhibit "A," Exact nunaberofstre et trees to beplanted, species, location and size of trees shall be to tlae satisfaction of B l~ . Q tlae Planla~x~g and ~ ildin~ Dlrectoi and the P~~bl~c Works Director, Trees that are a 1 S gallon size of Iai'ger shall be specified r~raless otl~erwise directed U tl7e PI D. y angling a~ad BL~ilding ~rectoi , Each t~ ee well shall lave at least a 15 gallon tree a roved and ~ pp by tl~e Planning BuiIdilag Director. There shall be at least one tree er 4 to S ~ . p parking spaces ~n any reconstructed.portion of tlae parkilag lot, averagi~~g 1 er 4 i~~ the 46 acr p e project or as approved by the Directo~•, with trees being il~stalled with that h p ase przox to accupaaacy of adjacent reconstructed buildings. E~~cal ttis trees are YP not approved. Palm trees naay apply toward achieving floe re hired tree rat' ~ to w~tl~ Plaxanrng and Building Director appx-ov~I on a phase by base basis and P1 of th p ~ a~uung Board approval e first phase ~Buzld~ng ?~~~, where the paln~ s ecies rovide s~ p P _ ~~table sh_ ad_e grad greenery The ~pplicai~t sl~aII obtai~l repox-ts by certified rofessional a re ardin tl~e n P rborZst~s} g g cost effective species of palms to be used, and the most effec Live px-ulaing man~aer for canopy trees to ~-omote s readin p P g growtl~ rather tl~an mar~ataining initial tree size glad spread. Eacla double arkin row p g shall have at least ttivo ~?}trees except for Phase I . b. Shrubs of a naininlum 5 gallola container size sht~Il be ~ . planted in landscape islands, the central null and other areas, and other shrubs a roved pp by floe Planning and Bu~ld~ng Director. At floe ea~trance drzvewa s accent Iant Y ~ p s such as annual or perennial flowering plants and shrubs shall be il~stalled to tla e satisfactlan of the Planning Director. c. TI~e applicant shall install rows of palm trees alonU each xna•or n ~ ~ orthlsauth entrance dr~vewayto the Cealter~3 f•ona Qtis Drive}, as shown on Exllib' " " ~t A. Installed trees shall be secured and supported during floe f rst ear of Iantin b Y p g y triangulated boards or other method approved by tl~e City Building ~_fficial followin tl g ae practice used to 2002 for installation of palm trees leadinU to the Trader Joe's en tra~~ce, ~n order to avoid the 2002 toppling of trees in high winds. d. Landscaping including sll.rubs glad trees or a decorative . fence or wall shall screen all above-ground utility boxes and strtict~~res, to the satisfacti on of tl~e Plan~a~llg and Building Director. e. Trees shall not be located witlli~a ease~aaeaats. f. Trees shall be inaiiataijaed and watered in a health y state to achy eve a canopy of greenery within the parking areas. Diseased trees shall be removed a nd replaced r1~lnaediateIy with healthy trees of floe sa~aae ar Sillallar s ecies, P l0 14. LIGHTING. Prior to issuaixce of buildii~~ er•i~Zits the . ~ P ~ applicant shall submit a lighting plan and details of lighting f xtui•es for PIannin and Buildii~U Dire ~ ~ ctorievtew and approval. The lighting fixtures sl~all be substantialI coi11 atible witl~ e, ' ' a ~~ . Y p ~istin~ li~l~ting fixtures in the Shopping Center parking lot. Lighting shall be installed i~~ sub ' sta~lt~al CDl]~pllai~ce Witl] city standards as detei-i~ained by the Chief Building Official Police De a - on-site IiUhtin~ s P iti~~ei~t and AP&T- All ~ sl~all be do~~vllwaid-directed lighting and shielded to avoid ~ ' lighting impacts on adjacent residential areas, except #l~at al~~~ trees ma be p y back-Iit by ground-mounted lights in the manner established for the alms leading to T~•a ~ P ~ der •loe s in ..D02. I5. AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLIANCE. The r ' ' p o~ect is s«bject to the Affordable Housing U11i~tlFee Ordinance Alameda Munici al Cade Secti P on 27- I }. The applicant insist provide housing units, pay an in-lieu fee oi• re are an Affordable P p Housing UnitlFee Plan and secure tl~e approval of the Housing Developi~~ent ManaUer, rior to i ~ p ssuance o_f a building - ~~perrrrit. The-applicant must provide the holisii~ r ul~its oi• a tl~e g p y Affoi dable Hausing fee, as calculated in the approved Plan, prior to issl~ance of tl~e certificate of occupancy. IG. CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS a. Prior to start of work afdei~~olition, remodeli» or constrtrctioi g ~, the applicant shall provide a draft waste management plain to tlae Public V~orks Enviroi mental Services Division, Tl1is can be ii1 any format, but must include tl~e follow' . ing. i. C'ontractor's name, address, and tele hone i~un~ber p ii. Project location andlor street address ... aii. Anticipated start aid completion dates of the ro •ect pJ iv, A list of materials expected to be Uei~erated e.. Ulas t g , ~ s, wood, metal, drywall, concrete, backs}, the tonnage or vol un~e of each material how the axe y to be reused, disposed or recycled, and the destinatiol~lprocessor for that reu se, disposal or recycling. Tl~e Environmental Services Division will review tl~is draft lan • p ,and any changes or i econ~mendations shall be ii~coiporated into tl~e site laps for the ro•ect p p J At the end of tl~e demolitiol~, rei~lodeling or construction ro'ect tl p J , ~e contractor shall submit a report to the Ei1~~iranmental Services Division on ~cttial ton Q napes disposed ar recycled for each material, and t11e act~~al destinatio~~l rocessor. P b. Coi~strtictioi~ activities sl~all be limited. to #11e l~oui•s of 7• .DO a.i~~. and ?.~~ p.m. Monday through Friday. Noise-generari~~g co~zsti•~ictio~i activities shall be limited to the hours of 8;00 a.m. and 5:00 p.in. exce t tl~at within the n~ai ' p 11 mall, const~.ictiail may commence at 7:00 am with City Engineer approval. V~1ork on Saturda s s y llal~ recl~rire special approval of tine city engineer. No construction activit sha y 11 be permitted on St~i~days ar State a~~d Federal halida s. tiVork re t~iri ~ ' y ~ n~ Ii~Specti0n after ti . 3:30 p.m. weekdays will reclt~ire cit colistr 112. Sal Y uct~on tnspectiotl fee at time and a half ~~ - ~ d fee will be ~n accorda~~ce wit ~ !1 the latest pubIlc works fee ove~•ti~n schedule. '~oi•k doze o17 Saturda s r ' ~ e Y o~Ii~l; t~~g ~Ilspection ~s prohibited ti~lless approved by tl~e city engineer and an its ecto ' Satttrda work w' p r ~s ava~I,able. ~r~spectlon fees for Y X11 be at tiix~e and a half ~I-II? with a fo •- ' ~ tai hour n~~ll~mt~m. c• All coi~strtlctian vehicles shall adhere to ' Ci cy of Ala~~~eda truck routes. d. Storage ofconstructio~a materi~ll an d eq~~~pl~~ei7t o~~ city streets ~vi11 not be e . p rn~~tted. e. The contractor shall provide all li Ul~ts s ~ . safe ~ ~ ~g~~s, val i~cades, flagizlen, or other traff c ty devices necessary to provide ttblic safet ' rovlde a p Y ~n accordance. The contractor shall p traff c control plan to the a roval of tl~e . sl~a~l-allow ' , pp C1ty eng_~neer, The_ cant~_actor a rr~;t1zmum of 5 working days-hoc review. f. Temporary no parkYn on Cit st g y Beets fog const~•tict~o~~ will re tyre ostin Parking Signs" 48 hours in adva .~ ~ q p g of No nee. Sens ale available at t11e Buildin Se ' off ce, Room 190, City Hall. A fee w' .:. ~ g rvrces ~Il be ch~.1 ged for t17e signs. pnI Cit Alameda rsst~ed no parkltla siUns will Y y of .. ~ ~ be allo~vcd. The contractor shall allow n~znln~um f ve wo~•k~ng days for review. a g• Construction equipment shall be ro erl . P p y 1~1uffled. U~u~ecessary idlzn of aradin construction equipment is prohibited. g ~ ~ h. Statiaraary noise-generatin cons r . g t uctfoll equrpn~ent such as col~~pressors shall be located as fay- as pt'actical from occu ied re ' p sldent~al housing utlrts. . i~ Contractor shall be res onsible p fo~• a-esponding to any local com lail~t construction nose. p s about j. Construction equipme~lt, tools etc. shall not be cleaned or rinsed into a street t sto~n1 dram or stream. Shovel or vacuulr~ s - ' g ~ttez, aw cut slurry a~1d ~•e~nove from site. l~. A co~~tained and covered area on- ' site shall be used for storage of cement ba s ai flan~n~abies, ozls, fert~Ilzers, esticides or t ~ g ~ P nts, bei p ~ ~~~Y other materrais that have potential for ngdischarged to the storm drains stem b wind ' Y y or ~n the eve~at of a ~~zaterral s ill. p l~ All construction debris slaall be a - ~ thered o» a regular bass and laced in a du whrch ~s e~npt~ed or removed w P mpster eekly. UVI~el~ fe~lsible, tarps shall ve t~sed ground to collect fallen debris or o~7 the splt~tters that could contribute to stormwate polltttlon. Any tellaporaty on-site constructs r or1 piles shall be securely covered with a tarp or other device to cailtail~ debris. 12 m. Concretelgunite tr~IClcs znd col~c~-etelpltlster ~II~IS11II7U o er~ltions p shall not dlscha~ge wash water into the street gutters or drt~il~s. n. Trash and debris shall be clcalaed iIp daily on all ilblic streets in tl p ~e pi o~ ect vI ci2~~ty and clang laattl routes. Sweep as needed acid as directed b the Ins y Public Works pecto~. 17. HAZARDQUS MATERIALS. Prior to denaolitiola and cox~str uctlola related act~vlt~es for the Chevron Station and tlae existi~ag SafeWa site or aIa otlae y ~ y ~ saes on local mate~-~ als governmental lists, hazardous material assesstllelat studies Ia~ust be erfo soils rofe p rnaed by qualified p ss~onals, ~1a order to determine the extent of al~y site colata~nination. Qnce these studies Dave been colaapleted and have received Cit B~IildinU Official y ~ appraval, the applicant and the contractor shall comply with the Phase Il recomnaendatio~as U~ of a soils en~Xnee~ tng _ _ ._ _ _. _- _ repo - : - _ - _ _ 1 S. PERMITTED USES. The pex~nitted uses witlai~l the PD shall . be those pernl~tted uses afthe C-~ and C-C zoning districts; the conditional uses ~v1tl~Iin the PD sha 11 be rice cond.lt~onal uses of the C-~ and C-C zoning districts, exce t as herein fi~rtlaer limite p d. ~ 9. HQURS QF QPERATIQN. Tlae Center shall Iaot be o en p to the public raor shall truck loading be conducted, before 7:00 a.na. or after 10:00 .na. exce Pl p pt that Use Penn~ts ar armed Development Arnendnaents may request additional haw's for s e ' p cif ed uses. The truck loading areas far the trva supermarkets shall be an tlae nox•tla sides o f the markets only, 20. ARCHITECTURE. PI.-ior to issuance of buiIdin~ ern~its the a . ~ P ppIlcant shall submit for Final Desig~a Review and planning and B~lilding Director review clad a r v pp o al, architectural deta~ is and final colors and materials for the buildinUs, i~acludinv but not 1' ' ~mlted to all trim and cornice elements, canopies, trellises, vine Iantin~ rills and th P ~ ~ e trash and recycling enclosures. Minor alterations to plans of Exhibit "A" Iaaa be a rove ~ pp d by the Planning and Buzlding Director. Sigaaif cant alteratians naa re wire I-eview b y q y the Planning Board, as determined by the Planning clad Building Director. The applicant shall colafoxm to the Public Art QI-dina~ace and sha lI include public art approved by the Rec~•eation and Parks process iIa each base. That z'oc p p ess may, in Its discretion, find decorative mall pavilaQ, fou~atailas and other iI U parades to ex~st~ng mall surfaces created by artists to dualify as a portion of ublic aI-t. P 21. PHASIlVG. The project naay continue calastrGlctian until Jala ~~ary 28, 2x05, for approx~laaately one and one half years from approval. The ap Iicalat n~a develo looses a P y p p s approved by the Planning and Building Director, except that no siia le- err base sla 7 g y p all exceed l5 acres, nor .00,004 square feet of rebuilt building aI-ea, nor X00 arkin s aces. p g p Tlae ~eq~rjred pro~rata share ofpark~ng, la~adscapi~ag, pedestriaza and bac cle trails shall be inst Y ailed with the phase being rebuilt. l3 22. MAXIlI~UM STCRE SIZE. The i•a~ect i - . fl P ~ ~~~iy ii~cliicle one store of up to 9o,0DQ square feet in oor ar ea and two stores each of tip to GD,DDO s uai•e feet. -~ Planned Dev q Ar~Y lamer store shall i-equire a elopinent Anlendi~~elat. The applicant ex ressl s intent to install a sir ~ P y Cates that tl~ere is na present p rsized department store larger than 9D,DOD s care location. AlI stores se ~ ~] feet iii area at tl~is lected sl~all relate prril~arrly to the i~eeds of inclildr11 food cloth a ~ tlae Alameda market, g ~ ins, books and n3usic, l~ousehold~items, entertailu goods, lYOn~e fui~lrshin s and i-ei ' a ~ Went items, sportii~g g ~~odelin~, jewelry, ser~~ices such as o tomet preparation; and shall exclude stores w ' ~ p ~' and tax hich piiil~arily sell alitoinobiles, IarUe aiito recreational vehicles, bulk raw n~atei•lals sucl~ as 1 i ~ parts, ~ i7~ber, ~l~~d similar bulky and occasionall purchased items. Additions oi• n~adi~cations of le -~ y ss tl~an .~ /~ five percents iii overall Center area maybe approved by administrative Desi~i7 Review, - -. 23. PLANNING ADD BUILDNC DEP - - - - - - - - - - . - - ARTNiENT INSPECTIpN. At least 4 da s approval of occupancy, the applicant shall notif ~' prior to y the Planning and Building Department to inspect the building and site to assure coin Trance with the P se conditions. 24, SGUTHEAST CGRNER ~F SITE This . phase is denied without prejudice for the current application. Prior to issuance of btiildinu ern~its for t . ~ p lie phase Including the present cal-wash site, aa~d Building 18D0 together, or for BtlildinU 1 ODO and subsequent phases, whichever is earlier, the applicant shall subi~~it to tlae Plai~i~i v il~ Board for Planned Developrr~ent Amendment and Major Design Review a Ian fors' . drives l ~ p rte 111]pr ovenlei~ts and elevations, plazas, andscaping which provides a water orientation fo r this 2 acre portiola of the site, with pedestrian scale and access, n~iniinizin v ' . g ehict~lai- traffic which may conflict with pedestrian use and unif ed design theme. 25. MITIGATION MGNITaRING. Prior to assuance of building permits and Burin construction, the applicant shall ass~rre iizl Iernentation of g P the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, incorporated herein by reference. 26. ACKNQwLEDGMENT QF CQNDITI CNS. The <<pplicant sl~all ackilowled e iii writin of the conditions of approval and must a c ~ g gall c ept thispermit subject to those conditions and with full awareness of the applicable provisions o.f Cho • ptei 30 ofthe AlamedaMunicipal Code in order for this Planned Developi~lent Amendment t a be exercised. 27. HaLD HARMLESS. Pursuant to Califoil~i a Covet~~ment Code Section GG474,9~b the Ci of Alameda re wires as a c ' ' ~' ~' q ondition of this Plaiuied Development Anaendmen Review a royal that the a t and Design Pp pplicant, or its siiccessor-s lit interest, defend indem harmless the Cit of Alai v ~ i~ify, and hold Y a~eda or its agents, off icers, and ei~~plo ees fi-oi~i air c ' Y y laiin, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, off cers, and em 1 p oyees to attack, set aside, void, oi• ai~.nul, ail approval of the City concei-nii~U the s~~b'ect r within the ti ~ ~ ~ J p opei-ty, which actioi~ is broilght ine period provided foe- rn Govei-l~meilt Code Section GG49 Alameda shall i•o 9.37. The City of p mptly notify the developer of any cl~tin~, action or roc p eedingand theCity 14 shall cooperate fully in the defense, If the Cit ~ai1s to r . y p on~ptlynotifythe developerof a~~y claim, action, or proceeding, or ~f tl~e Cit f~~ils to coo - d Y pe~ate frilly in tl~e defense, the eveloper shall not hereafter be responsible to defe~~d l~~demr ' ~~fy, or hold harmless the City. The decision of the Plannin Boas-d . g shall be final unless appealed to the Cat Cou~~cil xl~ wrlt~ng and any such appeal m~tst be l~~ade w' y ~ ' ~tl~in ten (I o}days of the decas~on or decision on an appeal by co~~apleting and submitting an a eaI form and a i~ ~ y Pp p y ~g the required fee. NATICE. No ~udicial proceedings sub'ect to review u - Proced ~ p isuant to California Code of Cxv~l ure Section I o94.5 naay be prosecuted ~Zao1-e than ninet 90 elect Y ( }days following tl~e date of this slon plus extensions authorized by Califo2-nia Code of Civil P~-oc ed~~re Section l 094.6. NATICE. The conditions of project ap royal set forth herein ' P include certain fees and other _ exactions.- Pursuant-to Government Cocfie section GGO?~o d 1. - - -- - - - -- - ~ .} ~ }, these Conditions const~~,~te w~~tten nonce of a statement of the amount of s~~ch fees, and a descri Lion . p of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is hereby further notif eel that tl le 90 day appeal period zn which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactio~~s urst~ant p to Government Code Section 6CO20 ~a}has begun. Zf the applicant fails to file a protest within tI ' l l~s 90 day period complying with all the requirements of Section GGO20, the applicant will be le al] barred from 1 g Y aterchallengl~~g such fees or exactions. PASSED AND ADAPTED this 28th da of .1i~1 2003 b th of AIam ~ y y~ y e Planning Board of the City eda by the following vote: AYES: ~G} Piziali, Cook, Cunnin hang Bard Gilm ' g ~ ore, Rossi NOES: (p) ABSENT: (1) Lynch ATTEST: ~ Fuz, Secret. ~ Pla~v1l11g Board I5 • ~ ~ ~ i , r '~ ~ i Acknowledgment of Cond~'ons: ~ hereby acknowledge receipt of Plannin Board Resolution _ ~ , g No. PB-03 44 far, the Planning Board s approval of PDA42-OQ031DR02-4495, approved on July 28, X043, and in accord ' ' herein, I hereby v that I understand ante with Conditions ~' and agree to comply with the Conditions of A Planning Board Resolution Na. PB-43-44 and pproval of said the applicable provisions of hapter 30 of the eda Municipal Code Zoning ordinance}, Executed at: ~ By: 4 __ -. - PPlicant - - - 4n: ~ A ~. ~~ 6 ~ ~d . `~Q. Date Title APPLICANT MUST FILL BUT AND RETURN TO THE PL ANNING DEPARTMENT. ~:~r~ANNrNC~B~o~z~o3~ssouau~y.ao~ ~b CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION N0. UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW PLN08-0090, ALLOU111NG THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING 1000, LOCATED IN THE ALAMEDA TOIIVNE CENTRE, AT 2230 SOUTH SHORE CENTER ~ ~ 1 WHEREAS, an application was made on February 26, 2008, by Harsch ~ ~ Investment Realty requesting Major Desi n Review a roval to allow the ® 9 pp ~ ~ ~~ v renovation of Building 1000 located in the Alameda Towne Centre; and ~ ~ ~ ~ WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on June 10, ~ 2008; and ~. ~ WHEREAS the subject ro ert is desi na ' j p p y g ted as Community Commercial on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C-2-PD, Central Business Planned Development District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to AMC Section 30-31.5, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on July 14, 2008 and after examining all pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony made the required findings relevant to the application and then approved the Major Design Review application; and WHEREAS, an appeal of the July 14, 2008, Planning Board approval was submitted to the City on July 23, 2008; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this appeal an September 2, 2008 and examined pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony and then determined that the project was not subject to a Planned DevelopmentAmendmentapprnval; and WHEREAS, the City Council made the following finding relevant to the Major Design Review application: ~. The project is compatible with the site, neighboring buildings and surroundings and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. The project consists of renovation of an existing building located in an existing shopping center. There will not be a substantial 'rncrease in building floor area. The proposed architecture is consistent with the design and scale of adjacent buildings and incorporates the same Resolution #5-B 09-16-OS elements of the recently renovated buildings throughout Alameda Towne Centre. Plans include enhanced landscaping and pedestrian amenities which are well integrated with existing and proposed shopping center plans. NGIII~, THEREFORE, BE !T RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby determines that the project consists of minor alterations to an existing retail building in an existing shopping center. It will not result in substantial changes in floor area, building height, lighting or vehicular traffic circulation. CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 ~e}~2} exempts minor alterations to existing buildings consisting of additions of less than 10,000 square feet from environmental review. In 2003, the City adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration that evaluated the effects of replacing the existing building with a 90,000 square foot building on this site. All required mitigation measures have been implemented. Additionally, on August 11, 2008, the Planning Board Certified the Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report that evaluated an additional expansion of shopping center floor area and included an evaluation of replacing the existing building with a 145,000 square foot Target Store. The current proposal further reduces the po#ential for significant impacts. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby approves Major Design Review PLN08-0090 subject to the following conditions: 1, PERMIT EXPIRATION, This approval is valid for one year, Construction shall commence undervalid permits prior to September 16, 2009. The applicant may apply for an extension of up to one year prior to the expiration date. 2. Planning Division staff inspection is required prior to the final Building Inspection andlor prior to the issuance of Certificate of Gccupancy. The applicant shall notify the Planning and Building Department at least four working days prior to the requested Planning Division inspection dates. 3. All signs shall be subject to separate sign permit approval, unless exempted by the AMC or the approved Alameda Towne Centre Sign Program. 4. The applicant shall include additional landscaping along the western edge of the site and l or on the west facing facade of the building to provide a pleasant view for neighbors located on the adjacent parcel to the west. A Landscaping Plan shall be submitted with the Building Permit application and shall be subject to approval by the Planning and Building Director. 5. HELD HARMLESS. The applicant, or its successors in interest, shall defend with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City}, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of 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 or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, any approval or related decision to this 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 notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in such defense. The City may elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. NGTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section ~ D94.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety ~9D} days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section'! 094.6 NGTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66024 ~d} ~1 }, these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The applicant is hereby fur#her notified that the 9D-day appeal period, in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 ~a} has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. *~*~*~ 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 16th day of September, 2008, bythe following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN UVITNESS, UVHERE~F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this 11~~ day of September, 2008, Lara 1Neisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY 4F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: September 16, 2008 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Conditional Approval of a Major Design Review for an Addition and a Remodel that Includes Raising the Single-Family Structure and Constructing a Detached Two-Story Dwelling Unit at 3327 Fernside Boulevard, within the R-2, Two-Famil Residential Zonin District BACKGRQUND Cn June 23, 2008, the Planning Board conditionally approved the Major Design Review application for an addition and a remodel that includes raising the single-family structure and constructing a detached two-story dwelling unit at 3327 Fernside Boulevard. In taking this action, the Planning Board deleted the following two conditions that were recommended by staff and intended to bring the project into compliance with the City of Alameda Guide to Residential Design: 1. The project shall be revised with a gable roof over the rear addition that utilizes lowered plate heights and eave lines, cross-gables, and dormers so that the new roof would match the scale and pitch of the original roof. 2. The structure shall not be raised in height. However, the Planning Board directed the applicant to amend the scope of the project so that no portion of the structure exceeded the maximum permissible height of 30 feet, as required by R-2 Zoning District regulations. The minutes from the meeting and the Planning Board's adopted resolution are included as attachments. The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society ~AAPS}filed an appeal of the Planning Board's action on July 3, 2008. The appeal contends that the conditional approval is not consistent with the City of Alameda Guide to Residential Design Attachment 3}. Gn July 24, AAPS submitted a Supplement to Petition far Appeal, which expanded and clarified the basis for their appeal. Uvithin this supplement, RAPS also provided alternative design solutions. The appeal and the supplement are on file in the City Clerk's office. City council Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-C 49.16-48 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council DISCUSSION September 16, 2008 Page 2 of 5 The AAPS provided three reasons for the appeal in its Supplement to Petition for Appeal. The issues presented in the appeal coincide with the Planning staff s recommendations. Staffs response is provided under each of the following issues raised by the RAPS in its appeal: 1. The plans approved by the Planning Board are internally inconsistent, inconsistent with the project described in the June 23, 2048 Planning Board staff report which is on file in the City Clerk's office} and should have been considered incomplete. Planning staff initially no#ed internal inconsistencies with the plans and requested tha# the plans be revised and resubmi##ed. However, the applicant requested #hat the plans be submitted to the Planning Board without a complete revision in order to facili#a#e the review process and get general direr#ion from the Planning Board. (The plans submitted by the applicant are included as A##achment 4.~ Planning staff's recommends#ion of conditional approval would have required substantial alterations #o the plans, which would be reflected when the construc#ion plans are submitted for review. the Planning Board's dele#ion of the staffs two recommended condi#ions makes #f?e need for substantial plan revisions moo#. Planning staff will require that the remaining internal inconsistencies be corrected, in accordance wi#l~ the substitute condi#ion adopted by the Planning Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. The project does not conform with the City's Guide to Residential Design. The Guide #o Residential Design does not bar or discourage increases in building heights except where the increase in freight would make the building out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. the Planning Board found that the proposed increase in building height was relytively minor, so long as the structure was limited to 30 feet in Neigh#, and was not out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. Raising the building at the basement could also create a building that is out of character with Craftsman proportions. However, the Planning Board found that the proposed building modifica#ions were in character with a Craftsman style building. the new addition at the back of the building would incorporate a very shallow pitched hip-gambrel roof with very high top pia#es that is out of character with the Craftsman roof configuration. However, the Planning Board found that the applicant's proposed roof design would not cause the building to be out of character with a Craftsman design because the roof modifica#ions would not be generally visible from the shree#. The Planning Board's approval was based on findings consistent with Municipal Code standards and with design guidelines, as follows: a. Section 30-37.5 of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) requires that projects must be compatible with their site, any adjacent or neighborr'ng buildings or surroundings and promote harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. Projects which do not meet Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 16, 2008 Page 3 of 5 the requirements of fhis paragraph shall be presumed defrimenfal fo eifher exisfing properly values or fhe growfh of properly values in fhe vicinify of fhe projecf. b. Second Parameter, page 6 of Guide fo Residenfial Design - "fhe massin and . g sfyle of the exisfing building will esfabl~sh fhe paramefers of appropriafe design for an individual addifion or remodel. The massing, sfyle, fenesfrafion and design elemenfs of fhe addifion or remodel should appear as infegral elemenfs of fhe exisfing building. Addifions should always appear as fhou h .. .9 fhey were pail of the or~glnal consfrucfion. Design elemenfs should eifher mafch and/or echo fhose of fhe exlsfing building or, if appropriafe, fhe enfire sfrucfure should be remodeled concurrenfly wifh fhe addition fo creafe a cohesive and infegrafed appearance. " c. Third Paramefer, page 7 of Guide fo Residenfial Design - "Valued on final . .g arch~fecfural character !s ma~nfained by fhe preservaf~on and resforaflon of fhe original fabric. All buildings should be recognized far Their own lime and sfyle. Rehabilifafion should not fry fo creafe a preconceived concepf of hisfory, buf should reuse fhe exisfing or appropriafe feafures. " d. Specific criferia for adding second sfories fo Nisforic Buildings, page ~ 6 of Guide fo Residenfial Design - "The new addifion should be so well infegrafed info fhe exisfing design. fo appear fo be part of fhe original design. The new building mass musf not "loom" over fhe sfreef or neighboring yards. This can offer be achieved by building sefbacks and by "sfepping back" fhe new second sfary. This is particularly free for Craffsman and confemporary buildings." e. Opfions available for adding a second sfory fo a bungalow-sfyle buildin , g page t 9 and Techniques fhaf should not be used, page 2 t of Guide fo Residenfial Design, bofh poinf ouf examples of preferred alferafions fo Craffsman sfrucfures ~Affachmenf 3). 3. The Planning Board approval did not make clear what the front of the modified structure would look like. The Planning Board's acfion limifed fhe heighf of fhe building fo 30 ; which means fhaf fhe final plans would show fhaf fhe building is not raised fo a heighf where fhe exisfing roof ridge exceeds 30' in heighf above grade. This requires fhe applicanf fo provide revised plans fhaf reflecf this decision, and sfaff would need fo confirm fhe plans are consisfenf wifh Planning Board approval. Staff s goal for the project reviewed by the Planning Board was to recommend a royal pp with conditions that would insure the project was in keeping with the City of Alameda Guide to Residential Design and minimize the need to alter the roof rid a that faces the . g street. Further review of the project indicates this can be achieved by allowin the g building to be raised one foot. Staff suggests as an option for the City Council, a royal .. pp of the design change application subject to the following conditions, which a roves in . , , pp part and overturns ~n part the decision by the Planning Board: 1. The project shall be revised with a gable roof over the rear addition that utilizes Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council September 16, 2048 Page 4 of 5 lowered plate heights and eave lines, cross-gables, and dormers so that the new roof would match the scale and pitch of the original roof. 2. The structure shall be raised no more than one foot in height. Although these conditions are different than those originally suggested by staff, they allow a project with increased ceiling heights at the garage level while keeping the alterations architecturally compatible with the existing home and in scale with buildings in the neighborhood. Public Notification: This item was adver#ised in the September 5, 2005 Alameda Journal. Notices were sent an August 26, 2008, to residents and property owners within a 300-foot radius of the site and to interested parties, and the site was posted on August 27, 2005. BUDGET CONSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT No additional funding is necessary for planning activities related to this project. MUNICIPAL CGDEIPOLICY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE • Alameda Municipal Code, Subsection 30-4.2~d}, Section 34-31.5~Requirements}, and Section 30-38.5~Design Review Manual}. • City of Alameda, Guide to Residential Design Attachment 3}. - Second Parameter, page 6 - Third Parameter, page l - Specific criteria for adding second stories to Historic Buildings, page 16 - Gptions available for adding a second story to a bungalow-style building, page 19 - Techniques that should not be used, page 21 ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIEW The project is Categorically Exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 ~e}~2} Existing Facilities -- addition of less than 10,000 square feet to an existing structure and, as conditioned, Section 15331 for projects consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic properties. RECOMMENDATIGN Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Conditional Approval of a Major Design Review for an Addition and a Remodel that Includes Raisin g the Single-Family Structure and Constructing a Detached Two-Story Dwelling Unit at 3321 Fernside Boulevard, within the R-2, Two-Family Residential Zoning District Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Respectfully submitted, ~d'd Cathy V~dbury Planning & Building Director . Jon Biggs Planning Manager September 16, 2008 Page 5 of 5 Dennis Brighton Planner III Attachments: 1. Planning Board Minutes, June 23, 2008 2. Planning Board Resolution No.P6-08-14 3. City of Alameda Guide to Residential Design, Adopted March 15, 2005, pp 6-l, pp 16-22 4. Plans submitted by applicant at the June 23, 2008 Planning Board Meeting 5. Public Comments Q Board member Cunningham to move to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve the complete demolition of the existing 2,3b6 square foot restaurant and a Design Review for the construction of an approximately 2,01 G square foot new restaurant. The restaurant will contain a drive-through, which requires a Use Permit pursuant to AMC 30-4.9A.c. l fir} A parking exception is required for this project, because the eight parking spaces provided for this project are less than the required 20 parking spaces pursuant to AMC 30-4.~A.g.B. The following modifications will be included: 1. Wood windows and a door to match; 2, The use permit may be revoked if the conditions have not been complied with; 3. The trash will be picked up daily; and 4. Traffic monitoring will occur during the school year. Board member Autorino seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 4. Noes: 1 ~Ezzy Ashcraft} Absent: 2 Lynch, McNamara}; Abstain: 0. The motion passed. . President Cook invited comment on signage, and agreed with Mr. Buckley's comment that the old-fashioned pole signs were inappropriate. She requested staff s comments on the signage. Ms. Wolter replied that the overall square footage as presented in the design review was currently too large, and that the wall signs would be reduced. In addition, the directional signs may be approved by the Planning & Building Director. She noted that the pole sign would not be approved as it stood, and that concern maybe alleviated. In response to an inquiry by President Cook regarding the presence of "The Colonel" on the sign, Ms. Gutke replied that was always a part of the company's identity. President Cook noted that the improvements were very much appreciated. 9-B. PLNO$-0153 -General Plan Amendment - 2400 Mariner Square Drive. The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment for the MU2 Mariner Square Specific Mixed Use Area to permit additional office use. The site is located at 2400 Mariner Square Drive within M-2-PD General Industrial (Manufacturing} Planned Development Zoning District. Code Enforcement}. The applicant has requested this item be continued to the regularly scheduled Planning Board meeting of August I1, 200$.} This item was continued to the Planning Board meeting of August 11, 2008. 