2008-10-07 Packet~~'~,`L'~ c' ``
~~~
e ~,
~ 1
T ~ ~ ~ iti
~~~~~~~~~:,:~. CITY ~F ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
ti
rl' ~y-Jr ~ ~
9
~~i; ~lll7~r
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA7
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ~CIC7
TUESDAY - ~- - OCTOBER 7, 2008 -- - - 6:00 P.M.
Time: Tuesday, October 7, 2008 ~; 00 p.m.
Place: Cit Council Chambers Conference Room, City Hall, corner
of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street
Agenda:
1. Roll Call - City Council, ARRA, CIC
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:
CITY COUNCIL
3-A. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources
Director
Employee Organizations:
All Bargaining Units
CITY COUNCIL, ARR.A, CIC
3-B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
Property: Alameda Point
Negotiating parties: City Council, ARRA, CIC, and SunCal
Under negotiation; Price and terms
4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any
5. Adjournment - City Council RA, CIC
+r'1
Beverly n , yor
Chair, AR n C
~-~
Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue -Alameda, California 94501-2161 -TEL: (5l0} 747-4300 -FAX: X510} 522-784$ - TDD: ~S10} 522-8467
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD:
~ . Please file a speaker's slip with the Executive Director, and
upon recognition by the Chair, approach the rostrum and
state your name; speakers are limited to 3 minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and only a
summary of per#inent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstrations are prohibited during Board of
Commissioners meetings.
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING GF THE BOARD of COMMISSIONERS
DATE & T1ME Tuesday, October 1, 2008,1:25 PM
LoCATI~N City Hall, Council Chambers, Room 390, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA
Welcome to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
meeting. Regular Board of Commissioners meetings are held on the first Tuesday of each
quarter in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
Public Participation
Anyone wishin to address the Board on a ends items or busine
g g ss introduced by
Commissioners may speak for a maximum of three minutes per agenda item when the
subject is before the Board. Please file a speaker's slip with the Housing Authority Executive
Director if you wish to address the Board of Commissioners.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
~. ROLL CALL -Board of Commissioners
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
^ Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be approved or accepted
by one motion unless a request fior removal for discussion or explanation is
received from the Board of Commissioners or a member of the public.
~-A. Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioners meeting held August ~ 9, 2008.
Acceptance is recommended.
2-B. Recommend Award of Contract for Kitchen and Bath Cabinet Replacement at Anne B.
Diament Plaza. The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend
the Board of Commissioners:
Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners
October 7, 2448
Page 2
1. Award a contract to F.K. Construction for an amount not to exceed
$164,444.04 to replace kitchen and bath cabinets and counterko s in 23 units at
p
Anne B. D~ament Plaza; and
2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract with F.K. Construction.
3. AGENDA
3-A. Recommend Acquiring Two Housing Complexes from the Filipina American
Community Services Agency at 745 Lincoln Avenue and 1416 Sherman Street in
Alameda. The Housing Commission and the Chief Executive officer recommend the
Board of Commissioners:
1. Approve in concept the acquisition of 745 Lincoln Avenue and 1416 Sherman
Street from the Filipino American Community Services Agency; and
2. Direct staff to prepare a financial package to acquire the two properties which
includes an appraisal, refinancing of the U.S. Bank loans and cost estimates
for improvements to the two properties.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, Non-Agenda (Public Comment)
5. CGMMISSICNER CCMMUNICATIGNS Communications from the Commissioners
6. ADJQURNMENT
**~
Note:
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board of Commissioners
after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda, 701 A#lantic Avenue, Alameda, CA 94591 during
normal business hours.
Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact Carol ~IIleaver,
Secretary, at 747-4325 voice or 522-8467 TDD at least 72 hours before the meeting to
request an interpreter.
Accessible seating for persons with disabilities including those using wheelchairs} is
available.
Minutes of the meeting are available in large print.
Audiotapes of the meeting are available on request.
Please contact Carol Weaver at 747-4325 voice of 522-8467 TDD at least 72 hours
prior to the meeting to request agenda materials in an alternative format, or any other
reasonable accommodation that may be necessary to participate in and enjoy the
benefits of the meeting.
~~
71 ^'.,', ~~'~~4
~~~ ~~
~~~~.~t.~+~ ~ CITY ~F ALAMEDA • ~ALIF~R
~,, ~, ~~
~ ~ f~~~~~ruryl~f S 4,~~~ I~~
•~~~/trSL'l~~'Jf
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ~ARRA}, AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION CIC}
TUESDAY - -- - OCTOBER 7, 2008 - -- - 7;27 P.M.
Location; Cit Council Chambers, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara
Avenue and Oak Street.
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council/Board/Commission on agenda
items or business introduced by the Council/Board/Commission may
speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject
is before the Council/Board/Commission. Please file a speaker's
slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to speak on an agenda
item.
1. ROLL CALL - City Council, ARRA, CIC
2. MINUTES
2-A. Minutes of Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting
held on September 16, 2008. [CIC] City Clerk}
3. AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Recommendation to accept and endorse the Park Street north of
Lincoln Avenue Strategic Plan. [CIC] Development Services.
3--B. Recommendation to approve the second amendment to the
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SCC Alameda Point LLC.
[City Council, ARR.A, CIC] Development Services}
4. ADJOURNMENT - City Council, ARRA, CIC
*~
everly h ayor
Chair, Al Re s e and
Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
~~~
~ ~~
_- ~~ ~
.~ ~ ' ~
~' ~ '~` ~3
o C~~r+Y r~nu~°~r ~~
. o
CITY OF ALAMEDA • CALIFORNIA
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL:
1. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City
Clerk and upon recognition by the Mayor, approach the
podium and state your name; speakers are limited to
three ~3} minutes per item.
2. Lengthy testimony should be submitted in writing and
only a summary of pertinent points presented verbally.
3. Applause and demonstration are prohibited during
Council meetings.
AGENDA - - - - - - -- - - - -- REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - - - - - OCTOBER 7, 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. City Manager Communications
6. Agenda Items
7. Oral Communications, Non-Agenda Public Comment}
8. Council Referrals
9. Communications Communications from Council}
10. Adjournment
Public Participation
Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business
introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes
per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a
speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address
the City Council
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 6:00 P.M.
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM
Separate Agenda Closed Session
REGULAR MEETING OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD 7:25 P.M.
OF COMMISSIONERS, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA 7:27 P.M.
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Separate Agenda
1. ROLL CALL - City Council
2. AGENDA CHANGES
3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
3-A. Proclamation declaring October 19 through 25, 2008 as National
Business Women's Week.
3-B. Proclamation declaring October as Disability Awareness Month.
City Attorney}
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be
enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request
for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the
Council or a member of the public
4-A. Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on September l6, 2008, and the Special Joint City Council and
Public Utilities Board Meeting held on September 30, 2008.
City Clerk}
4-B. Bills for ratification. Finance}
4-C. Recommendation to accept the Bayport Phase 2 public backbone
infrastructure, stormwater treatment pond improvements, and
authorize the City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion for
the improvements. Development Services}
4-D. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $234,598,
including contingencies, to A-Plus Tree Service, for pruning
of City trees for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2009, No. P.W.
07-08-20. Public Works}
4-E. Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $160, 990,
including contingencies, to Schaaf & Wheeler Consulting Civil
Engineers, for assessment of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump
Stations, No . P.W. 06--OS-16 . ~ Public Works }
4-F. Adoption of Resolution Readopting the City of Alameda's
Bicycle Master Plan. Public Works}
4-G. Adoption of Resolution Supporting the FOCUS Priority
Development Area Application for Alameda Point. Planning and
Building}
4-H. Final Passage of Ordinance Approving Master Plan Amendment,
PLN08-0181, Adjusting Lot Sizes Within the Grand Marina
Village Master Plan. Planning and Building}
4-I. Final Passage of 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}
5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Communications from City Manager}
5-A. Update on budget status and discussion of potential cuts.
6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6-~A. Adoption of Resolution Reappointing Harry Dahlberg as a Member
of the Economic Development Commission Manufacturing /
Industrial Seat}; and Adoption of Resolution Appointing Maggie
Mei as a Member of the Youth Advisory Commission.
6-B. Public Hearing to consider an appeal of Planning Board
decision to certify the adequacy of the Alameda Towne Centre
Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report and to approve
the Sign Program, permitted hours of operation, and outdoor
uses for Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0004 and Major
Design Review DR05--D073; and adoption of related resolution.
Planning and Building}
7. 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
8. COUNCIL REFERRALS
Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted
upon or scheduled as a future agenda item
8-A. Consideration of a Resolution Supporting the Alameda County
Active Transportation Campaign. ~Councilmember Matarrese}
9. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Communications from Council}
Councilmembers can address any matter, including reporting on
any Conferences or meetings attended
10. 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,E during normal business hours
• Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please
contact the City Clerk at 747-4844 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 5227538 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 522-7535
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
~~
Housin_~'
Authority of the City of Alameda
701 Atlantic Avenue -Alameda, California 94501-21 b 1 -TEL: (5 I ~) 747-4300 -FAX: X510) 522-7848 - TDD; (5 i 0} 522-8467
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
OF THE HOUSINGAUTHORITY OF THE CITY OFALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2048
The Board if Commissioners was called to order at 7:59 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. ROLL CALL
Present: CommissionerdeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Torrey and Chair
Johnson
Absent: None
2. CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Matarrese moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Commissioner
Torrey seconded. Motion carried unanimously. Items accepted or ado ted are
p
indicated by an asterisk.
~Z-A. Minutes of the Regular Board of Commissioners meeting held July 1, X008. Minutes
were accepted.
*~-B. Amend Contract for Auditing Services. The Board of Commissioners a roved an
pP
amendment to extend the term of the contract with Wallace Rowe & Associates from
one year to five years for an amount not to exceed $147,525 for the revised five- ear
Y
term .
3. AGENDA
None.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
5. COMMISSIONER COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Torrey commented that everything was calm at Esperanza.
G. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 8:01 p.m.
HABOC
item #2-ACC
10-07-08
Minutes of the August 19, 2008
Special Meeting of the Board of Commissioners
Attest:
Page 2
Beverly Johnson, Chair
Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director I Secretary
_~
~ '3
~ ..~,. r•"'~"-fir t,
~~~~~
~.ut~iari
f
~ tl~~
~~ ~~
~~
ameba
~'
701 Atlar~ticAvenua -Aiame~a, California 946Q1-X161-Tol; ~61Q~ 7'47-4300 ,Fax: (5~0}5~~-T$4$ ~ TDD; X610} 5~~-8467
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Board of Commissioners
From: Debra Kurita
Chief Executive Qfficer
Date: Qctober 1, 2008
Re: Award Contract for Kitchen and Bath Cabinet Replacement at Anne B.
Diament Plaza
BACKGRQUND
This year's Extraordinary Maintenance Project ~EMP~ budget includes the re lacement
p
of kitchen and bath cabinets in 23 units on the second floor of Anne B. Diament Plaza.
DISCUSSION
0n July 25, 2405, the Housing Authority issued an Invitation for Bids IFB for the
~ }
replacement of kitchen and bath cabinets and countertops at Anne B. Diament Plaza. A
public notice was placed in the local newspaper and on the Housing Authority's website.
In addition, all companies that have requested placement on the Housing Authorit 's list
. y
of potential contractors far this type of work and all Alameda contractors with a relevant
business license were contacted about the 1FB.
Qn August 20, 2ooS, bids were publicly opened and the results are as follows:
Contractor _
F.K. Construction, Antioch, CA, _
Dreamsca es, Fremont, CA.
Cities Construction, inc., Oakland, CA.
Unit Cost Total Cost
$6,69fi.62 $154,022.26
$fi,850.00 $151,550.00
$7,000.00 $~ sl,ooo.oo
One bid was received from a company that has been deemed a "non-responsible"
contractor based on previous performance; therefore, that bid was rejected.
The Housing Authority has worked with F.K. Construction on other projects includin the
9
third floor cabinet replacement project at Anne B. Diament Plaza HEMP # ABD2-08 .
}
The contractor has a good record of completing projects on time and within bud et.
9
This contractor already has an Alameda business license and the appropriate insurance
on file with the Housing Authority. The contract is on file in the City Clerk's office.
HABQC
Item #2-B CC
~0-o7-oS
Honorable Chair and Qctober 7 200H
Members of the Board of Commissioners Pa e 2 of 2
g
BUDGET CQNSIDERATIQNIFINANCiAL IMPACT
The budget provides $160,000 for kitchen and bath cabinet re lacement includin
p g
contingencies. It is standard practice to add 10 percent for possible chap a orders
9 ,
however, based on performance of this contractor and the type of ro~ect a smaller
P J
amount x$5,911.14} is recommended. This would bring the amount not to exceed in the
cantract to $160,000, the budgeted amount.
RECQMMENDATI4N
The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Qfficer recommend the Board of
Commissioners:
1. Award a contract to F.K. Construction for an amount not to exceed $160,000.00
to replace kitchen and bath cabinets and countertops in 23 units at Anne B.
Diament Plaza; and;
2. Authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract with F.K. Construction;
Respectfully submitted,
Michael T. Pucci
Executive Director
R ~
By: Keivan Abidi
Reconstruction Specialist II
MTP: KA
? ~ ~ -~,:
,. ~Y
z
I-~~au~lrl
.~u~~ori
f
~ the
~~ ~~
~~
am~~
~Q1 AtlantiuAvenue -Aiame~a, California ~4~01-2161-Tal: ~~10} T47-400 ~ Fax: ~51~}5~~y7846 - TDD: X510} 5~2-8461
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Board of Commissioners
From: Debra Kurita
Chief Executive Officer
Date: October 7, 2008
Re: Recommend Acquiring Two Housing Complexes from the Filipino American
Community Services Agency at 745 Lincoln Avenue and 1416 Sherman
Street in Alameda
BACKGROUND
The Filipino Arr~erican Community Services Agency ~FACSA~, a 501~c 3 non- rofit
}~ } p
corporation founded around 1990, has decided to dissolve and dispose of its assets.
FACSA purchased 1416 Sherman Street in 1993 and 745 Lincoln Avenue in 1995.
Photos of these two properties are attached. FACSA received loans from Alameda First
National Bank, now U.S. Bank, and HOME funds from Alameda Count for the
v
purchase and rehabilitation of these two complexes. The Housing Authority has been
managing both properties since they were purchased and available for occupanc .
Y
DISCUSSION
For over 13 years the Housing Authority has managed these two com lexes that
p
operate with a small positive fund balance. There have been years when there were
extraordinary maintenance projects that required the use of reserves to cover these
costs. There are also some inherent problems with the water supply lines at 1416
Sherman Street, but Housing Authority maintenance staff is very familiar with haw to
complete these and other necessary repairs at this nine-unit building. The four- lex at
p
745 Lincoln went through substantial rehabilitation in 1996 and is in good condition.
Again, maintenance staff is very familiar with the repairs needed at this buildin .The
g
Housing Authority is conducting a thorough physical needs assessment of both of these
buildings to determine what capital improvements or extraordinary maintenance will
need to be performed over the next ten years. It is expected that 1416 Sherman Street
will need the most improvements.
The HOME program loan requires that the rents at 745 Lincoln Avenue are affordable
for very law income families with incomes below 50 percent of the area median. The
rents are currentEy:
1 Bedroom wheelchair accessible $722
2 Bedroom (3 units) ~8~6 HABOC
Agenda Item #3-A
10-07-08
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Board of Commissioners
October 7, 2008
Page 2 of 3
At 1416 Sherman Street, five of the units are affordable for ve low in
ry come families,
two are affordable for lower income families with incomes below 60 ercen
p t of area
median, and two units have market rate rents that are occu led b Section s
p Y voucher
holders. The rents at this complex are as follows:
2 Bedroom Very Low (5 units) $715 - $914
2 Bedroom Lower (2 units) $1170
2 Bedroom Market Rate (2 units) $1261
The Housing Authority will preserve these units to be affordable for ver low a
y nd fower
incomefamilies.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
FACSA is prepared to sell the two complexes to the Housin Authorit at no cost and
g Y
the Housing Authority would have to assume the existing debt on the ro ernes. The
p p
total debt on the two properties for which the Housing Authorit would be res onsibfe is
Y p
as follows:
l45 Lincoln
Avenue
U.S. Bank $ 84,000
Alameda Count HOME Loan $380,000
TOTAL $464,000
1416 Sherman
Street
$2SS, o00
$532, 946
$820, 946
GRAND
TOTAL
$ 372,000
$ 912,946
$1,284,946
The loans with U.S. Bank are at six percent interest for l45 Lincoln Avenue and six 3/4
percent for 1416 Sherman Street. Staff will investigate refinancin these loans at a
g
better rnterest rate.
Alameda County is prepared to transfer the HOME loans to the Housin Authorit .The
g Y
$912,946 HOME loan with Alameda County is at three ercent sim le interest with
p p
interest and principal payments deferred until January 1, 2011. These amen#s can
pY
continue to be deferred until the first mortgages are paid off and as long as the Housin
g
Authority continues to keep the units affordable for fower and very low income tenants.
Preliminary estimates indicate there may be a need of an additional $400 000 for
improvements to the two buildings to bring them up to Housing Authority standards.
Therefore, new !vans will be sought totaling approximately $772,000 for both ro erties.
pP
Staff will request approval of these loans from the Board of Commissioners at a future
meeting. An appraisal of both properkies is currently being conducted and should be
available later this month.