9-C. DR07-0056 -Major Design Review - 3327 Fernside Blvd. The applicant is requesting a Major Design Review approval, which addresses: 1}Raising the residential structure to create a third story and providing an addition at the rear of the residence; 2} Reconfiguring the front staircase and front porch and expanding the garage door; 3} Constructing a detached two-story structure in the rear yard that would serve as an Page 6 of 23 City Council Attachment 'I to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-C 09-15.08 additional dwelling unit. The site is located within an R-2 Two-family Residential Zoning District}. DDB} Mr. Brighton presented the staffreport. Staff recommended approval of this item The public hearing was opened. Ms. Joanne Chandler noted that she owned the property north of and adjacent to the applicants' property, and spoke in support of this project. She had no objection to the applicants' plans to improve their home, and had been assured that the work would not be too disruptive. She noted that the applicants' had elderly parents whom they would like to bring into the home. She could see nothing detrimental about this project. Ms. Tracy Cote believed such additions compromised the integrity of the neighborhood aesthetic, and believed that too few of the additions, which she considered to be poorly thought- through, were noticed or debated. She believed the proposed changes would negatively impact the historic facade. She was concerned about the double-wide garage, which was not typical for this neighborhood. She expressed concern that the addition would not fit in with the area, and would degrade the surrounding historic residences. She requested that the applicants be directed to redesign an addition that would suit their needs, but would not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Donna Talbot, applicant, noted that pursuant to the last Planning Board meeting, all of the criteria for the approval had been met. She noted that they no longer needed any variances, were in compliance with all Alameda Municipal Codes, resolved the height problem with the house, and had incorporated the Planning Board's recommendations. She believed the photographs were biased, and noted that they preferred to follow the Board's recommendations and move forward rather than start the project again. She noted that the public hearing had been closed at the last meeting. She noted that the new elevations incorporated the suggestions from the January 28, 2008, meeting, as well as suggestions made by Planning Services Manager Jon Biggs. She noted that the front elevation on page 1 eliminated the massive stucco at the front and opened up the porch. She believed staff s suggestion of adding an open porch was excellent, and that it improved the look of the project. Ms. Talbot noted that the driveway did not cut down, did not look out of place with the rest of the neighborhood, and the front yard had a nice flow to it. She noted that the two-car garage had a single-car entrance off the street, which was similar to many properties off Fernside Blvd. She believed the driveway was ariractively incorporated into the design. They redesignated the boathouse as a second dwelling unit, and that they no longer needed any variances. She noted that at the last Planning Board meeting, they discussed the height of the structure, and noted that page 4 explained the changes in the height from the existing to the proposed height. She noted that they reduced the height from 31'9" to 30' to meet the AMC requirement. She noted that the redesigned the front roof to a gabled style in order to reduce the roof height by the nine inches. However, design review staff did not like that concept and upon further reflection, neither did she and the co-applicant. They agreed to maintain the gable-style roof at the front of the house during the March 5 meeting with Jon Biggs and Dennis Brighton. Mr. Biggs had suggested that Page 7 of 23 since the nine-inch roof ridge was not a living space or attic, that it could be considered an architectural element, and extend beyond the 30-foot maximum. She and her husband agreed with that suggestion, and stated that they would incorporate that design into the design of the praject. They displayed the new roof angle on the overhead screen. Ms. Talbot noted that Board member Cunningham stated at the last Planning Board meeting that they were well within their rights to raise the height of the structure to 30 feet. They believed that based on Mr. Biggs' suggestion, that the height and design issue of the front roof was resolved. With respect to Mr. Brighton's comments relating to the new roof at the rear of the structure, she noted that was the first time that Mr. Brighton had voiced that recommendation, and they did not believe this was an appropriate time to bring new suggestions to the table. She noted that none of the neighbors she or the co-applicant had spoken to voiced any concern about the project. She noted that the only opponents to the project that she was aware of were the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, Mr. Brighton and Ms. Cott. She believed the proposed project met the objective and the intent of Chapter 13s and 30 of the Alameda Municipal Code, and represented a reasonable balance between their development objectives as the owner of the property, including handicapped accessibility and the community's desire to preserve its architectural quality and historic identity. Mr. Christopher Buckley displayed several slides on the overhead screen, and noted that a letter the A.APS had addressed to the Historical Advisory Board was included in the packet. They had not seen the revised design, and expressed appreciation to the applicant for their efforts to reduce the building heights and improve the front elevation. RAPS agreed with staff that the building should not be lifted at all, and that the building was already significantly higher than other buildings in the neighborhood. They believed that lifting the building further would distort its proportions, and did not see why it needed to be lifted because there was an extra two feet of headroom in the garage. AA.PS agreed with staff that excavating would be the preferred approach. The appearance was boxy and not consistent with the Craftsman style. They believed if the eave were to be reduced and cross gables or dormers were introduced to handle the upstairs windows, as was done on the front elevation, the building would have a much more integrated Craftsman design. He noted that the six-foot addition consisting of the porch over the garage brake the setback line and introduced a significant new building mass which projected into the street. He noted that the double-wide garage became a dominating element, although it was broken up by the Craftsman doors. Ms. Nancy Hurd noted that she lived two blocks away from this house, and believed that his house was bigger than other houses on the street. She favored the excavation to reduce the amount of height, but questioned the changes that would take it away from the Craftsman style. She did not believe the house looked symmetrical in the drawings, and would like to see the original design of the house retained as much as possible, and not raising it any further. Mr. Seth Hamalian noted that he lived two doors down from the applicants' home, and had often heard comments from people that the homes in this neighborhood had character. He liked the uniqueness of the homes in Fernside, and noted that one style did not dominate the neighborhood. He strongly favored allowing the applicants to go forward with their proposed design, and believed the message being sent by this process should be considered. He did not Page S of 23 believe this process should be so arduous for the applicants, and that their home should not be placed under a magnifying glass. He urged approval of this item. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she had taken issue with the height, the facade and the fact that the variance was being sought when this item was first heard, She believed the revisions addressed those issues. She noted that Mr. Buckley's letter mentioned the Golden Mean, and was concerned that it was not discussed in the staff report. Mr. Brighton noted that the Golden Mean issue was a general issue discussed with respect to historic homes, generally Victorians and revival homes. He noted that Craftsman homes received special treatment in the design guidelines. rn this case, Craftsman had certain proportionality, including a lower proportional base which meant they stayed low and wide. He noted that staff was critical of popping up Victorians and creating front staircases that were inconsistent with the scale of the structure, as well as the architectural integrity of the structure. Staff believed it was critical to maintain the integrity of the Craftsman structure. Board member Ezzy Ashcroft noted that this kind of discussion made a better community, and that it returned to the drawing board by mutual agreement of the applicant and staff. She requested that Mr. Brighton explain the difference between a bungalow and a Craftsman home, which he did. She was concerned about the relocation of the stairway, and noted that most of the homes in the neighborhood did not have center porches and center walkways. She liked the porch treatment, and believed the double-wide garage doors were in proportion to the rest of the house. She was concerned with an item brought up by the RAPS, and did not want to see a home tower over its neighbors. She believed the 30-foot height limit was fine, and inquired about the 9-inch architectural element. She did not believe the roof in the front added enough detail, and liked the back of the house. She agreed with Mr. Buckley's comment that the sides of the house that they would be made to look more authentic in the Craftsman style with bay windows. However, the only people who would see the side of the house would be the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Cunningham believed that a lot of progress had been made since the last hearing, and that the appearance of the front of the house looked much better. He believed the excavation would be a detriment, and would like to maintain the 30-foot height limit. He believed the appearance would be improved if some relief were to be added to the roof. He would like to see improvements to the side of the house visible from the street, rather than encumbering the applicant with architectural gyrations on the back of the house. He believed the design looked much better than it had before. In response to an inquiry by Board member Autorino regarding the details of the excavation the applicant, displayed and described the method by which the excavation would be accomplished. He noted that they planned a very expensive installation of an elevator so their parents would have access to the entire house. In response to an inquiry by President Cook why the extra nine inches would be necessary, and why the ceiling height could not be S' 6", the applicant replied that he would not be certain the Page 9 of 23 handicapped vans in the garage. He noted that he could research that issue and added that it was difficult to get his pickup truck in the garage at this time. Ms. Talbot added that there were substantial support beams in the garage, so the effective ceiling would be lower. President Cook noted that there was a slippery slope, and that the current height limit was 30 feet. She noted that it was difficult to treat one case differently. Ms. Talbat noted that was the reason that Mr. Biggs came up with the architectural element, so they would be in compliance with the Alameda Municipal Cade, and sa that a variance would not be needed. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that no variance was involved in this case, and that the staff interpretation was that it did meet the height requirement. Mr. Brighton stated that the staff interpretation was that it would meet the height requirements if the house was not raised. However, if the Board decided to change the condition to raise the house, then the proposal of using the architectural element was acceptable to staff. Ms. Talbot described the orientation of the house towards the water, and that no one looked at it from behind. She added that it was not strictly a Craftsman style house in the back, and that an addition in the back was constructed in 2000. President Cook noted that the structure behind the house was very nice. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she did not see the discussion with Mr. Biggs reflected in the staff report. Ms. Talbot noted that she was surprised by that issue, and stated that they left the meeting with the design review staff, believing that the issues had been resolved. She believed that their appearance before the Planning Board was more of a courtesy to tell them how they had incorporated the Board's suggestions. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if nine inches was all that kept the Board from be able to find in the applicants' favor, and whether there was any way to shave nine inches off. Ms. Talbot replied that they came forward with the proposal for the gable roof, which they did not particularly like, in an attempt to shave nine inches off the roof. She had not realized how difficult that would be, and added that the height of the garage was very important to them. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she understood what the applicants intended to do with the garage. She also felt strongly about the 30-foot height limit, and added that the Planning Board Was not aware of the nine-inch architectural detail. Board member Cunningham noted that they would be able to have up to a 5% slope for handicapped access, and that a berm at the street would keep the water out. Page 10 of 23 Ms. Talbot believed that Condition 1 addressed the back roof, which was a new roof that was not part of the old Craftsman house. Board member Cunningham believed that was open to opinion, but that the 30-foot line was clear from the Planning Board's point of view. He shared President Cook's concern that if this hei ht g extension were to be allowed, then other residents would ask for the same allowance or greater. The applicant inquired whether the project would be able to move forward if the nine-inch architectural feature were to be removed. Board member Cunningham believed that would be the case if the roof ridge were to go down nine inches. Zn response to an inquiry by Vice President Kohlstrand whether the pitch of the roof would need to be changed in that case, Board member Cunningham replied that would not be the case. Ms. Talbot noted that they were trying to preserve the look of the roof, but if the 30-foot height limit was more important, that would be fine with them. Board member Cunningham noted that the Planning Board must either follow the Alameda Municipal Code, or make finding that there was a unique characteristic about the property that would allow the height to be increased. He noted that the Board could not do that, and must follow the AMC; he added that the Board was not trying to single the applicants out, and intended to find a way to make the project work for them. President Cook noted that the Planning Board had decided that the total height of the house was more important than the number of stories, particularly with respect to having a third story, Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it was clear to her that the applicants were trying to complete this project in a way that would enhance the neighborhood, to have a house that was architecturally representative of the area, and in a way that could accommodate their needs and those of their parents. Board member Ezzy Ashcroft suggested a second condition: "The structure shall not exceed 30 feet in height regardless of the addition of any architectural detail." She believed that condition would allow the applicant to determine how to work within the 34- foot height limit. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt the draft Planning Board Resolution to approve a Major Design Review approval, which addresses: 1 }Raising the residential structure to create a third story and providing an addition at the rear of the residence; 2} Reconfiguring the front staircase and front porch and expanding the garage door; 3} Constructing a detached two-story structure in the rear yard that would serve as an additional dwelling unit. The two special conditions will be removed, replaced by the following modification: Page 11 of 23 1. The structure shall not exceed 30 feet in height regardless of the addition of any architectural detail. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that it would be impossible for her to consider a guideline that she had not read prior to the meeting. She did not wish to be unfair to the applicant, and wished to do the most responsible job possible in making a determination regarding this application. She noted that if the applicant was comfortable with what the Board has come up with, that was fine; otherwise, they could request a continuance. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0 Absent: 2 Lynch, McNamara}; Abstain: 0. The motion passed. President Cook called for a recess. 9-D. PLNO8-01$~ ~- Grand Marina Village Residential Development Master Plan Amendments. Proposed Master Plan Amendment to reduce the number of affordable housing units required on the site from ten to f ve, and allow for five slightly larger lots. Applicant is also seeking a finding that the Island High School site, 2437 Eagle Avenue, is suitable for affordable housing, and the purposes of the Affordable Housing Requirements would be better served by construction of at least nine affordable units at the Island High site rather than f ve affordable units at the Grand Marina site. The Grand Marina site is zoned MX Mixed Used Zoning District}. The Island High site is zoned M- 1 Intermediate Industrial Manufacturing District}, SAT} Mr. Thomas summarized the staff report. An extensive discussion about the details of the staffreport ensued The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Day noted that although he was a member of the Board of Education for the Unified School District, he was speaking on his own behalf rather than that of the District. He could not speak to the merits of below-market-rate housing in the City, but stressed his opinion that this Draft Resolution would be good for the District. He invited any questions related to the School District. Vice President Kohlstrand inquired who initiated moving the affordable units off site. Mr. Day replied that the School District first heard about this issue the previous Friday evening, and asked for more notice from City staff in the future. He noted that the City and District had been discussing affordable housing on the Island High site for many years, and that the site had been vacant. He believed this project would increase their opportunities. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she was in favor of affordable housing at the old Island High School site. She noted that was something that other cities such as Santa Clara and San Jose had done for school district employees. She understood that the site was not currently zoned Page 12 of 23 CITY GFALAMEDA PLANNING BGARD RESGLUTIQN NQ. PB-48-14 A RESOLUTIQN QF THE PLANNING BGARD GF THE CITY GFALAMEDA GRANTING APPRQVAL QF DESIGN REVIEW DR07-0086 FQR THE STRUCTURAL EXPANSION QF ASINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND THE ADDITION CF A DWELLING UNIT AT 3327 FERNSIDE BQULEVARD ~lllHEREAS, on March 11, 2008 the applicant applied for a Major Design Review, DR07- 0056that involves structural alterations and the addition of a second detached dweflin unit g located at 3327 Ferns~de Boulevard; and VIJHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on April 10, 2008; and ~IIIHEREAS, the General Plan designation of the site is Medium Density Residential; and UIJHEREAS, the parcel is Iocatedwithinthe R-2,Two-familyResidentialZonin District.; 9 and WHEREAS, the proposal is Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 ~e}~2} Existing Facilities -- addition of less than 10,000 square feet to an existin .. g structure and, as conditioned, Section 15331 for projects consistent with the Secrets of ry the interior s Standards for the treatment of historic properties; and WHEREAS, the Board is able to make the following findings relevant to the Major J Design Review application: 1. Projects must be compatible with their site, any adjacent or net hborin ~ g buildings or surrounds and promote harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. This findin can be .. ~ 9 made subject to conditions of design review approval. The project would otherwise utilize all materials and architectural elements that would match the original buildin . . g The new detached bu~ld~ng would match the materials of the existing main buildin . g 2. The proposed alterations are compatible with the Secretary of Interior Standards and are compatible with the City of Alameda Guide to Residential Desi n . g. Standards. All proposed alterat~ans would be historically compatible with the historic integrity ofthe structure. The proposed addition would generally include features that are consistent with the existing character of two-story Craftsman residences in Alameda. These features would include window trim and exterior moldin , matchin 9 g stucco and wood siding. The scale of the proposal is compatible with other residential buildings in the neighborhood.and it will not destroy historic ma#erials, features, orthe spatial relationships that characterize the property and the neighborhood. The new work will not be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic City Council Attachment Z to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-C 09-16.08 r ,, materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 3. The project is consistent with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15331 Historical Resource RestorationlRehabilitation}that requires consistency with the Secretary of Interior's Standards specific to the following elements: a. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. b. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. This finding can be made subject to conditions of design review approval. The structure has historic importance due to its construction date in 1924. This would retain the existing spatial relationships of the Craftsman residence. BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Board of the City of Alameda hereby approves Design Review DR47-D456 forthe structural addition and dwelling unit addition at 3327 Fernside Boulevard subject to the following conditions: ~1 } This Design Review approval is valid for one year. Construction shall commence under valid permits priorto June 23, 2009, unless the applicant applies for and is granted an extension by Planning Division staff prior to this expiration date. ~2} The plans submitted for building permit and construction shall be in substantial compliance with plans prepared by Design PlanningAssociated, lnc., received on March 11, 2008 and on file in the off ce of the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department, except as modified by the conditions listed below. ~3} The plans submitted for building permit approval shall clearly show that the structure f Wished structure shall not exceed 34-feet in height including any architectural elements butexciudingthe chimney, tothesatisfaction ofthe Planning and Building Director. ~4} Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the aid in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing fieatures will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. ~5} The final plans submitted for Building Permit approval shall accurately depict all existing conditions and all proposed alterations and should be fully dimensioned to clearly depict the scope ofi the project, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. ~6} Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. ~7} Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. if such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. Page 2 of 4 ~S} The final plans, submitted for building permit approval, shall conform to Buildin g Code, Zoning Qrd~nance, and Alameda Design Guideline requirements. ~9} Planning Division staff site inspection is required prior to the final Building Inspection andlor prior to the issuance of Certificate of Gccupancy. The applicant shall notify the Planning and Building Department at least four working days prior to the requested Planning Division inspection dates. X10} The plans submitted for building permit and construction shaft incorporate awindow schedule and each condition of approval, other than this one, listed in this Resolution. All new and replaced windows and window trim shalE exactly match the appearance of the original windows and window trim to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. The conditions shall beadequatelyidentified onthe plans undera heading titled "CITY GFALAMEDA, CGNDITIGNS GFAPPRGVAL." X11 } All new siding shall match the size milling}and texture of the original siding to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. A small sample of new siding shall be provided to staff prior to Building Permit approval in order to assure compliance with this standard. X12} There shall be no new external installation of plumbing andlor vent pipes other than shown on the approved plans. X13} Any other exterior changes shall be submitted for Planning Staff review and approval. X14} HGLD HARMLESS. The applicant shall defend with counsel reasonabl Y acceptable to the City}, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda, its Redevelopment Agency, the Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding including legal costs and attorney's fees} against the City of Alameda, Alameda Redevelopment Agency, Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers oremployees to attack, set aside, void orannul, an approval bythe City of Alameda, the Planning and Building Department, Alameda City Planning Board, the City of Alameda Redevelopment Agency or City Council relating to this 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 parfiicipate in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding. NGTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety X90}days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 NGTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include cerkain fees and other exac#ions. 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 exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90-day appeal period, in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 ~a}has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all requirements of Section 66024, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. Page3of4 The decision of the Planning Board shall be final unless appealed to the City Council, in writing and within ten X10} days of the decision, byfiiing with the Planning and Building Department a written notice of appeal stating the basis of appeal and paying the required fees. PASSED AND ADAPTED this 23rd day of June 2008 by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda by the following vote: AYES: ~5} Cook, Kohlstrand, Autorino, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcraft NaES: ~0} ABSENT: (2) Lynch, McNamara ATTES rya rew ~ r~s, Greta ry ity of Alameda Planning Board Page 4 of 4 ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~ ~~ - ~~` ~~~ ~~ ~ '' ~. ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ P• ~ ~~AA r "' ~ ' '~Y ~ r '~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ , ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ -. t ;f ' .,'_ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ r ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ L ~ .~ ~ o ~ .c ~ °°~~L ~~~~Q~V ~~.~~ ~~ ~ ~-~~ ~o '~q~~~~~ ,~~~ ~~~ N~ ~~ ~~ ~ -~'` N~ ~~ ~ '- fl. }' o ~ ~ ` ~- ~~°vora~ o~~~ ago ~~~a~~~~ ~,~o~o~~ LN~~o C ~}~~-' ~~ ~~ o'..' Q~~Q,~ ~ ._N~~ _~ ~_ ~~~~~~~ ~~~ .~~V ~•-'i3=~~~U ~~~~y,ccn~4~ LQN~~~C~ ~ p +r ~ N N V ~ ~ (~ +~~' 0 ~ ~o L.~~y C ~ ~ ~+~ ~ _ ~~'~C~I~N~a~ y.-~°O~~UQ-~ ~~~ ~~~N ._ ~ _ ~ ,~ ~~~_~.~ ~ ._ ~ ~~~~ ~~? ._ ~ ~~- ~ .n~v~ .~`ao.c ~''xa~~o~c°a Q~ o ~~ .,~v~~~,..,_..o ._ W ~L~~~~ W~ooa~~~o 0 ~ Q ` .~ ~ v~~~4~~ ~- oro~`oo~o ~~~~a~~~ 0~~~_~~~ z~,~~a~~oa~ ~~N~o~o~ Woo~a~s~~ ~D Q~ O- .~ 0 v 0 U 1 W 0 b 0 City Council Attachment 3 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-C 09-'16.08 .~ ~a~o ~ ~ ~? _ ~~ o ~ ,v~ *~=x ~~a~ ~ o N °~ ~ o~~ a~ ~N a~~a ~o~ L .,~ ~~o ~~ L N o ~' ~~ T~ V F ,N o ~~ ~ ,~n os ao ~~ a~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ 0 ~ V o ~ so ,~ ~ U c~ ~o . V ~- a~ ~L .~ ~ _~ Qo .~ ~~ ~~ ~o ~~ .~ o ,_ ~ o~ N a~o~ ~~~ o~~ 00 o~~ ^~ ^i •~ .~.+ ~ L c~ ~ ~ ono ~~~ oo~ `~ ~ c~ E U V V L .~ ._ 0 N W H W Q a D 2 H o~~.~N~~ =,C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- ~o~ ~o .~.N~~-~n~o ~_.~ . o~ c ovoo~~` ~~~N ~,~ 3 ~ ~u~o~.°~~n~ ~~~o~~o ~~=~Lor ..r V .~ (} ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~} ., .. ~ .-~r~~n~ ~~~~~or 0 0 ~ ~ +, .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... o~a~~~ ~~~~~`~ 4Cv~L ~ - ~- ~ .. a~ ~~~~~ ~~oo,~4a~ ~.~o~~~~ C~ ~ ~ ~ 0.~ QD ~C~ N ~~~~ ~ ~ D} .._ ~ ~ ~ ~~~N° ~ co~~~ a~~`~~L~ ~~ ~~ a~ ~U~~'~~o ~ ~ .~ ~~~~ ~o ~ ~ ,_ ~ - o ~o `"~o~ .o~ ._ ._ ~~ `'-"~ -~~~~o ~,~oo°s~ cis ~~ ~Q~~~ Q) ~o ~~o ~ ~ = L N ~ ~ F ~y~~~L~o r~~a~o~` w~,~o~oa~ Q' •..i ~L .` ~ ,o ~ ~ a~ c°o~~'~o-o o~~~s~~o~ o~~~ ~~~ a~~~~ o~ ~ ~ ..~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ N Q? ~~ ~ ~o o s~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ No ~_ r~ o - ._o`,~o u ~ ~ ._ ~v~~ 4~'-~ ,oca ~~~o ~~a ~ ~ ~ `~~ .. .~ ~~ 4~ .~ +~ ~~ ~ ~ , cn o o ~~ ~ ` ~o~o o~~ o c nov~~ _ ~ ~ ~~ _ . ._ ._ c ~~ o~L ~ o~=o ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ .- o L cn w ° o~~- . ~ ~ ~ .~~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~~ r~ ~~-~ o ~o~~ ~'~~ mo o- ~ ~ ~s ~ ~~~~ ~ ova'- ._ ._ =~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~n~ c~~vo ~~~ ~ ~v~~ ~~ ~ ._ ~~ +~ ;~ ~ tAA~~~/F ~ ~ J ~ a~ N ~~ .~ _ ~~ u, ~~oo ~~~o .~ L ~~ ~~a o ao~ o~ .c~.~~ ~ +~ o ~, + ~ L "` ~ ~o._~ ~- _ ~+ L ~ o ~, ._ s ~ ~ _ L ~o~ L ~~~._ ~a~~~n aoc~a~ ti a .~ 0 E 0 U U W 0 a 0 ~ ~- ~~~,~]~~ ~~~~C~ OD~D~ ._ ._ ~ ~ ~ +~ ~ ~ ~~No~~~ ~~~~~ N~~ ~~'a~~-~~rr~' c~°~~ c ~o~~~~o.~ ca~o~c ~oo ~N~ co~~ ~m~~o ~.~ ca a~~~~.~ .o~~ ~~~ o~~ o;~o` ~~r~~ ~c~a~ ~-Q~'a~ ~ ,~n ~~o~~ sc` oc~o.~~oa~s Nc~ ~'o~ ~c~~o~~o •~- ~.~' Ova ~~ ~ = Qy ~r ~~ 43(~ ~ ,~ ~ ~o .~~~ ~~.~~ ~o ca _ o~ i ~~~~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Nt ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ,o~L~c~ca° -.c~ r° ~~ .~ooy o ~ ~r v ~~._ c~~ ~~s ~~~o ~=oc~~ ~Q~ c coo ~~~~a~ ~oL~o ~~'~ ~- .~~~L~~c ~ a .~ _ca o ~ ~ ._ .- ~ ~~~ooa~~c~ a~oo~~L ~~c~ L ~ Q~ c ~ w ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ V/ ~ 'NU~o~~-`~ ,tcN C,c ~~~ V~ ~ v~CQq}~~ ~+~~ ~~ ~.C~ Q~ N o +r c .,~ ~., _.~ ° ~ ~ ~~ Q? a~'o o .vim ._ ~~~iN~c~ c~aooc~.-~ ~~,o ~ ~-a~N~X~~~ ~~0~0*~ ~oU ~ ~ o ~ ~ c~ c Z o '' ~,~ ~~ ~~a~~cc ~a~ ~' ~ *~v~o~' s LcrL ~ ~~ ~ _ ~ .. • - ~, c~'.-~o~'cnc coo .-~n ~~~ c ~_ ~ N ~ ~ ~ +~+ ~ . - N O ~ ~ .- ~ .- ~ •- ~ .- r~a~N'~~cc~ ~~~~~ ~X~ Q ~ Vol ~p~ ~ N,~~~~c ~~~ ~ o~ o'-N ~ c~~~so ~~~ N .-- *~ ._ Z v~ .-a~ o oo~- c o ~ ~cn ~~o ~ .~~o c~ o ~ ~.~~o~~~~~ ~~~qy~+~ ~~N`? ~` _ ~,Q ~Nc c~Cr "N ~~ (~ ~ ~~,~,~ ~ L.- ~p~}'N~ cap W o c~~ooo ~~ o ~~ ~c.- t a .~ 0 0 U 1 W O v 'a` Q ~v~~ a ~i ~~~ ~~o~o c ~~~'~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~pN~N .~.N~o ca ~ ~ ~ s~~~ ~.~~a o ~~ Lo°~ ~°~~L - ~ - C L N ~~ ~ ~,~oo No~}v ~ ~;r ,~cn~ ~~~~ cn C~~~ Q ~~ ~-~ ~vN~~ ~~~ ~ ~ IIlC -No~ ~~ 4~ *~ ~~ ~~o cn3 ~~ °~c~~ ~ ~~ ~-~o ~vo~c~ ~~ ~ o ~~ ~~~o~ ~~c~° ~ ,cc N°~ ooo~~ ~~~~ ~ `ac°~ ono ~~~o~ N~~o ~o -o .~~,ooc~ -N~.o ~ ~N v~~ for sc c~~N~ ~ ago ~~° ~~o~ ~v~~ N L ,N}~'C CQU~,~~ N~°°,a~ o~ ~°~~ ~~~~~ a~~L~ o ~~ ~-o ~o~~~ ~ ~~ ~ o^ ~~~ ~ o'~ cameo ~~ '-o ~ ~~o -. ~~o~ ~ ~~N ~~o~ ~=~o ~-~~ ~ ~ ~o.~ ~~ ~ oc~~ ^- '- ^- ~~ a~~oa~ o ~ ~ cn~ ~~.~ _~~~~ „ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ a (Q T1 Q ~ ~ L yC ,N N ~ y ~L ~~o._ ocaa~a~ ~coc~ ~ ~ ~~_ ~~~ ~ o ~ ._ _ ~ ~ ~m - .- ~ .- .- Lod }' ~'L c]o v~'~~v ~1C~4~~-~ ° N o ~ E- a.- I- t~ +r Z ~ c~ ._ ~ ~ ~ +r t~ ~ '~~ ~ L ~ i ~ ~ _ ,.,. _ .-o`= ~ .~ ,~ o o .~ ~~~~_ ~ T o~ a .~ z 0 0 U W 0 ro a 0 ~ .No~o o~~o~ 'N - Z7 ~~ ~ = L q} N yo~o y i Y ~ ~ r w ~~~~a`~ ~ ~ ^~ ' f J '/ ~ +~ 0 0~~ ~ ~'~~~~ .~ , .- c~~~ ~ =oo~o ~ ~ o° ~No~ ~n ~~~~~ ~N~ as c~ o ~ ~,°~ o ~ ~~ a~ ~No° ~~o~~ ~~ .~~~o~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ c~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ a~~~~ ~ ~ L 'L ~ ~+ o~=~- - y r ~ ~ ca ~ I o ~ o o ca~- ~ ~~o~a~ ~ ;_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_~, wo ~o o~ ~ s o~ os ° °' ~ o~ ~a~ ° ... ~ ^~ . ~a~ ~ w ^~ ~ ~ ~~ ' °~o o v~ o- s ~VU~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p~~~~ ~.~ ~ ~c~~~.o ° oo Z3 ~°L=o L~~.~ a~~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~oooa ~~ °~~o~ o a~N-~~~ °~ ~~o~~ ~ ~c~~° Q} N -- ~'~ "' ~ ~ ~ v, ,~~ ~om ~~ ~ ~/^~ V• ~ 'L no~oo cam ~~ . ~~ „ ~~~.~° .~ . ~o.~-mac ~o °o° ° ~ ~_~ cna~ ~ c~~ .- Low 04~~~o `" ~. p 4- ~° ~, a~~.L°a~o ° ~ ~~ .-~ nom ~ o~ ~ o~' ' ~ }~ ~ ~ o~ ~3 ~ ~ W 7 `o ~ ~ W o~ ~~ ~,o.~o~, o$~ ca ~ o ~~oa °~°~r~ ~.n ~ ~o~._° U ~ ~ °~v,~ °~' - ._ . ~- U ._ ~ ~ ~oc~ ~ -- _ .- ... _ ._ ~, ~ s ~~ Q ~ ~ o ~ ~~n ~ = r di a .~ 0 0 U U W 0 ro 0 = ^U =~ 's ~~~ ~~~.-a~~ ~ ~ ~s~~~~ C . }' ~- ~ ~ ~~~ N .~~_.~~~ ~~'~~o~ ._ o°~-°c~~ N~ ~~~ ~ A ~ ^' ~ vJ W ~ W ^ ~ ~ 1 f.., V ~ ~ _ ~-~nc'~a~~ oco~-c ~~~o~- U~ ~ ~ ~Q4} ~ ~ N ~~~ ~ ~~o~~~ ~ .- ~ ~ ~~~~ o ~-~~ o 0 = L Q? o .. ~ . ~ C~ Cn~ ~ . ~. .- o ~ ~ ._ ca~`~ ~ ~o ~~~~ o +~ N~~~~~ .-o=~oo ~ ~ ~ V U ~ N t~ ~' ~ \ rn (~~ ~~r l ~ ~ ~ r ~ ^~ -+ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~~, ~c~ _ ~~ ~ N r ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ N o~~°~~ ~ ~ ~~N~o° .~. ~ ~ ~ o~~op~~ ~~a~o~o~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ v ~o,c~t~~cn w ° ~~°~ = ~a~ Quo°~n~~ r^ ~' ._ 0 y ... ~~ 0 ~~ a ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ Y ~ U ~~ ~ ~ .=Q)~ . C _ N ~ U • o .- L ~o~ . _ ~ .- ~ °~"~a~ °~ ~~s~~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ •N rr++ ~~ v V .- N ~ ° ~~ ~: ~ ~ ,~ ~ s ~~N~ = .~ ~ oy..s ~ ~' , ~ ~, o ~ ~ .- - . ~ N~~v~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L, ~ °? o~m y ~~N ~'' ~ ~` ° ~ ~ '_- ~~~oo L ^V~~ L ~ ~ L N ~ _ ~~-o~ o ~.---_ ~ ~ o~ ~Q o ~ ^ - ~~~ ~ o .o.~o~ ~= ~ ~ ~- ~ .- cn ~-~~ L ~~~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~? ~ V o ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ._ o° ~ a~ ~ o ~.~.~ ~ ~~ ~ N ~ w ~ ay ~ + \~ ~o coop ~~~ Y ~ M ~ F ~ ~ A7 ~ Z~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~~.- ^ T a 0 0 W 0 ro Q ~ o .~ c ~ ~ o ~ c N ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .- .~ m ~~ c 0 ~, .- ~ c~ a~ ~ a~ a~ ~a ~ ~ 0 a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ..~ •~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ... ~ _ 0 N ~ ~ o c~ ~ ~ a~ c ._ ~ c ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ o ~ ~ m ~' ~ . a~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ '~ ~ a~ ~~ o ~ QN ~ ~ O N a .~ z 0 0 U C U W 0 ro b 0 .. ~~ r~ 4i 0 0 s s a~ ._ z as ~- N ~~o~ ~o~~ ~~~~yc ~~so ~~~ ~ o ~~ ~~~~ 0 ~ N ~r o~~~ oo~ ~~ s N ~ ~+ ~ ~ Ns~ca ~o~ ~ "~ ~ ~~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ .` 4~ , N - ~'~'~~ o ._ M~ ~ _~ ~ V • ~~~~ oa~`~ ~~ ~~.-o . ~~~~~ ~N~~~ ~~oo~ ~~'~~~~' ~'~nc~~~ w Q a~ ~~ ~c ~~ E ~E ~q ~' ~1 G •p Z 0 3 w z t .~ ~ ~ ~~~o ~o~~~ c~ ~ ~ .~ ~- cn ~ ~ ~ 'c~ N ^~ ~~ ^~ W oa~~~ ~i~'- ~~~ ~ ,N v ,.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .o ~ ~ `~ ~ V a~ ~_ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ v ~ C ~ ~ ,~ ,o ~~ ~ a~ ~ a~ ~ ~o~~ o~~o ~~ a~"~ ~~~~ ~~o~ ~` ooo~ . ~~~-a~ ~~ ~~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ooLo QN~~~ "~ ~ ~o ~~ as C Q ~ ~ ~ ~~ a~ ~ d ~o E ~~ ~~ .E o 0 ~~ ,~~ ~ c~ '~ ~' ~ ~ ~_ ~ __ a~ ~° ~ o ~o ~~ ~~ ~ °' o= ~N ~ .~ ~~ c ~' ~o m~ N D~ a .~ 0 U U W 0 b a ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~o~.~~ o _ .~ ~ ~ , ~ ~- ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~ ~ C3 .~ p~ .Q r ~ ~ '~ N ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~oo~~ ~ ~ U V ~ ~ c~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ao~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~v~N .~ ~~~ ~ ~ _ ,_ ~ ~ 4- ~~=moo ~ ~ 4i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~c~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ Q~ c ~~ ~ ~ ' ~ -- ,~ _~ ~ , L ~ V~ ° a ~ ~ ~~,°D-'4~~ ~~~v] ~ ~ ~ ~_~~~} ~ ~. ~ _ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ v ~ ~ ~.o ~ ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ .' ~ ~ ~ _ ~ L ~ ~ ~~ ° ~ i~ c~ ~ ~ r. a~ ~ V ~ ~~ v . ~ ~ o ca ~N ~ ~ Q 3 ~ ._ ] ~ L ~+r + N ` - C ~.- ~ ._ ~~Q,~~~ o ~~~~~ ~ ~ ,~n ,~,c~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ .- o ~ N~ ~~~ a ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~- a~~~N ~o v~ ~ N ~~~~ ~ cn ~~ F C ~ u n Y ~ N L c~o ' O /~\ .. l~l /1 ~o ~ - ''- ~ o~- ~ ~~~~ ~~ , ~~ as -~ •- ~ ~U~~ ~ a~ Q~ rr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ a~o~N ~ ~Q ~ , a~~o ~s~'~~ ~~-~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ = ~ . ,_ N~ ~N ~ ~' q~ ~ NO 4~4~ ~V ~.~~ a~~~~~a~ '~~c~ ~~ cn c ~ ~s~L o~~, ~ ~._~n~~ o ~o,c .~ ~~ ~° ~~ ~~ ~~ .~~# =~o ~~~ ~ . ,coo ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ooh C~ ~ V ~~o ~~~L °~ ~ o ~ _ ,~ o ._ ~ ~ ~~L ~NO~~a ^ oQ ~ ,},~ ,~ C ~ ~ c~~}' ~~°~o ~~c~ Y ~ ^~ a~ ~ .~ ~~~~ ~]~ ~ ~ ~~.~ ~~ ~ U 'c~-~ o i ~~~ ~4)~N `~ o '~ .~~o ~~~ ~ N V ~ W ~~ -off ._ .N ~ o L ~ ~~ a~°a~i ~~~ ~ ~~ N ~ r ca ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~Q~ .~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ o~~ ~o~ ~~~ Q~~ N N ~v a .~ 0 E 0 U w 0 b 0 ~~~ $I~ WarinS Board Meetfig PubOc FleafiS -June 43.2008 Major Design Review - DR07.OOSG It¢m No. 9{ Ar~cl~e~e~~~r t ~tt,~~ a~ ,= .~ , f - ..__ +~ ~ ~ "t i ~~ ..... f r • , ~~ ~~ ~' ~ ....._ .~..._. ,_ _ . .,... ... _ .. _ ~ ~~~E =~~~~ ~- 114} I ~ t ! k r~ -_I. ~ _ ` ~ 1 _~ ~ ~ City Council ~ Attachment 4 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-C 09-'! 6-08 ~,_.~_ r~ •-~- I~ ~ I i i i~ f _ `f I ~ +~ _ f i ~~ ~ 2 ~~' i ~~ ;'I i 1 ~; i ~ .~-_ - ~$ (j _ ........ ~, _._. ~! i ~ of i ' I _ .^_.~ - ~ I Ii t T w ~-~ ~I 7 ~ • `-~' 1 J d r f~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1x.1 J ~ ~ ~~ A .~ ~ ~ d] e ~o aN ~~r~ ~~~ ^r 1 ~l! , ~hI • ~-'- l~ i "~ eta` G ~~ '~ ` ' `~ 1 ' .Ii. ,1,~. . # :, :~.~ ~~ . ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ r • ~'~ a ` A r • :;~ ~ r ~ t- ~ ~ ~ -.' 1 ,i '' r ~~ ~ ~ F { 1 .~r r ~ it ' is ~ : r ~~. .'~ i . :C T. •~[ ~ ~ ~ 5 f r . .. ,~ ~ `''~ 0 + Ji Y. it j ~' .. ~ ~, , ~~~, i k ~ c ... ,~ r -~~ 1 . M ~ `~' ~ 5 ~ ~ ,. ,. , ~ ~ M ~ ~ . , • ~ ~ ,~ ,, } • . '. - ~ ~ ~;. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~. ~~,~ j _~. ~ ~ _ a r r t ~'~~~ - ~ x 0 ~~~ ;.. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ! ~,~ ~~ ` f r .• ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ,~ r ~~I . ~ a . ~ti ..t • --~ . ~ .r..._~~ _ .. . _ _ ~ i V u ~. ~ ~ ,~ ~' ` ~; o ..~ -~ ~~ _- i __ .._....~.._~. ~ ~ .~_ __.__ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ J ~ ~ ;~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ S ' ~; r i I/I ~ 1i ~ ~` f ~ , b , ,, b I ~ .. ~ `~ i r ~ ' ~ ~ ~ i I ` ~~ I ~ ~i ~ ~ I I I f ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~~ __ 4 ' ~ ~~ ~ ~ L ~- ~~ 1~ \1 r. J z~ ~' a ~~~ ~' ~ o ~ q~ ,~ ~ . ~ ~N g~ v~ . W ~. ~ 9 ~~ ~ ~ /' C }~ i ~+s ~ s Public Hearing - hne 23.2008 ~ Major Deign R¢view - DR07.0056 Item No. 9~C F~ar~ation of Roof Heigfit - E~dsting to Proposed Existing Rood height -- ~ncrease Basement Saar to ceE(ing ~ra~ l feet ~" to 9 feet ~n ~ubtotai Less -- 9 inch ~rchi~ec~~raf Efeme~r~t -~ Per ,ion Biggs Tata~~ Prapase~ Raaf height - Z8 feed g inches 3g feet 9 inches g inches 3Q Feet Pa~~ 4 W ~ n ~` VJ 7 ~_ ~ ~~ e~ ~ 0 Q (`~ ~ ~ . ~ Zm ~ ~ 4t C't ~ ~ d ~ ~, .9 4 ~ ~~ d ~ ~. ~ r d d ~~ -d ~= LJ ~ i o~ r W .1 ~t V P 11 ~~' 1~ N c S Q CITY OF ALAMEDA Speaker Sli p If you wish to address the City Council, please complete this slip and present it to the Deputy City Clerk. This will ensure your opportunity to speak. Please make our Y comments clear and conc~.se, limiting your remarks to no more than three ~3} minutes. NAND : !7~ I? G~-• Gt, ~ DATE : ~ ~ Q S ~~ (piease Pra.nt Ciearlyl AGENDA ITEM # Y In Favor Not in Favor (For appeals; check °In Favor" at appeal or "NaC In Favor" of appeal ~ ~~ rti rrr . .~ wr.. r w..r r- AGENDA ITEM # 6 , QRAL CpMMIJNICATIONS ~ Ztems not on agenda } * + r S u}J ~ ~ C t : ~ f T ~/~ ~it I ~ r~ ~ ~ ~r! ~ i~ ~ ... Completion of this form is voluntary, We appreciate your willin ness to g provide information. The information is used to prepare the Public Retard. Thank you for your assistance. Da you represent an Organization? ~~ (Name of organization) Home Address : ~ ~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ j p~ ~ ~ Tele hone . , Business Address. Telephone: _ _ ~ ~~ E-mail : ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Submitted by Donna Talbot at the 48-19-08 Council Meeting Re: Agenda Item ~-B . City Council Attachment 5 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-C 09.16.08 Appeal Requirements - The AMC states that a Notice of Appeal must be flied na later than ten ~lo~ days fvllowin the g decision of the Planning Board. - The AMC sta#es that "in filing an appeal, the applicant sha11 sperifieally state the reasons or justification for an appeal. - The AAPS filed the reasons for their appeal thirty one days after the Planning Boards approval and twenty one days after the due date for fling the appeal. - The Guide should be used as a #ool by the Planning Department. The AMC states that the Design Review Staff may determine compliance with Development regulations by determining the consistency of the project with the principle and standards of the design review manual. The word "Shall is defined in the AMC as mandatory and not directory. The word "Mai' indicates that Staff is permitted to use the Guide in malting determinations but is not a requirement. - The City Council should consider rejecting jurisdiction overthe appeal. `,~.~ OF ALgtijn V `Qy PETITION FOR APPEAL PLANNING&BUILOING This petition is hereby f led as an appeal of the decision of the; .~~ ~ o~ Planning and Building DirectarlPlanning soardlHistoricalRdvisory BoardlAppeals Board} ,~ JuL a, ~ ~oo~ ., ICh PERMIT CENTER ALAMEDa, C.~ 945C ~ for application ~DeniedlGrantedlEstablished Conditions} ~ number ~ ~ (Application Type} Application Number} at ~~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ V (Street Address} an ~~ !J (Specify D to of Action} The basis of the appeal is: ~~lf more space is needed, please attach additional sheets.} ~1r19~ rah d~~h1r?=~?v~~ ~. Appellant: ~, v ~ -~- ~ 23 w~ 1 Appellant Name~S}} Address G/ D C~1r,~j~~,,/1 ,~ /c~ c1,~~7 ; /D t 7 5~.~ I hereby agree to pay the Clty of Alameda all incurred casts far staff time and materials associated with review and processing of the subject appeal even if the appeal is withdrawn or not approved. I understand that one or more deposits will be required to cover the cost noted herein at such lime as requlred by the Planning and Building Director tv ensure there are adequate funds to cover anticipated time and materials costs related to the appeal. I expressl ack ledg a agree to pay a written invoice for additional funds within 74 days Qf date at inVpiCe. ~ _ Signed; (Appellant Address} ~ . ~ (Appella~t Signatures ~Por ~ffce Use Qnly~ Received By: Receipt No.. Date Received Stamp G:IPLANNINGIFORM5IAPP~AI.09.WPD .. ~r~~ s ~ 34-25.2 Final Decisions. Pa~Tc ~ of i 4 CHAPTER XXX D~VELOPMENl` REGL1, ATI~NS 30 25 APPEA DR CALLS FGR REVIEI~v. 3g-Za.~ F~nai Decis~Qns. a, Final Decision of the honing Adminisfiator. Any decision of the honing Administrator shat! be final o~ the date of the decision, unless any person aggrieved yr by any officer, agency, ar department of the Ctty affected by any der~srvn of the Zoning Administrator, files a Nonce ofi Appeal with the Plannin Department no later than ten ~~A~ days following the decision or a C' councilmember fil 9 review with the'Planni ~ es a call for ng Deparbment nv later than ten ~~D) days following the deasivn. Decisions that are appealed or called for review shall not become effecfive unfit the appeal or cal! for review is resolved by the appropriate City body. b. Fina! Decision of the Planning Boa~pl orHistoricalAdvisory Board. Any decision of the Plannin Board or Historical Advisory Board shall be final on the date of the decision unless an e g y p . rson aggrieved ar by any ofl~icer, agency, or department of the City affected by any decision of the Rlannmg Board or H~stoncal Ac~sory Board, 'files a Notice of Appeal with the Planning Department na toter than ten ~1 ~~ days follo~nng the deaswn yr a Cry councilmember files a call.for review with the Planning Department no Eater than ten ~~ D~ days following. the decision. Decisions tha# are appealed or called for review shall not t~eaome effective until the appeal or call fur review is resolved by the appropriate Cif body. c. Fina! Decision of the Crfy Council. A decision by the C"riy Council regarding an appeal or call tar review shall Dome final on the da#e of the decrs~on subject to jud:aal review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section ~ 494.5. Any petifion for judicial ro~ew is subject to the provisions of California Code Hof Civil Procedure Secfion ~ 094.fi after the date of the City Council's decision. d. end ofAppea! or Gall fnrReview Period 1Mien the end of an appeal or call #ar review period falls on a weekend or a sl~atutory holiday, the period shall aars#innue until the first working day thereafter. hard. No. X794 N.S.; Qrd. No. X836 N.S.; Grd. No. 2D25 N.S.; Qrd. No. 2fi25 N.S. g ~; Grd. No. ~?~3 ~l.S. § ~; Grd. No. X920 N.S. § 3~~ ~~~° ~~ revio ~ ~~xt ~~ http:/lwww.ci.a~ameda.ca.uslcode/ DATA!"T~TLE30/3U?5 AFPEAI,S~,pR CALLS FDR RE~SI.., 81 t IZ S .~ ~ ~ 6 ~D 3~-25.~ initiation of Appeals and Cads for Review. Fade ~ of ,~ CHAPTER XXX DEVELaPMENT REGULATIgNS 3Q-25 APPEALS qR CALLS FaR REVIEWV. 3~-Z5.4 inida~on of Appeals and Coils for review. a. Appeals of Actions of the Planning Director. An appeal to the Planning Board concernin actions of a Planning Director deasian shall be filed in writing with the Plannin De oilmen 9 accompanied b there wired fees. In filin a 9 p t and shall be Y q g n appeal the appellant shall specifically state the reasons or ~ustiftcafian for an appeal. b. Appeals of Actions of fhe Zoning Adrninis~ratar. An appeal tv the planning Board cancemin actions of the Zoning Administrator shall be filed in wd#ing with the Plannin De ailment a g accompanied b the wired fees. In f~lin a 9 p nd shall be Y req g n appeal, the appellant shall sper~ficaily state the reasons ar ~usfificafion for an appeal. c Appeals of Actions of fhe Planning Board or 1•listorica! Advisory hoard. An appeal to the City Council concerning actions of the Planning Board or Historical Advisory Beard decision shall be filed in writin with the Planning Department and shall be accompanied by the r wired fees, In filin an g applicant shall speoifical state the reasons or 'u ' ~ 9 ePPeal~ the • ~ ~ st~fica'han for an appeal. d. Calls for Renew. a call far review shall be filed with the Planning Departxnen# by the Piannin Board the City Counal' or a member Qf either body by stating the reasons or 'ustifcation for . 9 } shall be r wired fvr a cal! for review. # the review. No fee eq (Did. No. 2133 N.S. ~ ~; Drd. No. ~92o N.S. § 34} « reel ~ n ~~ http:l/www.ci.a~ameda,caaus/codel DATAITITi,~3~134 25 APPALS q~ ~ALL,S FAR REQ... 81~ GI?40s .~ ~. 3a-~ DEFm1~T~ONS. Pare l off' CHAPTER X~ DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 3Q-~ ZONING PLAN. 30-~ DEFlN1TlONS. a. Words used in the present tense include the future, words in the singular number include the plural, and words in the plural number include the singular; the word "building" includes the word °structure", and the word "shall is mandatory and rat directory. City Council shall mean the City Council of the City of Alameda, and Planning Board shall mean the Planning Board of the City of Alameda. Cif~r shall mean the incorporated area of the City of Alameda. Zoning Adrninislrafor shall mean the Planning Director, or such person as helshe may, with the prior approval of the Planning Board, designate, who shall admFnister and interpret the provisions of the zoning regulations and perrvnn other duties as prescribed herein. Other terms not specifically mentioned hereabove shall have the meanings ascribed tQ them by the Charter and this Code. b. As used in this chapter: Accessory building shalt mean a detached subordinate building, any part of which is within a required minimum yard of the subject Zoning Distric#, and the use of which is indderrtal to that of the main building on the same lot, or to the use of the land. For properties within a Residential zone, ar with a residential use, the use of such accessory buildings ~ restricted #a garages, carports ; s#orage sheds, and similar buildings which are found by the Building Official to conform to the tlU~ (uti7rty}occupancy dassification. Accessory use shall mean a use of a building which is inadental or subordinate to the principal use or building located upon the same lot Agency shall mean an office or commerdal es#ablishment in which goods, material or equipment are received for servicing, treatment or processing elsewhere. Alley shall mean a public or permanent private way or lane less than forty (40'} feet in width which adfOrds a secondary means of access to abutting properly. AnchQr~vul shall mean and refer to houseboats ar I'nre-aboard boats moored or anchored ofl~hore ~~ and rat in an authorized commerdal manna. (Note: Anchor-outs, other than transient boats, are not permitted. Anfenna, Satelli#e Dish shallmean adish-shaped device designed tO recenre television signals transmitted from orbiting satellites, as well as all supporting equipment necessary to install or mount the antenna. Balcony shall mean a platform endosed by a railing or balustrade projecting from the exterior wall of a bui~drng, accessible only from the intenor of the building. Banks, savings and loan services shall mean financial instith#ions that provide retai# banlang services to individuals and businesses. These 'r~dans indude banks, savings and loans, credit unions, secur~}r brokers and real property lending institutions. It does not indude check cashing or payday advance uses. Bar shall mean a place where alcohorrc beverages are sold in unpackaged form for consumption on the premises, does not indude food prepared in a kitchen located on the premises and does not adrriit persons underthe age of twenty~ne (2f}. This classification indudes businesses with A~oholic Beverage Control (ABC} licenses 4D, 42, 48, 49, or fib. Bay window shall mean an architecture! projection built out from a wall, with windows and without any, or very limited, solid wall area vn the longest wall of the projec~ron itself. Bed and brealdasf far~lity shall mean a building ar portion thereof or group of buildings containing rooms used, designed or intended.to be used, let ar hired out fur occupancy by transient guests far compensation yr profit, and subject to all regulations listed below: ~. A use permit shall be obtained where required. 2. Parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 3o-T of the zoning regulations. 3. Signs shall be permitted in accordance with Section 3B-G of the zoning regulations. 4. Design review shall be required for interior and exterior modifications of the strictures and grounds. 5. Any structure proposed far a bed and breakast fadlity shall be listed in the City's historical building lis# as an "N"designated structure. B, open space shat! be provided as required by the zoning district in which the bed and breakfast focility is located. http:llwww.c~.alameda.ca.uslcadel DATAITTTLE3o/3a ~ ~ONINC~ ALAN 130 2 D~FIl~ITIO... 81~ 912D~8 30-37.5 Requirements. Pa~c I a~ I ,. CHAPTER XXX DEVELOPMENT REGULA DNS 3a-~1 D S G EVIEVII REGULATIONS 3D-31.5 Requirements. a. Projects must be cvmpa~ble with their site, any adjacent or neighboring buildings or surroundings and promote harmonious transi~ons in scale and character in areas between different designatetl land uses. b. Projects which da not meet the requirements of paragraph a. shalt be presumed de#rimental to either exisl~ng prapert}r values yr the growth of property values in the vicinity of the project. c. The Design Review Staff may determine compliance w~#h paragraph a, by determining the consistency of the project with the principles and standards of the design review manual. Ord. Na. ~ 8~~ N.S. previous ~ next » ~~_____ ht~p://wwvv.c~.a~ameda.ca.uslcodel DATA/'T~TLE30I3~ 37 DESIGN REVIEW REGULATION,,, ~i~ si~oas 3D-38.5 Design Review Manual; Preparation by Design Review Staff. Pa~1~ 1 o~r i CHAPTER XXi~ DEVELOPMENT REGULATI(]NS 3fl~38 SPECIAL PRaVISICNS. 3Q-38.5 Design review Manual; Preparation by design Review Staff. It shall be the duty of the Design Review Staif to prepare a Design Review Manual that wil! provide guidance to applicants seeking to comply with subsection 30-37.5a of this article. The Manual may separate residential, commercial and industrial use$ by sections or constitute a separate Manual for each of the uses. Graphic illustrafions may be used as examples of goad or bad design and such examples need not be limited to improvements within the City. The Manual may be revised as experience dictates and examples of approved pro]ects considered successful by the staff should be included therein. Copies of the Manual shall be made available to the public in the Planning Director's o#fice. The City Council may review the manual at such times as it deems appropriate and approve or disapprove any part thereof hard. No. 9795 N.S.; Crd. No. 9953 N.S.} t~ reviaus ~ next » http:l/www.ci.alameda.ca.uslco~el ~ATAf~TTLE3Qf3a 3S SPECXAIa FRD~ISZONS 13U 38 5... 81t 81?QDS August 19, 2008 Honorable Mayor and City Council 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Subject: August 19, 208 Council Meeting, Agenda Item 5-B (3327 Fernside Blvd} Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, am writing to request that you support the staff recommendation and adopt the resolution. Specifically; 1. Do not iiftthe building morethan 5 inin hes. The proposal to lift the building two or three feet is excessive. The desired ceiling hei ht can be g achieved by lowering the floor level through excavation, rather than by lifting the building. A tremendous amount of work was expended by City staff and concerned citizens of Alameda over the fast decade to define a means of quantifying the desired proportions of various historic buildin s g and building elements such as attics, basements, porches, etc.}. One reason for this effort was to provide guidance as to acceptable height of "jack-ups" for each house style. The solution was to relate it to the "golden mean", which is an appropriate, objective, and easily determined and measured basis, There is no reason to relax this rule for the subject structure 2. Redesign the rear addition, The large, box-like addition in the rear is not compatible with the existing Craftsman style. Page 25 of The Guide to Residential Design attached} addresses this type of proposed addition when it states that "Alterations and additions should fit within the overall scale of the existin g building and be compatible with its architectural style. This is particularly important when addin to g a historic building", 3. Widen the front entry stairs so that they are more in balance with new deli n. g Thankyouforyourconsiderationofthese issues. Sincerely, Mary Jacak 1330 Caroline St. Alameda, CA 94501 X510} 522-8208 ~~ ...,. ~~ ._ .y 0 ,o 0 a~ 0 0 .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~_ ~ ~N ~ .~, ~ ~?~ ~~ cn .~~L v~ ~ Z3 ~,*~,~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ as ~ , ~~~N~ ~ ~ ~ ^ o . ~ ..,.. ._ ~ ~ L ~ a~ ~., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... h- , U ~ ~+ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ N ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ .~ + ~ ~ '~' ] ~ r CQ - .... o ~ _ ~~~,~~ +~ _ V1 0 ~ 4) .-. N~ U..~ ~ ~ +r ~ '~`~ ~~ 0 ~ ],~p.~~Q L ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ L V ~ ~ ~ .~. ~ ~ .C W ~ ~1--~ W .~~ v~ ~~~~ ~ .~ ~ o ~ . ~ ~~~~ . ~c~c.~ , ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ ~ a-~ov r ..... ,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ x ~ ~ c~o.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ y ~~ o ~~~+r W _ ~~~~ ~ V = pt3~_ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~~~a~.~ ~ -- ;~ ~o~~~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~~~ o~~o~ o .~ ~ ~Qo ~ ~~~ ~a ~ ~ ~~ ~ L a ~ L ~L=~o """ ~ 4a ~~:~ a~ ~ ,.. ~ s ~ ~ L Q~o~cn ~~~ ~~~ =g ~~~ ~s~ a a~ a .~ 0 0 U U C w a .