The complexes also come with a replacement reserve account. The current account
balance is $26,415.
Honorable Chair and
Members ofithe Board of Commissioners
Qctober 7, 2DD8
Page3of3
Staff has determined #hat operating costs can be reduced b at least 1 D OOD ann
Y $ wally
under Housing Authority ownership. The property will be insured with the Housin
Authorit Risk Re g
y tendon Pool ~HARRP~ resulting in an approximate savings of $3,500
plus FACSA will no longer receive an annual payment of $6,6DD as owner of the
properties.
RECQMMENDATIQN
The Housing Commission and Chief Executive Qfficer recommend the Board of
Commissioners:
~ . Approve in concept the acquisition of 745 Lincoln Avenue and 1416 Sherman
Street from the Filipino American Community Services Agency; and
2. Direct staff to prepare a financial package to acquire the two properties which
~ncfudes an appraisal, refinancing of the U.S. Bank loans and cost estimates for
improvements to the two properties.
Respectfully submitted,
ichael T. Puc i
Executive Director
MTP:caw
Attachments:
1. 1416 Sherman Street
2. 745 Lincoln Avenue
HAB~C
Attachment ~ to
Agenda Item #3-A
10-01-08
HAeoc
._ .- ~ Attachment 2 to
Agenda Item #3-A
o-o~-os
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - ~- SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Community Improvement Commission
Meeting at 5:06 p.m. Commissioner Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present: Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*OS- } Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement
Commission Meetings held on August 19, 2005; and Special Joint City
Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners Meeting of September 2, 2008. Approved.
(*08- } 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, OOD (of which $104, 000
will be reimbursed by the homebuilder for In-Tract Plan Review and
Inspection}. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
September 1b, 2008
CITY 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community ImprovementCommission
From: Debra Kurita
Executive Director
Date: October 7, 2008
Re: Accept and Endorse the Park Street North of Lincoln Strategic Plan
BACKGROUND
The commercial district on Park Street north of Lincoln, traditionally known as "Auto Row,"
is an area in transition due to the recent and projected future loss of new car dealerships.
Toyota of Alameda will be moving when its new facility on Hegenberger Road, in Gakland,
is completed later this year. Cavanaugh Motors, another major Alameda dealership,
closed its facilities last fall.
In response to these changes the Community Improvement Commission ~CIC}approved a
contract with City Design Collective CDC} to develop a plan that would provide a vision
and process to guide future development in this area. The Gateway District Strategic Plan
for the Park Street Business District North of Lincoln Avenue Strategic Plan}, which is on
file with the City Clerk, is the result of this effort. The study area included Park Street from
Lincoln Avenue north to the Estuary and the areas between Cak Street on the west and
Everett Street on the east.
DISCUSSIGN
Purpose of the Strategic Plan. The Strategic Plan is a long-range planning tool that
accommodates existing businesses that choose to remain in their current locations and
facilitates an orderly transition in scale and design for new development. The Strategic
Plan is the first step in a multiphase process that may include future general plan and
zoning amendments, new commercial design standards, and new infrastructure
improvements. The primary purpose of the Strategic Plan is as follows:
~ . Recommend strategies for redeveloping the district, including a broad land use
vision and urban designlstreetscape principles that can be used as a basis for future
zoning and general plan amendments, andlor design and development standards for
the area;
2. Identify the type of development in the district that will support City economic
development objectives, enhance the quality of~the urban environment, and support
community goals forthe area; and
CCIARRAICIC
Agenda Item #3-A
~ 0-o7-oa
Honorable Chair and October 1, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 2 of 6
3. Outline mayor steps and priority actions necessary to achieve the recommended
strategies.
Public Engagement Process. The City and CDC began with a series of community
stakeholder meetings, which included major commercial property owners and
businesses in the area, the Park Street Business Association ~PSBA}, and
representatives from City Boards and Commissions. The City and CDC then held a
Public Visioning Charette on March 15, 2008. The event was attended by over 50
people. The participants engaged in small, work-table discussions about issues and
opportunities in the district. CDC used the comments solicited during the charette to
help define a common vision forthe Strategic Plan.
The City and CDC also held athree-day, local "design studio" at City Hall on March 2fi-
29. The public was encouraged to visit the studio and provide input as the design
concepts were taking shape. Upon completion of the draft concepts, the City and CDC
convened a Community Open House on April 1l, where community members reviewed
the urban design concepts and provided additional feedback to shape the final vision.
This process resulted in the public review draft of the Strategic Plan, presented to the
Economic Development Commission ~EDC}, the Historical Advisory Board ~HAB}, the
Transportation Commission ETC}, the Planning Board APB}, and the Park Street
Business Association ~PSBA}for review and comment, as described below.
Summary of Strategic Plan Recommendations. The community engagement process
elicited the following long-term goals forthe Strategic Plan:
1. Use the district as a primary gateway into the city to enhance Alameda's identity;
2. Attract new investment appropriate to the envisioned character of the district;
3. Create attractive and pedestrian-oriented streetscapes and public spaces
throughout the district;
4. Remedy the auto-oriented physical imprint left by Auto Row on the district's
pattern of buildings and street environment; and
5. Ensure that new and existing development reinforces the desired look and feel of
the district and complements the City's historic buildings.
Based on review of existing economic and demographic data and the goals that were
identified through the public engagement process, CDC proposed strategies for
improving the neighborhood fabric in this district. A summary of some of the key
strategies is provided below:
1. Economics-identify and recruit desired businesses and provide a predictable
development environment where the rules are readily understood.
2. Land use-encourage mixed-use development. Where appropriate, change the
M-1 intermediate industrial} and M-2 general industrial} zoning to support the
Honorable Chair and October 1, 2ooS
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 3 of 5
community's vision of apedestrian-oriented, mixed-use neighborhood. Require
auto repair and maintenance services to occur within or behind enclosed
structures. Discourage the location of heavy industrial uses on Park Street and
encourage relocation of more intensive auto service and industrial uses to the
industrial corridor along the City truck route located on Clement Avenue.
3. Building design-establish form-based architectural standards to ensure high-
quality, distinctive styles that complement the historic fabric of the district. Locate
new buildings close to the sidewalk with parking available to the rear of the
buildings. Form based codes concentrate on the appearance and qualities of
development such as the building height and bulk, facade treatments, the
amount of open space, and the relationship of the buildings to the street and one
another while granting greater flexibility for the function and use of the buildings.
4. Historic resources---enhance and protect the diverse historic fabric of the district,
ensure proper evaluation of historic buildings, encourage and support the
adaptive re-use of historic buildings.
5. Landscape and open space-ensure that the district contains a variety of public
and private outdoor spaces.
6. Streetscapes---where feasible, restructure streets to create an attractive
pedestrian environment to support desired land uses.
1. Gateway-create an attractive, prominent feature at the northern entrance to the
district and perhaps at the southern entrance.
8. Parking-ensure an adequate supply of parking for new and existing
development while reducing the overall auto-dominated character of the district.
Economic Constraints and opportunities. CDC considered that it will be difficult to
fully replace the magnitude of revenue generated by the departing auto dealerships.
Few businesses can produce that level of sales tax other than large-scale regional retail
centers. This type of development would be difficult to implement within the physical
constraints of the district and the mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented vision established in
the Strategic Plan. Additionally, extending retail uses into districts that are similar to
those found south of Lincoln could dilute patronage for the existing retail district.
Residential development could also act as a catalyst for new commercial development.
However, the predominant forms of new residential development found in mixed-use
districts are typically multi-family buildings or mixed-use residential buildings, which are
unlikely due to current land~use restrictions. Finally, the limited availability of contiguous
sites for development poses a challenge to revitalization.
Future development of this district will be a long-term dynamic process, due to
uncertainty over future location decisions by current business owners. CDC did note,
however, that the most viable options for revitalization that would be consistent with the
Strategic Plan vision and goals are likely to include:
Honorable Chair and October 1, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 4 of 6
• "Destination" stores that would not compete directly with local businesses south
of Lincoln would be preferable. Some examples cited included REI, BevMo and
othersimilar medium-sized retailers.
• Gwner-occupant developers, such as retail chains that own their stores.
• Medium-to-large office users, like Perforce, that seek to own the buildings they
occupy.
• Retail, service and entertainment uses that can re-use existing structures.
• A hotel or motel.
Boards, Commissions, and Public Comments. The draft Strategic Plan was
presented for comment to the EDC August 21}, the HAB September 4}, the PB
September 8}, the TC September 24} and PSBA Board of Directors September 24}.
The draft minutes from the EDC, HAB, and PB meetings are attached. The comments
from the TC and PSBA will be reported to the CIC on Gctober 1.