~ 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION N0. APPROVING 1N PART AND OVERTURNING IN PART THE PLANNING BOARD DECISION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW DR07- 0085FOR THE STRUCTURAL EXPANSION OF ASINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AND THE ADDITION OF A SECOND D~lIIELLING UNIT AT 3321 FERNSfDE BOULEVARD o~ ~~ WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a publichearingon thisapplicationon ~ a ~ June 23, 2008 and examined pertinentma s, drawin s documents and testimon r~ ~ ~ .. p g ~ y ~ ~ and acted to conditionally approve the Major Design Review; and ~' WHEREAS, the Alameda Architectural Preservation Societ AAPS y~ ~ ~~ submitted an appeal the Planning Board's action on July 3, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Alameda held a public hearing on September 16, 2008 and examined pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings relevant to the Major Design Review application: 1. Projects must be compatible with their site, any adjacent or neighboring buildings or surrounds and promote harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. This finding can be made subject to conditions of design review approval that allow the height of the structure to be raised one foot and changing the rooffrom a gambrel to a gable roof to match the scale and pitch of the origina! roof. The addition would incorporate a gable roof that matches the pitch and style of the original gable roof through the use of a lowered top-plate, cross-gables, and dormers. The project wauld otherwise utilize all materials and architectural elements that would match the original building. The new detached building would match the materials of the existing main building. 2. The proposed alterations arecompatiblewiththeSecretaryof Interior Standards and are compatible with the City of Alameda Guide to Residential Design Standards. All proposed alterations will be historically compatible with the historic integrity of the structure if the structure is not raised more than one foot and the appearance of the roof line and pitch matches the original roof configuration as closely as possible. The proposed addition would generally include features that are consistent with the existing character of two-story Craftsman residences in Alameda. These features would include window trim and exterior molding, matching stucco, and wood siding. If the structure is nat raised, the scale of the proposal is compatible with other residential buildings in the neighborhood and it Resolution #5-C of-16 08 will not destroy historic materials, features, or the spatial rela#ionships that characterize the property and the neighborhood. The new work will not be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 3. The project is consistent with GEQA Guidelines, Section 15331 Historical Resource RestorationlRehabilitation~ that requires consistency with the Secretaryof Interior's Standards specific tothe following elements: a. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. b. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. This finding can be made subject to conditions of design review approval that include raisingthe heightofthestructurenomorethan onefootand changingthe roof from a gambrel to a gable roof to match the scale and pitch of the original roof. The structure has historic importance due to its construction date in 1924. This would retain the existing spatial relationships of the Craftsman residence. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project as conditioned, is Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301 ~e}~2}Existing Facilities -- addition of less than 10,000 square feet to an existing structure and, as conditioned, Section 15331 for projects consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the treatment of historic properties. N~WTHEREF~RE BE !T RESnLVED thattheCity Council of the Cityof Alameda hereby conditionally approves the design review application and approves in part and overturns in part the Planning Board's conditional approval of Mayor Design Review, DR07-0056. Navy THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda conditionally approves Major Design Review, DR07-0056, subject to the following conditions: ~1 } This Design Review approval is valid for one year. Construction shall commence under valid permits prior to September 16, 2009, unless the applicantapplies forand is granted an extension by Planning Division staff prior to this expiration date. ~2} The plans submitted for building permit and construction shall be in substantial compliance with plans prepared by Design Planning Associated, Inc., received on March 11, 20oS and on file in the office of the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department, except as modified by the conditions listed below. (3} The project shall be revised with a gable roof over the rear addition that utilizes lowered plate heights and eave f Ines, cross-gables, and dormers so that the new roof would match the scale and pitch of the original roof. ~4} The structure shall be raised no more than one foot in height above the existing finished grade. ~5} Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. vllhere the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. ~5} The final plans submitted for Building Permit approval shall accurately depict all existing conditions and ail proposed alterations and should be fully dimensioned to clearly depict the scope of the project, to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. ~7} Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. ~8} Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. if such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. ~9} The final plans, submitted for building permit approval, shall conform to Building Code, Zoning Ordinance, and Alameda Design Guideline requirements. ~~g} Planning Division staffsite inspection is required prior to the final Building Inspection andlor prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant shall notify the Planning and Building Department at least four working days prior to the requested Planning Division inspection dates. ~~ ~ } The plans submitted for building permit and construction shall incorporate a window schedule and each condition of approval, other than this one, listed in this Resolution. All new and replaced windows and window trim shall exactly match the appearance of the original windows and window trim to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. The conditions shall be adequately identified on the plans under a heading titled "CITY OF ALAMEDA, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL." ~~ ~} All new siding shall match the size milling}and texture of the original siding to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. A small sample of new siding shall be provided to staff prior to Building Permit approval in order to assure compliance with this standard. ~~ 3} There shall be no new external installation of plumbing andlor vent pipes other than shown on the approved plans. ~~ 4} Any other exterior changes shall be submitted for Planning Staff review and approval. ~~ 5} HOLD HARMLESS. The applicant shall defend with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City}, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda, its Redevelopment Agency, the Alameda City Planning Board and their respective agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding including legal costs and attorney's fees} against the City of Alameda, Alameda Redevelopment Agency, Alameda City Planning Board and theirrespective agents, officers oremployeesto attack, setaside, void or annul, an approval by the City of Alameda, the Planning and Building Department, Alameda City Planning Board, the City of Alameda Redevelopment Agency or City Council relating to this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall cooperate in such defense. The City may elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, orproceeding. NGTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety X90} days following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Cade of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include cerkain 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 exactions. The applicant is hereby further notified that the 90-day appeal period in which the applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 ~a~ has begun. If the applicantfails to file a protestwithin this 90-day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. ******* I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the ~ 6th day of September, 2008, by the following vote to wit: AYES NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said City this ~ lr~ day of September, 2008. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From; Debra Kurita City Manager Date: September 16, 2008 Re; Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Amend Various Sections of the Alameda Municipal Code, Contained in Article [, "Zoning Districts and Regulations," Chapter XXX, "Development Regulations," to Prohibit Single Retail Stores Larger than 90,000 Square Feet in Size That Include More Than 10 Percent Floor Area Devoted to Non-taxable Merchandise. BACKGROUND On March 18, 2008, the City Council adopted zoning amendments to regulate [ar e g format retail stores. The amendments added a definition of large-format retail done or more stores totaling 30,000 square feet or more} to the Alameda Municipal Code RAMC} and codified a new requirement that all propased large format retail stores would be subject to use permit or planned development approval. In addition to approving the new ordinance, the City Council also directed staff to prepare an additional zoning text amendment for consideration by the Planning Board and the City Council that would prohibit the establishment of any single retail store that exceeds 90,000 square feet in size that includes more than 10 percent sales floor area devoted to non-taxable merchandise. Non-taxable merchandise generally consists of goods such as food and drugs, for which the customer does not pay sales tax. The proposed Ordinance includes a definition of "Super Store" and text amendments that specifca[ly prohibit "Super Stores" in all commercial zoning districts. There are currently no stores in Alameda that meet the Super Store definition criteria; therefore, the proposed amendment would not make any existing store non-conforming under the zoning code. DISCUSSION Proposed Amendments; Proposed amendments to the Alameda Municipal Code RAMC} are included in the attached ordinance. The following discussion provides a summary of the proposed changes. City Council Public Hearing Agenda ftem #5-D 49-'f6.48 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Definition: September 16, 2008 Page 2 of 4 AMC Section 34-2 Definitions would be amended to include the following definition: Super Sfore: A single refail store or fenanl that exceeds 90, 000 square feet in size and includes ~0% or more sales floor area devofed fo non- taxablemerchandise. Zoning Districts: All zoning districts that permit retail land uses would be amended to prohibit Super Stores. Existing projects with approved Development Agreements that specifically limit the City's ability to impose new regulations, such as Alameda Landing and Harbor Bay Business Park, may be exempt from the prohibition. Existing developments with Planned Development approvals that do not have a Development Agreement with this condition, such as Bridgeside Center and Alameda Towne Centre, would be subject to the prohibition. Planning Board: an June 23, 2005, at a publicly noticed meeting, the Planning Board reviewed the currently proposed zoning amendment. Some Board members noted that the proposed amendment could have unintended consequences. They stated that it was unclear why a 90,000 square foot building with 9,000 square feet of non-taxable sales would be prohibited; while an even larger store with a larger amount of non-taxable merchandise could still apply for a Use Permit as Tong as the non-taxable sales floor area was less than 10 percent of the total floor area. Other Board members expressed the view that although they supported efforts to protect union jobs, they did not feel this was a land use issue that should be addressed through zoning regulations or by the Planning Board. They noted that it would be more appropriate for this issue to be addressed by the Economic Development Commission and the City Council. The Planning Board, by a vote of 5 to 0, approved a motion to not support the proposed zoning amendment and reaffirmed the Planning Board's original recommendation to rely on the Use Permit process to review proposed retail projects that exceed 30,000 square feet in size. The Planning Board also recommended that the Economic Development Commission be asked to review and comment on the proposal. The minutes from the June 23, Zoos, Planning Board hearing are attached Attachment No.1 }. Economic Development Commission: 0n July 17, 2005, at a publicly noticed meeting, the Economic Development Commission reviewed the currently proposed zoning amendment. Some Commission members noted that the primary purpose of the proposed zoning amendment appeared to be to prohibit certain types of stores that commonly provide low wages and benefits Honorable Mayor and September 16, 2008 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4 for their workers and that this appeared to be somewhat of a "blunt instrument" that could preclude approval of good projects that could be beneficial to the city. tither members noted that the City currently has the regulatory tools in place to deny these types of stores and that Alameda has a large community of politically engaged citizens who ensure that decision makers fully consider the implications of their decisions when approving projects. The Economic Development Commission, by a vote of 5 to 1, approved a motion recommending that the City not approve the zoning ordinance as proposed and recommended that a more "nuanced" approach be considered. The minutes from the Economic Development Commission meeting are attached to this report Attachment No. 2}. Public Notification: This item was advertised in the September 5, 2008 Alameda Journal. Notification of the public hearing was mailed to interested parties on September 3, 2008. FINDINGS The City is required to make certain findings prior to adopting zoning code amendments. The required findings and documentation are provided below. 1. The proposed zoning amendment does not affect the integrity of the General Plan. The zoning text amendment will provide a mare effective means of implementing General Plan policies, if adapted. 2. The proposal is equitable. There are no existing businesses, in Alameda, that meet the criteria for classification as a Super Store. No existing businesses would become nonconforming due to adoption of this ordinance. The prohibition against Super Stares would apply to all commercial and manufacturing districts. BUDGET CONSlDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT Adoption of the proposed amendment does not require or initiate any additional expenditure of public funds. MUNICIPAL GGDEIPGLICY DGCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE The proposed zoning code amendments are consistent with General Plan policies. The proposed code amendments will apply to AMC Sections: 30-2 to add a definition of Super Store; 30-4.8 through 30-4.12 prohibiting super stares in all commercial and manufacturing districts. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council ENVIRQNMENTAL REVIEW September 16, 2008 Page 4 of 4 The proposed zoning text amendments do not have the potential to cause changes to the physical environment that could result in significant adverse environmental effects within Alameda or other jurisdictions. Consequently, the proposed zoning text amendment is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} Guidelines Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations; 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Enviranment; 15378, Project; 15061 ~b}~3} Review for Exemption; and Public Resources Code ~PRC} Section 21065, Project def nition. RECQMMENDATI4N Hold a public hearing to consider an Grdinance to amend various Sections of the Alameda Municipal Code, contained in Article I, "Zoning Districts and Regulatians," Chapter XXX, "Development Regulations," to prohibit single retail stores larger than 90,000 square feet in size that include more than ten-percent sales floor area devoted to non-taxable merchandise. Respectfully submitted, Cathy odbury, Planni and Building ' ector c~ By: Douglas Garrison Supervising Planner Attachments: 1. June 23, 2008, Planning Board Minutes 2. July 1l, 2008, Economic Development Commission Minutes Mr. Garrison noted that it could be called a storage building. President Cook noted that she would not be able to make the f ndings, and was not sure she could make the f nding that it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. She was aware of the noise made by a planer, and that this property adjoined six different properties. Board member Cunningham noted that he could not make the findings, either, and suggested that the applicant resubmit the application under a different use. He would have an issue with design review, and noted that it was a big box in the backyard. He appreciated the use for the parapet to hide the mechanicals, but added that it made the structure even higher. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion as mended, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0 Absent: 2 Lynch, McNamara}; Abstain: 0. The motion passed. Board member Cunningham noted that he was concerned about open space and hardscape, and would like to see the entire site plan. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she would like to approve this project, but could not make the findings. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to adopt draft Planning Board Resolution to deny a Variance and Design Review approval for adjacent properties. A second building to be built 5 feet from the rear property line, where a 20-foot required rear yard is usually required and 3 feet from the side property line, where a 5-foot side yard setback is usually required. Encroachment into the rear and side yard setbacks requires a Variance. The proposed new structure is an 86S sq. ~. hobby woodworking workshop. The project will also require a lot line adjustment to transfer a portion of 1609 Pearl Street to 1607 Pearl Street. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion as amended, with the following voice vote -- 5. Noes: 0 Absent: 2 Lynch, McNamara}; Abstain: 0. The motion passed. 