The EDC, HAB, and PB supported the Strategic Plan with the following general
comments. Given the community's support for the overall vision and direction of the
plan, staff recommends that the following comments and suggestions provide direction
for the next steps described below to implement the Plan.
Sustainabilit
• Incorporate a "green", environmentally sustainable objective as part of all future
efforts in the district.
Uyaterfront orientation
• Address the area's unique waterfront edge in all future development standards and
strategies and acknowledge connections across the estuary.
Historic Resources
• Improve documentation and protection of historic resources.
• Change the map of historical buildings or reword the caption to reflect that it is
incomplete.
Neighborhood Protections
• Expand implementation, when applicable, to adjacent neighborhoods, such as east
of Everett to Broadway.
• Ensure that residential areas are protected and maintain a residential character.
Honorable Chair and Gctober 1, 2008
Members of the Community Improvement Commission Page 5 of 6
Architecture and Design
• Allow contemporary designs in addition to historical styles in new guidelines, while
emphasizing high quality of materials.
• Express building height limit in terms of number of stories and specific height of 40
feet. Amend the current 100-foot height limit as soon as possible.
• Explore strategies to work with the public art program and the Public Art
Commission to introduce public art at this important gateway to the City.
Transportation
• Ensure that new development adequately addresses transportation constraints and
provides transportation demand management ~TDM~ strategies and services.
• Address gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle networks, such as on Tilden Way.
• Take into account street traffic level standards.
• Consider multiple, smaller parking lots, structures, and rooftop parking above retail
instead of a single, large parking structure orfacility. Begin identifying sites for future
shared parking facilities.
Next Steps. If the CIC accepts and endorses the vision and direction proposed by the
Strategic Plan, the next step is to request that the Planning Board consider
amendments to the City's General Plan and zoning regulations to conform to the vision
of the Strategic Plan.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The CIC approved CDC's contract for $14,925. Sufficient funds in Fiscal Year 01108
from the Merged Areas Bond Issuance proceeds were allocated for this project. Gn April
15, 2008, the CIC approved an amendment to the contract in the amount of $6,500 to
include illustrations in the Strategic Plan; the additional funds were provided by the
Community Planning Fee Fund.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIPOLICY DGCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Strategy #2 in the Economic Development Strategic Plan ~EDSP} seeks to increase the
availability and quality of retail goods and services in Alameda. The Updated EDSP,
approved by the City Council in January 2048, specifies the creation of a Strategic Plan
forthe commercial district on Park Street north of Lincoln.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Preparation of the North of Lincoln Strategic Plan for the Park Street Business District is
statutorily exempt under California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} Guidelines Section
15262 Feasibility and Planning Studies} in that the Strategic Plan involves only feasibility
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
October 7, 2008
Page 6 of 6
and planning studies for possible future actions that have not yet been approved, adopted,
or funded by the City of Alameda, City Council, or City Boards and Commissions.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept and endorse the Park Street North of Lincoln Strategic Plan and direct staff to
amend the City's zoning regulations consistent with the Plan.
Respectful) ubmi d,
Le A. Li J
Development Service Director
Vin/
By: Dorene E. S
Manager Business evelopment Division
c c~ 9'U S'
By: Eric Fonstein
Development Manager
DKILALIDESIEF:rv
CONCUR:
li'(.~
Cathy W o bury
Director, Planning and Building Department
Attachments:
A} Draft minutes to Economic Development Commission August 2~, 2008
meeting
B} Draft minutes to Historical Advisory Board September 4, 2008 meeting
C} Draft minutes to Planning Board September 8, 2008 meeting
DRAFT UNTIL APPROVED
MINUTES
REGULAR MEET[NG GF
CITY OF ALAMEDA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2008
1:30 PM
1. CALL TG ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chairman vvetzork called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Chairman Wetzork. Commission Members: Dahlberg,
Lindsey, Milgram, Ryan, Schmitz arrived at 1:40 p.m.}, and
Zuppan arrived at 1:39 p.m.}
Absent: Bonta
Vacancy: ~1 }
Staff: Eric Fonstein and Rosemary Valeska
1.a. Introduction of New EDC Member Donna Mil ram
Commission Member 1lvetzork welcomed and introduced Commission
Member Milgram, who gave a brief overview of her resume.
2. MINUTES
2.a. Minutes of the Re ularMeetin of Jul 11 2008
Motion Ryan}, seconded, and unanimous with abstentions by Dahlberg
and Milgram} to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 11,
2008 as submitted.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(None)
4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS-PUBLIC
(None)
5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
(None)
Chairman IJlletzork requested that Item 6.b. be called as the first item of New
Business.
CCIARRAICIC
Attachment A to
Agenda Item #3-A
~0.o7-os
Economic Development Commission Page 2 of 4
Minutes August 21, 2008
6. NEI1V BUSINESS
6. b. Endorse the Park Street North of Lincoln Strate is Plan
Mr. Fonstein recapped the agenda report included in the meeting packet,
and then introduced Ian vtilolfe Ross of The City Design Collective. A copy
of the Gateway District Strategic Plan PowerPoint presentation is attached
for reference. Following the presentation, Chairman vtiletzork went around
the dais and asked each Commission Member for questions andlor
comments. Commission Member Zuppan had no comment. Commission
Member Ryan had na comment. Commission Member Lindsey stated that
she liked the archway concept. Commission Member Schmitz had land
use questions. Mr. Ross discussed the advantages of the flexible zoning
concept. Commission Member Dahlberg asked Mr. Ross to cite some
examples of similar projects that he has been involved with. Mr. Ross
noted projects in Albany, Brentwood, and Redwood City. Mr. Ross noted
that the changes will happen incrementally. Alameda Marketplace is the
anchor for the new Gateway District. Once the uses for the former
Cavanaugh Motors and Toyota of Alameda "flip," it will continue to drive
the change. He encouraged the City to "set the stage" with streetscape
improvements, as this will encourage investment in the area. Commission
Member Milgram asked what type of yardstick was used to measure
economic heaEth. Mr. Ross cited examples of leakage studies done which
indicate a high demand for apparel, accessories, and personal services.
Commission Member Zuppan asked about the proposed land uses and
what long term economic impacts they would have on the City. Mr. Ross
stated #hat he did not have that information. He added that the City cannot
replace the lost auto sales tax dollars; however, destination retail would be
the best fit based on sales per square foot, as well as hotels and motels.
The City will have to be creative to offset the lost auto sales tax dollars.
Chairman vlletzork asked the EDC for its recommendation to City Council.
Motion Schmitz}, seconded, and unanimous to endorse the approval of
the plan.
6. a. Presentation Regarding the Fiscal Year 2007-08 Facade Grant
Program
Sue G. Russell, Economic Development Coordinator for the City,
recapped the agenda report provided in the meeting packet. A copy of the
City of ,4Jamea~a Fa~a~fe Grant Program Annual Review PowerPoint
presentation is attached for reference. Following the presentation,
Commission Member Zuppan asked if there has been an impact on sales
as a result of the Facade Grant Program. Ms. Russell stated that she had
no hard figures to back that up; however, people want to come to a
downtown that has been "spiffed up." Ms. Russell thanked Chairman
Wetzork for his years of service on the EDC. This item was presented for
information, only; no EDC action was requested.
PARTIAL MINUTES OF HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD
REGULAR MEETING OF THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE - 7:00 PM
CONVENE: 1:02 p.m.
Rai i r.Ai i
PRESENT: Vice Chair Miller, Board Members Irons and Lynch
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Jon Biggs, Planning Services
ManagerlSecretary to the Historical Advisory Board; Eric Fonstein,
Development Services Manager; Doug Garrison, Supervising
Planner; Doug Vu, Planner III; Tony Ebster, Permit Technician
IlRecording Secretary
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION:
None
REGULARAGENDA ITEMS:
8-A. Park Street North of Lincoln Strategic Plan. The Historical Advisory
Board will be reviewing and commenting on the Park Street North of
Lincoln Strategic Plan. The Plan area includes Park Street from Lincoln
Avenue to the Park Street Bridge and one block on either side of Park
Street. The Park Street commercial district, norfih of Lincoln Avenue, is an
area in transition due to the recent loss of two car dealerships and the
imminent loss of a third dealership. The Plan includes preliminary urban
design concepts for this district and strategies for redeveloping the district.
The Plan will provide a basis for future actions by the City of Alameda,
which may include zoning and General Plan amendments, and
establishing design standards forthis area. ~DG~
Mr. Doug Garrison presented the agenda report and a power point presentation
of the Strategic Plan.
Mr. Eric Fonstein participated in the presentation and answered questions of
Board members
CCIARRAICIC
Attachment B to
Page 1 of ~
Agenda Item #3-A
10-OT-08
Board Member Comments -
Miller noted he was pleased with what he had reviewed and been presented.