9-F. PLN07-0301-- Zoning Tegt Amendment. Applicant: City of Alameda. The City of Alameda is considering an amendment to the Alameda Municipal Code to prohibit retail stores larger than 90,000 square feet in size that include more than ten percent ~ 10%} floor area devoted to the sale ofnon-taxable items. The proposed prohibition would apply in all zoning districts in the city. ~DG} Mr. Garrison summarized the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Mike Hennebury, 2811 Otis Drive, noted that he was a union representative for the Union Food and Commercial Workers Local 5. He noted that Local 5 had been involved with big box City Council Page 19 of 23 Attachment 1 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-d 09-16-48 ordinances for several years, and that they initially saw it as a way to alleviate the threat perceived from VValMart entering the northern California market with their supercenters, and shifting market share from traditional union grocers who employ their members, back to the Arkansas headquarters of WalMart. They believed that shift threatened the stability of unian jobs in northern California, and weakening their contracts, which had taken years for them to build. He noted that it was important to protect their members' standard of living and the integrity of the collective bargaining agreements that had been negotiated on their behalf. He believed that the impacts of the big box stores on their communities were varied, and that there was a passibility of the downtown districts to be decimated. He noted that in his travels across the country, he had noticed that a WalMart in a town was accompanied by a downtown district with boarded-up storefronts. He added that WalMart representatives state that their supercenters create a synergy of local businesses that drive sales for everybody, which he did not believe to be true. He supported this amendment, which he believed would preserve the downtown business districts and the characteristics that make Alameda a special place. He believed this ordinance would ensure that the development of Alameda Point would be conducted in a responsible manner, ~n response to an inquiry by President Cook whether he was mostly concerned with the grocery components, Mr. Hennebury replied that his union represented the grocery store employees, and that was his primary concern. He believed that the discount portion of a supercenter were cutthroat competitors with local businesses, and would unfairly disadvantage them as well. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Vice President Kohlstrand inquired why this ordinance only dealt with food sales, and whether a Home Depot would be allowed while a Costco would not. Mr. Thomas replied that was correct, and that the large format amendment was brought forward using the same position that more control was needed over retail development in Alameda. He noted that the Livermore ordinance was very similar to what the City Council wanted. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that she would be willing to limit development over 90,000 square feet, and that the food element would not be a limiting factor. Baard member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that the table contained in page 4 of the staff report. She inquired whether the purpose of the text amendment was simply to prevent K-Mart, WalMart and similar stores, and whether the smaller retailers would also suffer if a Costco or Home Depot came into Alameda. She suggested prohibiting retail establishments that exceed 90,000 square feet. ~n response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the proposed square footage for the Target that had been proposed for the Aalmeda Towne Centre, Mr. garrison replied that it was X47,000 square feet, and that the Safeway in Town Centre was approximately 60,000 square feet. She noted that Home Depot may exceed 90,000 square feet, but would not include the floor area for nontaxable goods. She would be more comfortable prohibiting retail establishments that exceed 90,000 square feet in size. Page 20 of 23 Mr. Autorino noted that prohibiting any retail use over 90,000 square feet cut down a great deal of the economic development opportunity for the area, and that there may be a use of that size that the City would want to have. He did not want the City to enter into any prohibitions that would invite legal trouble. President Cook noted that there were both planning and economic development aspects of such an ordinance that should also be discussed at the Economic Development Commission. She noted that she shopped at Target on occasion, and while there were many groceries at Target, she did not buy them there. In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the square footage of the large hangars at Alameda Point as they relate to adaptive reuse, Mr. Thomas noted that the large hangars were over 100,000 square feet, and the smaller hangars were approximately 60,000 square feet. He noted that the City proposed creating a Master Plan for Alameda Point, which essentially writes a zoning code for that portion of the City. He noted that theoretically, an exception to a big box prohibition could be included in the Master Plan for a specific area. He noted that several studies done over the years have revealed significant sales leakage from Alameda, and that staff believed that to avoid sales leakage, control of the retail development was necessary, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that Building A was the largest building in the Alameda Landing retail center at 55,000 square feet. Mr. Thomas noted that Catellus was currently working with Target, and would propose a different site plan. Board member Cunningham believed it was important to have a safety valve in place to control the retail projects that come before the Planning Board. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft suggested sending some recommendations to City Council to clarify the Board's position and to provide direction for their action. Mr. Autorino noted that the Economic Development Commission was adamant in not wanting to do things that limited the economic development opportunities of the community. The EDC did not want to send the message that Alameda did not want to consider retail opportunities larger than a certain size. He supported measures to manage and control large format retail, but not to discourage it. Mr. Thomas noted that the Planning Board may pass along a recommendation at this time, or continue it to allow staff to return with more specif c information. Staff could bring the item back to the EDC, and that they had not received their input on this item. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that there had been much discussion about wanting to see a higher level of retail at Alameda Towne Center, but that the Board had been disappointed by some of the offerings. She noted that Kohl's did not appear to be as much of an improvement from Mervyn's as it could have been. She inquired whether there should be some safeguard in Page 21 of 23 place to temper very large projects. She believed the City should be able to maintain some control over quality of retail issues to the extent possible. President Cook noted that there would be some large projects that the Planning Board would like, and others that it would not, regardless of the percentage of food items. She believed the 10% of floor area dedicated to food sales was a union issue. She noted that while she generally supported unions, she did not believe it would be a good planning issue. She believed that it would be very important to def ne the planning issues. Board member Cunningham noted that the community would likely be happy to see a 95,000 square foot Macy's in Alameda, but that under this ordinance, it could not be approved. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that it seemed that the Planning Board liked what it originally said, and that it would be important for EDC to weigh in on this ordinance before the City Council heard it. President Cook agreed with Vice President Kohlstrand's assessment, and believed it was very important to have the EDC's opinion, and that it was ultimately a City Council issue. With respect to the 90,000 square foot issue, Board member Ezzy Ashcraft noted that she would like to see more negotiation on the City staff level in working out acceptable square footage levels with Developers. In response to an inquiry by Board member Ezzy Ashcraft regarding the trigger for a use permit, Mr. Thomas confirmed that everything over 30,000 square feet would require a use permit, and would require the Planning Baard to make the findings for a use permit approval. Vice President Kohlstrand moved to confirm the Planning Board's original recommendation of defining a large format retail as one or more stores totaling 30,000 square feet and subject to use permit or planned development approval, and to recommend such to City Council. The Planning Board recommends that the Economic Development Commission weigh in on this matter. Board member Cunningham seconded the motion, with the following voice vote - 5. Noes: 0 Absent: 2 Lynch, McNamara}; Abstain: 0. The motion passed. 10. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None. 4. MINUTES: a. Minutes for the meeting of April 14, 2008. These minutes will be considered at a later meeting. b. Minutes for the meeting of May 12, 2008, Page 22 of 23 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF CITY OFALAMEDA ECQNQMIC DEVELQPMENTCQMMISSIQN THURSDAY, JULY ~ 1, 2008 1:30 PM 1. CALL TQ QRDER AND RQLL CALL Chairman Wetzork called the meeting to order at ?:30 p.m. Present: Chairman Wetzork. Commission Members; Bonta, Lindsey, Ryan, Schmitz, and Zuppan Absent: Dahlberg Vacancy; ~2 } Staff: Eric Fonstein and Rosemary Valeska 2. MINUTES 2.a. Minutes of the Re ular Meetin of June 19 2008 Motion ~Schmitz~, seconded, and unanimous to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 19, 2008, as corrected. Commission Member Zuppan had provided corrections relative to her comments during the Alameda Towne Centre presentation. 3. CQNSENTCALENDAR (None) 4. QRAL CQMMUNICATIONS -PUBLIC (None) 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS (None) 6. NEW BUSINESS fi. a. "Su erstore Prohibition" The Cit of Alameda is considerin an amendment to the Alameda Munici al Cade to rohibit retail stores lar er than 90 444 s ware feet in size that include more than ten ercent ~f4% fioar area devoted to the sale of n,yn-taxable,,_ items. The,,~roposed rohibition would a l in all zonin districts in the cit ~. Staff is~re uestin the Economic Develo ment Commission review the ro osed zonin amendments and make a recommendation to the Cit Council. City Council Attachment Z to Public Hearing Agenda Item #5-D 49.16.08 Economic Development Commission Minutes Page~of9 July 1l, 2008 Douglas Garrison, Supervising Planner, gave a recap of the written staff report provided in the packet. Public speaker: Mike Henneberry of UFCW Local No. 5 spoke in support of the proposed Municipal Code amendment. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Henneberry had provided a letter to the EDC Members, and a copy of this letter is attached to these minutes for reference. Mr. Henneberry cited several Alameda businesses with employees represented by Local No. 5. He recapped the history of superstores and the negative impacts on local merchants. He also discussed how other communities have dealt with this issue. He stated that Alameda's proposed ordinance was based upon Livermore's; however, Livermore's threshold far non-taxable sales is five percent floor area and Alameda's proposed threshold would be ten percent. Also, Alameda's ordinance would exempt areas already governed by a Development Agreement, i.e., Alameda Landing and Harbor Bay. Commission Member Bonta requested further clarification as to the differences between Livermore's ordinance and Alameda's proposed ordinance. Regarding the areas governed by Development Agreements, Mr. Garrison explained that a Development Agreement was a contract between the City and the developer for that specific project, which has already been approved. The Development Agreement locked in zoning requirements in effect at the time the project was approved. Mr. Garrison added tha# the question on everyone's minds was Alameda Point. As Alameda Point is developed, a Master Plan will be brought forward. A Master Plan acts as a zoning ordinance farthat project. Commission Member Bonta asked Mr. Henneberry to cite an example of a superstore in the Bay Area. Mr. Henneberry responded that the closest vval~Mart superstores were in Vacaville and American Canyon, Also, Tulare has a Target superstore. There are none in the immediate Bay Area. Chairman wetzork stated that his understanding of Target was that they were discount department stores, not superstores. Mr. Henneberry clarified that he was only talking about discount stores with an added grocery store in ten percent or more of the floor area. Commission Member Bonta questioned why Mr. Henneberry did not think the Conditional Use Permit process alone was enough. Mr. Henneberry responded that the superstores have unlimited time and resources, they make repeated attempts, and they wait for changes in the make-up of Planning Boards and City Councils. They end up wearing cities dawn, and this is what Mr. Henneberry claims happened in American Canyon. Public speaker: Karen Bey. Ms. Bey cited a recent article by the Public Law and Research Institute at Hastings College of Law re ardin ., g „g superstores and the cities that have passed ordinances. Commun~t~es protect the flavor and character of neighborhoods through regulation and Economic Development Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 July 1l, 2008 control. Superstores contain full retail and full grocery, A superstore would impact our existing retail stores, such as Safeway, Nab Hili Foods, and Trader Joe's, and it is important to protect those. She added that she would recommend the threshold far superstores be set at 90,000 square feet and five percent as opposed to ten percent. This will send a strong, united message that we want to protect our existing food retail stores and our specialty food stores like Trader Joe's. She also stated that she was in support of the "big box"ordinance for stares totaling 30,000 square feet or mare. She expressed concern that Alameda Point might be exempt from the proposed superstore ordinance, and questioned why all this work was being done if the areas being developed for retail could be exempt. The ban on supercenters is a good thing forAlameda. Commission Member Zuppan noted that one of the points raised by the Planning Board was that with this ten percent limitation, a 10D,D00-square- foot store with 10,000 square feet of non-taxable items would be prohibited and could not apply for a use permit; however, a 150,000- square-foot store, or larger, could have up to 14,999 square feet for non- taxable items. She stated that she was also thinking about it in terms of the taxable vs. non-taxable and what does that do to the economics of Alameda and our efforts to stop sales #ax leakage. Has anyone else who has done one of these bans based on square footage percentage, have they tackled it some other way? It seems incongruent that the bigger the store, the more you can have. Mr. Henneberry responded that the Livermore Ordinance had been submitted with five percent non-taxable and it was changed by staff to ten percent. He stated that he did not know what the motivation was for that. That had been the standard in the early 1990's. supercenters at that time had a set formula: 150-200,000 square feet and the ten percent made sense at that time. It subsequently was changed because supercenters started changing their parameters to meet new thresholds when cities changed their ordinances. He stated that it would be his preference if it was five percent. Also, he did not agree that the development agreement areas should be exempt from the proposed ordinance. Commission Member Bonta asked far a working definition of a supercenter, as opposed to a discount center, in terms of square footage. Mr. Henneberry responded that it really was more about what was sold. In Lynwood, they passed an ordinance that states a supercenter is 100,000 square feet with five percent grocery, wal-Mart moved in with a 90,000- square-foot supercenter. These days, they go in anywhere from 15,000 to 250,000 square feet. If you have a full service grocery store with meat, produce, deli, and a bakery, you are pretty much a supercenter because it takes up a lot of square footage. In response to a previous comment, Mr. Garrison clarified far the record that staff did not change from five percent to ten percent, That was Economic Development Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 July ~7, 2DO8 direction given by the City Council, which was not to copy the Livermore ordinance but to be very specific that this would apply to stores of over 90,OOg square feet with more than ten percent devoted to non-taxable goods. Commission Member Zuppan asked how other cities approach this. Are other cities' prohibitions based on a percentagelsquare footage combination as proposed here? Mr. Henneberry responded that there is no one standard nationwide -- it's all across the board. It ranges from an outright prohibition of superstores based on square footage to a five to ten percent limit of area far non-taxable sales. Commission Member Banta noted that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors did not impose a ban for the unincorporated areas. Instead, they require an Economic Impact Analysis. Mr. Henneberry responded that initially, an Qrdinance had been proposed based on five or ten percent; however, the matter did not go to the County Planning Commission first. As a result, veal-Mart sued the County. The County pulled the ordinance and introduced the requirement for the Economic Impact Analysis. It's basically the equivalent of the conditional use permit. Mr. Henneberry re-emphasized that the communities using the conditional use permit model are constantly pounded by superstore operators; whereas, if there is a ban in place, that settles it. Commission Member Bonta asked if Alameda County has been pounded by applicants, and if there has been a superstore. Mr. Henneberry responded that he didn't know if an application has been submitted. He restated what happened in American Canyon. Commission Member Ryan asked if Wal-Mart was non-union. Mr. Henneberry responded that was correct. Commission Member Bonta stated that these types of ordinances seem to attempt to capture something -- not by their express terms but by way of the best proxy. They attempt to capture stores that are non-union and have poor labor practices, but these ordinances do not expressly discuss the labor practices. By capturing stores with 94,gg0 square feet and ten percent floor area dedicated to non-taxable items, there's currently a certain type of behavior that is associated with that. This behavior could potentially change. He stated that this might be "pie in the sky" but there is a possibility in the future of a store of that size with that square footage behaving appropriately, treating labor fairly, and having unions. However, that would be prohibited under this proposed ordinance. The conditional use permit could provide more flexibility in the case of fair labor practices being used and there's a good sales tax impact for the community, and the 90,04g square feet and ten percent requirements are all met. Then you would be faced with revising the ordinance. The conditional use permit