Irons said he was familiar with the project process and appreciated an
opportunity to provide comment of the plan.
Miller expressed his concern with the current height limit of 10o feet for certain
portions of the study area and said he would like to see a lower height limit
included in the zoning ordinance revisions.
Lynch stated there were a number of structures in the area that were not
identified as being historic and it would be important to identify them as they were
worthy of protecting. She added this was a "small but mighty neighborhood." In
addition, she commented on the importance of the zoning regulations that will
provide the regulations that implement the plan. She concluded by stating this is
a good study that pulls together factual informs#ion and provides good ideas and
solutions.
By consensus, the Board requested that their comments be forwarded to the City
Council for its consideration.
Respectfully Submitted by:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services ManagerlSecretary, Hisfiorical Advisory Board
Page 2 of 2
CITY QF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
From: Debra Kurita
City ManagerlExecutive Director
Date: October 7, 2008
Re: Approve a Second Amendment to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement
with SCC Alameda Paint LLC Modifying Certain Terms Including
Approving a Transfer of the Ownership Interest in SCC Alameda Point
LLC to Cal Land Venture, LLC
BACKGROUND
0n July 18, 2007, the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority ~ARRA},
Community Improvement Commission ~CIC}, and City together "Alameda"} approved
an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement ENA} with SCC Alameda Point LLC, which is an
entity of SunCal Companies Developer}, far redevelopment of Alameda Point. The
ENA was amended in March 2008 to provide more time to complete two mandatory
milestones. In June 2008, the Developer requested authorization to secure a financial
partner to complete its obligations under the ENA, The addition of a financial partner is
considered a transfer under the ENA and requires approval by the ARRA Board, the
CIC, and the City Council.
At its August 19, 2008, meeting, Alameda considered the Developer's request to
transfer ownership interest in SCC Alameda Point LLC to a new entity. Alameda
directed the City ManagerlExecutive Director to negotiate a second amendment to the
ENA to address Alameda's concerns regarding the requested transfer of ownership,
including ensuring that the Developer will retain day-to-day management responsibilities
for the project, establishing a termination date for the ENA that is not subject to
extensions, and adding additional mandatory milestones to reflect the new direction of
the project, The Second Amendment to the ENA is attached for Alameda's
consideration.
CCIARRAICIC
Agenda Item #3~B
14-Q1.08
Honorable Chair and October 1, 2448
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 2 of 5
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
DlscussloN
The Developer is proposing to transfer ownership of SCC Alameda Point LLC to a new
entity called Cal Land Venture, LLC Cal Land}, Cal Land is a joint venture of D, E.
Shaw Real Estate Portfolios 24, LLC ~D.E. Shaw} and WM Development Group, LLC, a
wholly owned affiliate of SunCal ~SunCal}. Cal Land will be the sole owner of SCC
Alameda Point LLC. The new ownership structure is based on an Amended and
Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement ~~perating Agreement} between D.E.
Shaw and SunCal. The operating Agreement was provided to Alameda under separate
cover and will be discussed in a special closed session on October 7, 2448. SunCal
has identified this document as confidential and not a public record. Pursuant to the
ENA, the Developer is obligated to bear all costs associated with a dispute that the
document is a public record.
Consistent with the executed term sheet, the Operating Agreement provides that
SunCal will retain responsibility for day-to-day management of the project. During the
term of the ENA, D.E. Shaw is precluded from removing SunCal as the manager except
for specific cause, including gross negligence, willful misconduct, or fraud. In addition,
there are a number of "Member Issues", referred to in the term sheet as "Major
Decisions", contained in the operating Agreement. If SunCal refuses to implement one
or more of these Member Issues, such refusal is also a basis for removal as manager
during the ENA term.
The operating Agreement acknowledges that SunCal has contributed not less than $~.5
million of equity to the Alameda Point project and other projects in which Cal Land has
an interest. The Operating Agreement also states that Cal Land expects to invest $10
million to meet its obligations under the ENA. However, the operating Agreement
further says that such expectation to invest $~4 million is not a commitment or covenant
to make capital contributions to fund the project.
While the Operating Agreement addresses key Alameda concerns, such as retaining
SunCal as the day-to-day manager, obligating SunCal to retain an equity stake in the
new venture, and providing adequate capita! to conduct all of the Developer's
obligations under the ENA, D.E. Shaw will have ultimate authority for all decisions on
behalf of the new venture. Recognizing that the term sheet, and ultimately the
Operating Agreement, would limit the scope of key provisions essential to successfully
implementing the obligations pursuant to the ENA, the ARRAICICICity Council directed
staff on August 19, 2448, to amend the ENA to ensure that the ENA, to which Alameda
is a party, has strict performance standards that can be enforced. These performance
Honorable Chair and October 7, 2008
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 3 of 5
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
standards include new mandatory milestones, a revised ENA term and expiration date,
and shorter cure periods for events of default,
Key provisions of the Second Amendment to the ENA are:
• Alameda's approval of the ownership transfer is conditioned on approval of the
Second Amendment.
• The ENA terminates on July 20, 2010, The new termination date reflects
SunCal's intent to seek voter approval of its proposed land plan in November
2009. It is anticipated that Development and Disposition Agreement DDA}
negotiations would be completed between November 2009 and July 2010. The
July 20, 2010, termination date can be extended o~,if Alameda has not acted
on SunCal's requested land use approvals by that date.
• Several new mandatory milestones have been added to ensure performance
under the ENA. New mandatory milestones include: SunCal's decision by April
30, 2009, to pursue placing an initiative on the November 2009 ballot; submittal
of an Entitlement Application by June 15, 2009, if SunCal decides not to pursue a
ballot initiative, or submittal of an Entitlement Application within 45 days after
being notified that the ballot initiative did not qualify for the ballot; a final Navy
conveyance term sheet by July 31, 2009; and a fully negotiated DDA by July 20,
2010. The first three mandatory milestones reflect the project's new direction
based on SunCal's Development Concept and the need for the proposed
residential densities to be approved by a vote of the people. The last two
milestones have been converted from non-mandatory milestones to mandatory
milestones so that Alameda can ensure timely progress on two key documents,
the Navy conveyance term sheet and DDA. Failure to meet any mandatory
milestone is a default under the ENA and will result in termination.
• Approval of the DDA andlor Entitlement Application will require compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}. To ensure that the required
environmental review is completed in a timely fashion to guarantee consideration
of any discretionary approvals, the Developer will be required to make an initial
deposit to fund the City-sponsored environmental review. Failure to make the
required initial, and subsequent, deposits is a default under the ENA and will
result in termination.
• The time provided to cure defaults has been shortened from 45 business days to
30 business days, and the cure period for making all required deposits has been
Honorable Chair and October 1, 2008
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 4 of 5
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
shortened from 15 business days to ten business days. If the Developer fails to
perform ~e.g., misses a mandatory milestone or fails to make a cash deposit}, it is
in Alameda's interest to provide a reasonable amount of time to cure the default
and, if the default is not cured, to terminate the ENA.
• The original ENA had no time limit on Force Majeure for litigation. The Second
Amendment stipulates that if, by July 20, 2011', any litigation remains unresolved,
the ENA terminates.
• The Second Amendment approves the transfer of the ownership interest in
Developer. By signing the Second Amendment, the Developer represents that
SunCal will remain responsible far day-to-day management of the project for the
term of the ENA. Further, during the ENA term, the new owner can only remove
SunCal as manager for specific causes of material default under the operating
Agreement consisting of gross negligence, fraud, willful misconduct, malfeasance
andlor criminal acts. If SunCal is removed as manager for reasons other than
those listed, it is a default under the ENA; if SunCal is not reinstated, the ENA
terminates. If SunCal is terminated for cause, Alameda retains the right to
approve the replacement manager in its reasonable discretion. Reasonable
discretion includes evaluation of the proposed replacement manager's
experience with public-private partnerships, work on large mixed-use or base
reuse projects, familiarity with environmental remediation, etc.
• Consent to the ownership transfer for the ENA period, subject to the terms
contained in the amended ENA, does not preclude Alameda from imposing other
or additional requirements on the Developer as a basis for entering into the DDA.
The Second Amendment to the ENA provides Alameda with the performance standards
it needs to ensure timely progress to redevelop Alameda Point. In the event that the
new venture cannot perform, the Second Amendment contains more mandatory
milestones and shorter time periods to cure defaults so that the ENA can be terminated
more quickly as necessary. The amended ENA has an outside termination date. It
requires that SunCal be retained as day-to-day manager. If SunCal is terminated as
manager without cause, the ENA can be terminated. Alameda retains the right to
approve any replacement manager if SunCal is terminated for cause. All of these
modifications result in an Agreement that assures Alameda that its core interests are
protected as a new venture assumes responsibility for the ENA obligations, including
retaining SunCai and its development expertise, and approving a capital partner that is
providing funding to carry out the predevelopment activities necessary to entitle a mixed
use project at Alameda Point.
Honorable Chair and actober 7, 2008
Members of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Page 5 of 5
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Honorable Chair and
Members of the Community Improvement Commission
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIALlMPACT
Approving the Second Amendment to the ENA does not modify the financial provisions
contained in the ENA regarding reimbursement of staff and ARRA third-party consultant
costs. The current budget, which is an exhibit to the ENA, provides for an average of
$39,000 a month in reimbursement for staff costs. Therefore, there is no fiscal impact
to the City's General Fund, CIC, or ARRA budgets.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Second Amendment to the ENA with SCC Alameda Point LLC modifying
certain terms including approving a transfer of the ownership interest in SCC Alameda
Point LLC to Cal Land Ventures, LLC.
Res ly submitted,
4
Development Se s Director
By' ebb~e otter
Base Reuse and Community Development Manager
Attachment
~. Second Amendment to the ENA
SECGND AMENDMENT
TG
ALAMEDA PGINT
EXCLUSIVE NEGGTIATIGN AGREEMENT
THIS SECGND AMENDMENT T4 ALAMEDA POINT EXCLUSIVE NEGOTIATION
AGREEMENT ~"Second Amendment") is made as of October , 2008 the "Effective
Date"}, by and between ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELGPMENT AUTHGRITY, a
Joint Powers Authority established by the City of Alameda and the Community Improvement
Commission under the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act and a public entity lawfully
created and existing under the State of California the "ARRA"}, the CGMMUNITY
IMPRHVEMENT CGMMISSION OF THE CITY GF ALAMEDA, a public body corporate
and politic ~"CIC"}, and the CITY GF ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation the "City", and
together with ARRA and CIC, "Alameda"} and SCC Alameda Point LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company ~"Developer"}. Alameda and Developer are individually referred to as a
"Party" and collectively referred to as the "Parties".
RECITALS
This Second Amendment is entered upon the basis of the following facts, understandings
and intentions of the Parties.
A. The Parties entered into that certain Alameda Point Exclusive Negotiation
Agreement, dated as of July 1$, 2007 the "Griginal Agreement"} as amended by that certain
First Amendment to Alameda Point Exclusive Negotiation Agreement, dated as of
March 6, 2008 the "First Amendment"}, which shall be amended by this Second Amendment.
B. The Original Agreement, as amended by the First Amendment, and as amended
by this Second Amendment, shall hereinafter collectively be referred to as the "Agreement".
C. Pursuant to Section 9.2.1 of the Agreement, the qualifications and identity of
Developer are of particular concern to Alameda, in view of the importance of the entitlement and
development of the Project has def ned in the Agreement} and the Project Site has defined in the
Agreement) to Alameda, and it was because of the qualifications and identity of Developer that
Alameda entered into the Agreement with Developer.
D. Pursuant to Section x.2.2 of the Agreement, Developer has requested the consent
of Alameda to Transfer of an Ownership Interest in SCC Alameda Point LLC to a new entity.
E. Alameda's consent to the Transfer is conditioned upon certain modifications to
the Agreement and the Parties have agreed to those modifications and to certain additional
modifications to the terms and conditions of the 1
CCIARRAICIC
Attachment to
Agenda Item #3-B
~ 0-07-08
Agreement as hereinafter set forth.
AGREEMENT
NOw, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms, covenants, conditions and
promises set forth herein, the Alameda and Developer agree as follows:
1. Definitions. All capitalized terms used herein shall have the definitions given in
the Agreement, unless otherwise expressly stated herein.
2. Submittals. Alameda acknowledges that Developer satisfied the Mandatory
Milestones for submittal of the Development Concept, Infrastructure Plan and draft Business
Plan by submission of such Plans on September 19, 2008 and, as of the Effective Date of this
Second Amendment, is in compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Developer
acknowledges that refinement of such Plans is necessary for submission of the draft Master Plan
has defined below, the f nal Business Plan, and Project Pro Farma on November 19, 2008.
3. Amended Recital A of the Oriel„ A Bement. Recital A of the Original
Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
4.
with the following:
A. The United States of America, acting by and through the
Department of the Navy ~"Navy"~ is the owner of certain real property
located within the City of Alameda, State of California commonly referred
to as the former Alameda Naval Air Station, now known as "Alameda
Point", which was closed as a military installation and is subject to
disposal pursuant to and in accordance with the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1991, as amended Pub. Law No.101-510. The
property that is the subject of this Agreement is a portion of Alameda
Point, which consists of approximately 9~0 acres of uplands and
approximately 673 acres of submerged lands collectively, the "Project
Site"~, certain of which lands are subject to public trust restrictions. The
Project Site is shown on the "Map of the Project Site", attached hereto as
Exhibit A. The Project Site is sometimes referred to as the "Property".
Amended Section 1.2. Section 1.2 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
1.2 Exclusive Negotiations. During the Exclusive Negotiation
Period, Alameda covenants and agrees that it shall negotiate exclusively
with Developer regarding the Project and the Project Site and shall not
sollclt, market to, or negotiate with any other person or entity regarding the
Project and the Project Site or solicit or entertain bids or proposals to do
2
so.
5. Amended Section 2. Section 2 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with
the following:
Section 2. Term; Extension.
2.1 Term. The term of this Agreement the "Exclusive Negotiation
Period" ar the "Term"} shall commence on the Effective Date
and, subject to extension pursuant to Sections 2.2 and 5 below,
shall terminate on July 20, 2010. Upon such expiration or any
termination permitted by this Agreement, neither Party shall have
any future right or obligation under this Agreement except with
respect to any obligation which expressly survives the termination
or expiration of this Agreement.
2.2 Extension for Alameda Final Determination. if Alameda can make
the following findings has determined by its Board of Directors,
Board of Commissioners and City Council}: ~i} that Developer has
met all of the Mandatory Milestones has defined in Section 4.2
below}, as the same have been extended as provided herein, or
except to the extent the Mandatory Milestone for the Project Pro
Forma has def ned in Section 3.2.4 below} has been waived by
Alameda pursuant to Section 4.2.3 below; iii} Developer has
provided a Project description sufficient to permit the City to
review the Project under the California Environmental duality Act
(Public Resources Code § § 21000-21177} ~"CE~A"}; and viii}
Developer's completed Entitlement Application ~def ned in
Section 3.2.5.1 below} or optional Entitlement Application has
defined in Section 3.2.5.2 below, as applicable, has been filed with
the City, the Exclusive Negotiation Period shall be extended
automatically until Alameda has made its final determination with
respect to the approvals requested in the Entitlement Application or
the Optional Entitlement Application, as applicable, and, subject to
the time limit in Section 5 below, the period for any legal challenge
thereto has passed without such challenge, or if such challenge has
been made, such challenge has been fully and finally resolved.
b. Amended Section 3.1. The following sentence is hereby inserted at the end of
Section 3.1: "Developer and the ARRA acknowledge that the ARRA cannot achieve the
Finalized Navy Term Sheet unless Developer agrees to all of its terms."
7.
Development Concept provided by Developer 3
Amended Section 3.2.1. Section 3.2.1 is hereby amended to clarify that the
on September 19, 200$, shall include a draft of the updated Sports Complex Master Plan.
Developer shall provide the final updated Sports Complex Master Plan on November 19, 2008.
S. Amended Section 3.2.5. Section 3.2.5 is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:
3.2.5 Ballot Initiative; Entitlement Application; Subsequent
A rovals. Developer shall elect in writing no later than April 30, 2009 to
either submit the Entitlement Application has defined in Section 3.2.5.1
below), or pursue a ballot initiative for the Project in compliance with 14
Cal. Code Regs. Section 1537~b}~3} the "Ballot initiative"}. if as of
April 30, 2409, Developer elects to submit an Entitlement Application,
then Developer shall submit the Entitlement Application no later than
June 15, 2409. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Developer elects to
pursue a Ballot Initiative but the initiative fails to qualify for the ballot as
determined by the City Election Dff cial, then Developer shall submit the
Entitlement Application has defined in Section 3.2.5.1 below} no later than
forty-five X45}days from the date of the decision of the City Election
Gfficial that the initiative has failed to qualify.