allows same fine surgery of the City Council or the body making the review. The proposed ordinance would be a blunter instrument but would Economic Development Commission Minutes Page5of9 July 17, 200$ provide for a strict prohibition. There are trade-offs. Mr. Henneberry responded that cities using the conditional use permit process instead of a strict prohibition end up with supercenters. Regarding the labor practices, Mr. Henneberry stated that his job was to protect grocery jabs and the superstore prohibition helps to do that. This proposed ordinance would not ban a 100,000-square-foot store that does not sell groceries, e.g., Babies R Us or Barnes & Noble. However, this is not just about protecting the grocery jobs. The people that shop at supercenters are going to buy items in addition to groceries, which would affect stores like Pagano's. He added that we need to deal with what is happening now and not wha# may be. Commission Member zuppan stated that as part of a marketing thought process, she was wondering how much of a target marketwe were for this if we did not pass the ordinance, and asked how many areas in the East Bay do not have one of these ordinances outright banning these stores. Mr. Henneberry responded that a lot of municipalities do not have these but a lot are considering them. Qakland has one. San Francisco has a "grocery workers justice" statute, which is much more complex than what is being proposed here. San Leandro is in the process of adopting one. In terms of cities similar to Alameda, the Brisbane Gity Council just turned down an application fora 1Naf-Mart supercenter; however, Brisbane does not have a ban. Commission Member Zuppan stated that she was wondering haw much of a target we would be. Mr. Henneberry responded that with all the open land, we are a target. Chairman vlJetzork stated that recently the EDC did a complete review of the Economic Development Strategic Plan. Qne of the major things that came out of that was to reinforce that we were trying to attract businesses that would supplement or complement our existing businesses, such as the neighborhood-serving businesses in the Stations or other neighborhood shopping areas. He sta#ed that he was inclined to agree with the Planning Board's recommendation on this. Qur present plan is sufficient to provide us with the protection we need for our local businesses. Therefore, he stated that he was not in favor of accepting the proposed amendment before the EDC, Commission Member Schmitz stated that over the years, he has been a student of various economic development strategies and has worked in various capacities to try to impact policies that will help working families and small businesses. On this commission, he has supported those who realize that small businesses and working families are the backbone of Alameda. There is something special about Alameda and that the civic process works here. He stated that things like term limits and mandatory minimum sentencing come out of a distrust of failed systems. He stated that he did not believe that Alameda was that place. He stated that he looks at the civic engagement of people on Alameda's boards and commissions as well as the people attending the meetings to affect their Economic Development Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 July ~ 1, 2008 decisions. He stated that what he did not like about the proposal was the limits of discretion. aVe have the tools with the political system in Alameda with the conditional use permit and the Municipal Code Amendments of March 18, 2008, to stop these things, which we ali agree would be detrimental. He stated that a wal~Mart in Alameda would be detrimental and he would do everything he could to stop that from happening. He stated that he did not see the need to say to Council or the Planning Board, "the tools are not enough because we don't trust you." In terms of superstore applicants coming back over and over, he stated that he felt confident that the City could deal with that. He also stated that he felt confident that if the City doesn't, that frankly, folks would throw them out. This is the kind of town where civic participation is real, not just talked about. The reason is not for lack of understanding of the impacts or lack of support for the issues surrounding this, but it is the issue of discretion. For that reason, he stated that he would not support the limits because he does not think that this town's political process is broken. At this time, Chairman wetzork entertained a motion to recommend approval or disapproval of the amendment. Commission Member Schmitz moved not to support the amendment as proposed. Seconded by Commission Member Ryan. Chairman Wetzork asked for a show of hands in support of the motion. Chairman vvetzork and Commission Members, Lindsey, Ryan, and Schmitz voted in favor of the motion, Commission Member Bonta voted no. Commission Member Zuppan abstained. Motion failed due to the lack of five affirmative votes. Chairman Wetzork stated that the Commission needed to come to a decision tonight as City Council was looking to EDC for a recommendation. Commission Member Zuppan stated that she agreed that these superstores were a bad idea and they shouldn't be here; however, we really don't have the space for them and they would be very unlikely to succeed. She stated that she wandered if it was really necessary to pass the ordinance. She also stated that it was difficult for her to understand when passing the ordinance would be a bad idea because we have plenty of other retailers meeting that non-taxable need. She stated that she was having a difficult time with passing an ordinance to stop something that's not happening and seems rather unlikely. She stated that on the other hand, she was having a difficult time with seeing what the negative consequences would be for a town of our size. Commission Member Schmitz stated that the paint he was making was that we don't know and that we're limiting discretion. There are times when you need to do that but he did not think that Alameda was in that place where we need to do that. He stated that he knows there is a great deal of concern and that he supports that concern because Alameda's small businesses and working families that make up the backbone of Alameda need to have the full support of the commissions and boards. He Economic Development Cammission Minutes Page 7 of 9 July 17, 20DS added that he does not feel the system is broken here though and that the ability to fix it is there, too, He stated that to him, it was a process thing about discretion and he does not support in this case limiting discretion, He stated that he does not know what situation might present itself. He would not support the situation as presented by Mr. Henneberry; however, he does not know going forward what other situations exist, and that the limitation of discretion was the basis of his apposition. Commission Member Bonta stated that he was in agreement with everything Commission Member Schmitz said, but he was coming out a little bit differently on it. He stated that he thinks the tool is an imperfect tool. It is a little blunt and it does not account for a lot of possibilities ar potential scenarios in the future. He stated that everything the Planning Board said were entirely legitimate concerns. one recommendation he would make would be to consider an amendment that would allow for more flexibility and would address the issues of the Planning Board. The other side is that we do want to have development that will generate some good sales tax dollars for the City. Vve have been relying a lot on parcel taxes and people are having some fatigue about that. Having same sales tax revenues to rely on is important. There is an important balance going on here. He stated that he would generally agree that flexibility and discretion are important but he did not think that anyone would envision, with the known information we have today, that a store that meets these requirements would be approved. !sit passible in the future that one would have good labor practices and be good for the community and good far business? it's possible. At that point, perhaps this ordinance could be revisited. But based on the information we know now, that's why he came to his decision. He also stated that it was close and that he agreed with the principles articulated by Cammission Member Schmitz, Chairman 1~1Jetzork stated to Commission Member Zuppan #hat she could change her vote if that was what she wanted. Commission Member Zuppan stated that after hearing the discussion, if we decide to do this, to see it be more nuanced than it is. She stated that she did not see this as an impending danger so there would be time to develop something that is a bit more nuanced. She stated #hat even though we think that something like this would not get approved right now, in general, the concept Hof the proposed ordinances is not bad, and while she would prefer taxable to non-taxable in terms of development, dust because it has good things doesn't mean that it's necessarily the right thing to do. She indicated that she would be ready to vote again and not abstain. Chairman vlJetzork entertained a new motion from someone other than the originator of the first motion. Commission Member Zuppan moved that the EDC recommend to not approve this, as is; that we recommend that it be mare nuanced or that we wait until it is a more significant issue. Seconded by Commission Member Ryan. Commission Member Schmitz asked if Economic Development Commission Minutes Page8of9 July ~ ~, 2008 there was the wilt to work on something more nuanced and what that would look like, something that allowed for discretion. He asked Mr. Henneberry's for this thoughts on this. Mr. Henneberry responded that he understood the concept of nuance, as he has to compromise on his fob every day. Commission Member Schmitz clarified that by nuance he did not mean compromise, it's discretion -- the ability to hold principles but to have the decision makers accountable to the political process, and not to say, "this is what you get to decide on." The principle is, what are we allowing the decision makers to decide on? Commission Member Bonta stated that we all seem to be agreeing on the same principles but not the tools to implement the principles and have them enforced. It sounds [ike we have problems with the policy and not the principles driving the policy, and he was not sure where that takes us. Chairman 1Netzork called for the vote. There were five affirmative votes and one no vote by Commission Member Bonta. Chairman Wetzork stated that the EDC would send a recommendation to the City Council that we do not approve. Chairman Wetzork thanked the public speakers for their contributions to the discussion. 7. REPORTS 7.a. ~ra1 Re ort: Commission Member Schmitz -~ EDC Re resentative to the Bic cle Plan Task Force Commission Member Schmitz stated that there had been no activity so therefore, no report. l.b. oral Re ort; Commission Member Schmitz -- EDC Re resentative to the Alameda Point Adviso Task Force Commission Member Schmitz stated that there has been no activity so therefore, no report, 8. WRITTEN C4MMUNlCATIaNS 8.a. U comin EDC A enda items 8.b. Redevelo meet - Burldrn Beffer Carnmunlfles 9. ORAL C~MMUNICATICNS -C~MMISSI4N MEMBERS AND STAFF Chairman vlletzork stated #hat he has been getting feedback that the City . is not business friendly, but believes that this is a misconception. ~0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:4g p.m. Economic Development Commission Minutes Respectfully submitted, osemr ary Daleska EDC Recording Secretary RV Page9of9 July ~ 1, 2008 G:lecandevlEDCIMINIJTES12p~81July ~7 Regular.doc F; EDCIMinutes #4 CfTYOFALAMEDAORDINANCE NO. New Series :~ .~ ~` '~ ,~, ,~ ~. :~. .,, .~' AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE CONTAINED IN ARTICLE I (ZONING DISTRICTS AND REGULATIONS) OF CHAPTER XXX (DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS) TO PROHIBIT SINGLE RETAIL STORES LARGER THAN 90,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE THAT INCLUDE MORE THAN TEN-PERCENT SALES FLOOR AREA DEVOTED TO NON-TAXABLE MERCHANDISE BE fT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section ~. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following definition to Section 30-2 Definitions}: Super Stare: A single retail store or tenant ff~at exceeds 90, D00 square feet in size and includes 10 % or more sales floor area devoted to non-taxable merchandise. Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new text to Section 30-4.8.c.10 ~C-1 Neighborhood Business District, Uses Requiring Use Permits}, as shown below by underlined text, as follows: Section 30-4.8.c.10 Large Format Retail including conversion of I existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single #enant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Su_ per Stores, as defined in Sin 30- 2, are prohibited. ~~ ~~ Section 3. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new text to Section 30-4.9.c.16 ~C-~ Central Business District, Uses Requiring Use Permits}, as shown below by underlined text, as follows: Section 30-4.9.c.1fi Large Format Retail including conversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,OOO square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Super Stores, as defined in Section 30- .. .,~, .~ 2, are prohibited. Section 4. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new text to Section 30-4.9A.c.1.gg ~C-C Community Commercial, Uses Requiring Use Permits}, as shown below by underlined text, as follows: 30-4.9A.c.1~gg~ Large Format Retail including conversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned ordinance #5-D D9-~6.0~ development, no use permit is required}. Super Stores, ,,as defined in Section 30-2 are rohibited. Section 5. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new text to Section 30-4.10.c.15 ~C-M Commercial-Manufacturing, Uses Requiring Use Permits}, as shown below by underlined text, as follows: 30-4.~O.c.15 Large Format Retail including conversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Su er Stores, as defined in Section 30-2, are rohibited . ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ Section 6. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new text to Section 30-4.1 o.c.15 ~C-M Commercial-Manufacturing, Uses Requiring Use Permits}, as shown below by underlined text, as follows: 30-4.~O.c .~5 Large Format Retai! including canversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Super Stores, as defined in Section 30- 2, are prohibited. ~~ Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new text to Section 30-4.11.c.14 ~M-1 Intermediate Industrial District, Uses Requiring Use Permits}, as shown below by underlined text, as follows: 30-4.~~.c.~4 Large Format Retail including conversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Su er Stores, as defined in Section 3~-2 are rohibited. ~ ~ ~ .,. ^~ Section 8. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new text to Section 30-4.12.c.19 ~M-2 General Industrial District, Uses Requiring Use Permits}, as shown below by underlined text, as follows: Section 30-4.12.c.19Large Format Retail including conversion of existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than 30,440 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use permit is required}. Super Stores, as defined,.in Section 30- ~ are rohibited. Section 9. This Grdinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the expiration of thirty X30}days from the date of its final passage, Section 10. Severability Clause. It is the declared intent of the City Council of Alameda that if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shalt not be so construed as to render invalid or unconstitutional the remaining provisions of this ordinance. Section 11. The above amendments shall be known as and referenced to as Reclassification and Rezoning Amendment No. to Ordinance No. 1217, N.S. Presiding Officer of the Council Attest: Lara ~lveisiger, City Clerk *~**~* 1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular meeting assembled on the 16th day of September, 2668, by the following vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: IN VvITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seat of said City this 1lth day of September, 2048. Lara ~IVeisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda DRAFT CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. I2I21 SETTING THE ORDER OF BUSINESS OF CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 36S 12 and 54954.3 give the City Council direction to adopt reasonable regulations concerning the proceedings and order of business of City Council meetings; and WHEREAS, the City Council at the May 21, 2991, City Council meeting approved Ordinance 2556, establishing that Order of Business may be established by Resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council at the June 1 S, 1991, City Council meeting approved Resolution No. 12121, setting the Order of Business of City of Alameda City Council Meetings; and WHEREAS, it is desired that the Order of Business be amended to include City Manager Staff Reports as a standard agenda item on the regular agenda. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Order of Business be amended as follows: Section 1. At the hour appointed for each regular meeting, the members of the Council, City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk shall assemble in the designated location. Thereupon, business shall be taken up for consideration and disposition in the order established by Resolution of the City Council in the following order: I. 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 $. Council Communications Communications from Council} 9. City Manager Communications Communications from City Manager} lo, Adjournment Section 2. The order of business set by the aforesaid Resolution of the City Council may be suspended at any City Council meeting by a majority vote of the members in attendance, ~~~~~ Re: Agenda Item #7-A 09-~6-48 CURRENT APPLICATIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FOUR VACANCIES (FULL TERMS FOR TWO COMMUNITY-AT-LARGE SEATS AND MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL SEAT; AND PARTIAL TERM EXPIRING 08/31/2009 FOR MARINE/WATERFRONT SEAT) Mark Breazeal (Community-at-large) Horst Breuer (Community-at-large) Harry Dahlberg (Manufacturing/Industrial), Incumbent June A. Grant (Marine/Waterfront) Michael K. Henneberry (Marine/Waterfront) Jeff Mitchell (Communit-at-laxge) William Russell (Marine/Waterfront) Michael J. Schmitz (Community-at-Large), Incumbent Re; Agenda Item #S-A 49-6.45 CURRENT APPLICATIONS YOUTH CQMMISSION FOUR VACANCIES (FULL TERMS EXPIRING AUGUST 31, 2010) Claire E. Forbes Kura N. Heath Ellen F. Hui Bridget C. Kanady Naoise Lane Trent Liu Maggie Mei Mallory A. Penney Kaeleigh A. Thorp