3.2.5.1 Entitlement A lication. The entitlement
application the "Entitlement Application"} shall include the following:
~a} an application for all land use entitlements and approvals it will seek
from the City, including ~i} a General Plan amendment, if required, iii} a
master plan the "Master Plan"} pursuant to Section 30-4.20~f} of the
Alameda Municipal Code for the development of the Project Site, which
pertains to M~ District development, provided however, pursuant to
Section 30-4.24~f}~ 1 } a market analysis will not be required as part of the
Master Plan submittal because the Project Site is within a redevelopment
area, viii} a zoning amendments}, Div} subdivision approval to the extent
requested by Developer, ~v} a development agreement the "Development
Agreement"}prepared pursuant to California Government Code Section
65864 et seq., vesting in Developer the right to develop the Project to the
scope, uses, densities and intensities described in the Master Plan and
other implementing regulatory documents, and necessary to implement the
Development Plan, and Zvi} such other entitlements and approvals as
Developer may request for the Project Site; fib} application for
environmental review pursuant to CEQA; and ~c) an agreement between
Developer and Alameda to provide for expedited processing by the City of
all land use entitlement applications including all environmental review
required under CEQA and funding thereof by Developer. Subsequent to
submittal of the Entitlement Application, Developer shall use Best Efforts
has defined in Section 15.5
4
below to submit all required supplemental information sufficient for the
Entitlement Application to be promptly determined to be complete by
Alameda.
3.2.5.2 Optional Entitlement, Application. If Developer
elects to pursue the Ballot Initiative, then, whether or not the Ballot
Initiative passes, Developer shall have the right, but shall not be obligated,
to submit an entitlement application as described in Section 3.2.5.1 above,
but which shall be referred to herein as the "optional Entitlement
Application". Such application shall not be a Mandatory Milestone
unless Developer elects to make such application, and, if the Ba11ot
Initiative shall have passed, shall include only those land use approvals
and entitlements that Alameda, in consultation with Developer, determines
are necessary to permit development of the Project consistent with the
Ballot Initiative. If Developer elects to submit the Optional Entitlement
Application, then Developer shall submit the optional Entitlement
Application no later than January 15, 2010. Except as otherwise provided
in Sections 2.2 and 5 of this Agreement, the Term of this Agreement shall
not be extended for such submission (unless mutually agreed to in writing
by the Parties}.
3.2.5.3 Subsequent Approvals. Subsequent approvals will
be necessary in order to develop the Project, which may include, without
limitation, development plans; master demolition, infrastructure, grading
and phasing plan; subdivision approvals; design review approvals;
demolition permits; improvement agreements; infrastructure agreements;
grading permits; building permits; site plans; sewer and water connection
permits; and other similar requirements.
9. Amended Section 3.2.6. Section 3.2.6 is hereby deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the fallowing:
3.2.6 Master Plan. Developer shall submit an initial draft of the
Master Plan no later than November 19, 2005, which shall be consistent
with the Plans submitted on September 19, 2008 unless otherwise agreed
by the Parties. Following the submittal of the draft Master Plan by
Developer, the term "Plans" shall include the draft Master Plan, together
with any refinements, updates and modif cations thereof.
10. New Section 3.2.7. Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to add the
following new Section 3.2.7:
3.2.7 Project Master Schedule. Developer shall prepare and
maintain a project master 5
schedule the "Project Master Schedule"} that sets forth, in reasonable
detail, the expected tasks necessary to complete all of the Mandatory and
Non-Mandatory Milestones, entitlements whether through an Entitlement
Application or Ballot Initiative}, and at the Developer's discretion,
subsequent approvals and the anticipated dates that these tasks are
expected to be completed. Developer shall submit the initial Project
Master Schedule to the ARR.A within thirty X30} business days from the
Effective Date of the original Agreement and shall update such schedule
and deliver the updated schedule to the ARR.A on a quarterly basis
thereafter.
11. Amended Section 3.3. Section 3.3 is hereby amended to insert the following
sentence immediately after the first sentence: "The term Property Transfers) as used herein shall
mean conveyance in fee or, with respect to land subject to the public trust, conveyance by long
term leases}pursuant to State law."
12.
with the following:
Amended Section 3.4. Section 3.4 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
3.4 CAA Documents. The Plans, together with the
Entitlement Application submittals or optional Entitlement Application
submittals, as applicable, shall be of sufficient specificity to permit the
subsequent preparation of the documents required for environmental
review of the Project as required by CEQA the "CEQA Documents"};
including an environmental impact report or such other information and
reports as may be required to permit Alameda to comply with the
requirements of CEQA. Execution of the DDA by the parties thereto and
the closing of the Property Transfers) under the DDA shall be contingent
on compliance with CEQA.
13. Amended Section 3.5.7. Section 3.5.7 is hereby amended to replace "NEPA" with
"National Environmental Policy Act ~"NEPA"}"
14. Amended Section 3.5.8. Section 3.5.8 is hereby amended to add the following
phrase: "or as approved through the Ballot Initiative" immediately after "Entitlement
Application filed with Alameda".
15.
replaced with the following:
Amended Section 3.6.2. Section 3.6.2 is hereby deleted in its entirety and
3.6.2 Transaction Documents. All applicable terms of the
completed Transaction Documents, and provision for completion and
incorporation of applicable terms of all Transaction Documents that are to
be completed after execution of 6
the DDA, and if applicable, prior to close of escrow.
16.
and replaced with the following:
3.6.2. ~ The Parties acknowledge that their ability to
prepare the Transaction Documents is dependent to some extent on
reaching agreement with certain third parties, including the California
State Lands Commission with respect to the public trust}, and may also be
dependent an achieving certain regulatory approvals and satisfying certain
other conditions that are outside of their control. zf before the execution of
the DDA by the parties thereto, any of such third-party agreements,
regulatory approvals or other conditions are not f nalized, obtained or
satisf ed, then to the extent practical the Parties shall in good faith
negotiate the DDA and characterize such third-party agreements,
regulatory approvals or other conditions as conditions precedent to the
obligations of the Parties to the close of escrow for conveyance of the
Property pursuant to the DDA.
Amended 3.6.6. Section 3.6.6 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety
3.6.6 Transfers. Provisions for Transfer has defined in
Section 9.2.4.5 below}, which shall include ~i} a mechanism for parties
contributing debt or equity to the Project to remove SunCal Affiliate has
defined in Section 9.2.2.1 below} or, if applicable, the qualified developer
approved by Alameda pursuant to Section 9.2.2.2 below as the
replacement manager of Developer ~"Replacement Manager per
ENA}"} from day-to-day management of the entity that executes the DDA
the "DDA Development Entity"} pursuant to the terms of the DDA
Development Entity's operating or partnership agreement, provided that
SunCal Affiliate or Replacement Manager per ENA}, as applicable, is
concurrently replaced with a substitute developer ~"Replacement
Manager per DDA}"} controlling day-to-day management that meets the
specif ed criteria as a "qualified developer" provided in the DDA,
including the approval of Alameda, which approval will not be
unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed, and iii} the right of owners
of Ownership Interests has defined below} in Developer to Transfer, on or
after the date on which the DDA is signed, their Ownership Interests in
Developer so long as ~A} SunCal Affiliate or Replacement Manager per
ENA} or Replacement Manager per DDA}, as applicable, shall continue
to manage Developer on a day-to-day basis and ~B}Alameda has
determined that Developer has the financial ability, including debt andlor
equity financing, to carry out its obligations under the DDA, which
determination by Alameda shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned
7
or delayed.
17. Amended Section 4.2. Section 4.2 is hereby amended as follows: ~a} to delete the
first paragraph of Section 4.2 in its entirety; fib) to re-number Sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 of the
Agreement to Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3, respectively; and ~c} to insert the fallowing new Section
4.2.1 to the Agreement:
4.2.1 Mandato Milestones. The mandatory milestones the
"Mandatory Milestones"} shall be:
4.2.1.1 the submission of the Project Master Schedule as
described in Sectian 3.2.5.1, above;
4.2.1.2 the submission of the Development Concept as
described in Section 3.2.1 above;
4.2.1.3 the submission of the Infrastructure Plan as
described in Section 3.2.2 above;
4.2.1.4 the submission of the draft Business Plan as
described in Section 3.2.3 above;
4.2.1.5 mutual agreement of the Parties on the Project Pro
Forma as described in Section 3.2.4 above;
4.2.1.6 Developer's election in writing to either submit the
Entitlement Application or pursue the Ballot Initiative as described in
Section 3.2.5.1 above;
4.2.1.7 if Developer elects to submit the Entitlement
Application or, if the Ballot Initiative fails to qualify for the ballot as
determined by the City Election Dff cial, then an additional Mandatory
Milestone is the submission of the Entitlement Application as described in
Sectian 3.2.5.1 above;
4.2.1. S the submission of an initial draft of the Master Plan
as described in Section 3.2.6 above, together with the final Business Pian
as described in Section 3.2.3 above;
4.2.1.9 the submission of the optional Entitlement
Application as described in Section 3.2.5.2 above cif Developer elects to
make such submittal};
4.2.1.10 attainment of the Finalized Navy Term Sheet as
described in Section 3.1 above; 8
and
1S.
and replaced with the following:
4.2.1.11 mutual agreement of the Parties to the form and
substance of the DDA pursuant to Section 3.6 above or if at the time of the
Mandatory Milestone for the DDA, mutual agreement has not been
achieved, then Developer shall submit its best and final offer of the form
of DDA acceptable to Developer.
Amended Section 5. Section 5 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety
Section 5. Liti ation Force Majeure. The Exclusive Negotiation Period,
and the dates for performance of Mandatory Milestones, shall be extended
for the period of any Litigation Force Majeure has defined below};
provided that any extension as a consequence of Litigation Force Majeure
shall operate to extend the date for achievement of any Mandatory
Milestone only to the extent that the Mandatory Milestone is affected by
the event or events constituting the Litigation Force Majeure.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing, in no event
shall Litigation Force Majeure pursuant to Section 5.1 b below extend the
Mandatory Milestone for the DDA. Furthermore, notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in the foregoing, in no event shall Litigation Force
Majeure extend either the Exclusive Negotiation Period or any Mandatory
Milestone date beyond July 20, 2017. The Parties may elect to amend this
Agreement to reflect extensions pursuant to this Section 5, and such
amendments shall reflect which Mandatory Milestones and Transaction
Documents hand related Non-Mandatory Milestones} are so affected.
5.1 "L~tigation Force Majeure"means any action, proceeding,
application or request before any court, tribunal, or other judicial,
adjudicative or Iegislativedecision-making body, including any
administrative appeal, that is brought by a third party and seeks to
challenge: ~a} the validity of any action taken by Alameda with respect to
a Transaction Documents}, including Alameda's selection of Developer
as the developer of the Project Site, the approval by Alameda of any of the
proposed Transaction Documents, the performance of any action required
or permitted to be performed by Alameda hereunder or under the proposed
Transaction Documents, or any f ndings upon which any of the foregoing
are predicated; fib} the Ballot Initiative; or ~c} the validity of any other
approval that is required for the conveyance, management or
redevelopment of the Project Site as contemplated hereby and would
prevent the Parties from executing the DDA with conditions, as provided
above, or prevent the DDA from
9
becoming effective, or require a material modification of the DDA, the
Plans, the Entitlement Application or the Project.
19. New Section 6.6. Section 6 is hereby amended to add the following new
Section 6.6:
6.6 CE A Fundin . No later than April 30, 2409, Develaper
shall deposit with the City's Planning and Building Department funds in
the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars x$250,000} the
"Initial CEQA Deposit"} for the City's use, in accordance with standard
procedures, to commence environmental review pursuant to CEQA of the
Project has described in the Master Plan submittal described in Section
3.2.6 above}. Developer acknowledges that it may be required to deposit
additional funds for such CEQA review. The City shall reimburse to
Developer any portion of the Initial CEQA Deposit for any additional
funds deposited by Developer for CEQA review} which is not used for
such CEQA review.
20. Amended Section 7.1. Section 7.1 of the Agreement is hereby amended in the
following ways: First, Section 7.1.2 is re-titled: "Failure of Develaper to Make Required
Deposits". Second, Section 7.1.2 is hereby amended to correct the numbering. There are two
subsections each numbered 7.1.2.1, the second is hereby corrected to 7.1.2.2. In addition, the
timeframes of "fifteen (15}business days" provided in Sections 7.1.2.1 and 7.1.2.2 are hereby
deleted and replaced with "ten X10} business days". Lastly, Section 7.1 is hereby amended to add
the following new Section 7.1.2.3 to the Agreement:
7.1.2.3 In the event Developer fails to make the Initial CEQA
Deposit (or any additional funds deposited by Developer for CEQA
review) as required pursuant to Section 6.6 of this Agreement, Alameda.
shall have the right to give written notice thereof~to Developer specifying
that the deposit was not made. Following receipt of such notice,
Developer shall have ten (10) business days to make the required deposit.
If Developer has not then made the required deposit, Alameda. shall have
the right to terminate this Agreement by written notice to Developer.
21. Amended Section 7.1.3. Section 7.1.3 is hereby amended to delete the timeframe
of "forty-five X45}business days" and replace it with "thirty X30} days".
22. Amended Section 7.1.6. Section 7.1.6 is hereby amended to delete the timeframe
of "forty-five (45}business days" and replace it with "thirty X30} business days".
23. New Section 9.2.2.1. Section 9.2 is hereby amended to add the following new
Sections 9.2.2.1 and 9.2.2.2 to the Agreement:
9.2.2.1 Pursuant 10
to Section 9.2.2 of the Agreement, Developer has requested the consent of
Alameda to a Transfer of an Ownership Interest in SCC Alameda Point
LLC, which is the entity described in this Agreement as Developer, to a
new entity to be owned by WM Development Group LLC ~"SunCal
Affiliate"}, which is an affiliate of the current owner of SCC Alameda
Point LLC, and D.E. Shaw Real Estate Portfolios 20, L.L.C. ~"DESCO"},
which new entity is Cal Land Venture, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ~"Cal Land"}. To implement the Transfer, SCC Acquisitions
LLC ("SunCal"}, the current sole owner of SCC Alameda Point LLC shall
assign and transfer its ownership interest in SCC Alameda Point LLC to an
affiliate of SunCal, which shall assign and transfer its ownership interest
to Cal Land, and in connection therewith, the operating agreement of
SCC Alameda Point LLC shall be amended and restated the "operating
Agreement"}. Developer further represents to Alameda that it has
provided a true and correct and fully executed copy of the Operating
Agreement. The Operating Agreement submitted by Developer to
Alameda provides that SunCal Affiliate has been appointed as the manager
with responsibility for day-to-day management of Developer subject to the
terms and conditions of the Operating Agreement. Developer
acknowledges that it shall be a default under this Agreement for either Cal
Land or Developer to exercise its right to remove SunCal Affiliate as the
manager of Developer for reasons other than a material uncured default
under the Operating Agreement consisting of gross negligence, fraud,
willful misconduct, prohibited transfer, or misappropriation or
misapplication of funds, malfeasance andlor criminal acts collectively,
"Causes for Removal"}.
9.2.2.2 If SunCal Affiliate is removed as the manager of
Developer during the Term of this Agreement for Causes for Removal,
then no later than sixty X60} days after such removal, Cal Land shall
provide to Alameda for its approval in its reasonable discretion, a qualified
developer to replace SunCal Affiliate as the manager of Developer,
together with all documentation required for Alameda's determination of
such developer's qualifications collectively, the "Complete Submittal"}.
Alameda shall make its determination as to the approval or disapproval of
such replacement manager within thirty X30} days of its receipt of the
Complete Submittal. If, notwithstanding the foregoing, Alameda fails to
make such determination within such thirty X30} day period, then the
remaining Mandatory Milestones shall be extended day-for-day until such
determination is made. If Alameda disapproves of the replacement
manager, then Cal Land shall have sixty X60} days to propose an alternate
manager and submit a new Complete Submittal. If Cal Land shall fail
within such time period to 11
propose an alternate manager or if Alameda shall disapprove, in its
reasonable discretion, such alternate manager, then Alameda shall have the
right to terminate this Agreement by provision of written notice to
Developer. It is reasonable for Alameda to reject an alternative manager
on the basis of its qualifications, prior experience, and f nancial capacity,
among other criteria, as such relate to the implementation of the Project.
An alternative manager, including key team members, must have
qualifications and successful experience working as a master developer on
public-private partnerships for large-scale, multi-use urban reuse or
redevelopment projects similar to the scope and scale of the Project. For
purposes herein, the phrase "public-private partnership" shall not be
construed to establish the parties as partners, co-venturers ar principal or
agent with one another.
9.2.2.3 If SunCal Affiliate is removed as the manager of
Developer during the Term of this Agreement for any reason other than
Causes for Removal, Alameda shall have the right to provide an Alameda
Default Notice pursuant to Section 7.1 above to Developer that such
actions constitute a default under this Agreement. Failure to cure such
default within thirty (30} days shall constitute a Developer Event of
Default pursuant to Section 7.1 above.
9.2.2.4 Alameda hereby consents to the foregoing Transfer
of an Qwnership Interest for the Term of this Agreement, but such consent
shall not be deemed to be a waiver of Alameda's right to require different
or additional criteria regarding Transfer in the CAA andlor the DDA.
24. Amended Section 12.2. Section 12.2 is hereby amended to delete the following
parenthetical "(as extended pursuant to Section 2.2 above}" and replace it with "subject to
extension pursuant to Sections 2.2. and 5 above}".
25. Amended Section 16.1. Section 16.1 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the follawing:
16.1 Indemnit .Developer shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify
the ARRA, the CIC and the City from and against any and all Claims
made by any third party directly or indirectly arising out of Developer's
Response to the RFQ andlor the Developer MBA andlor the Ballot
Initiative; provided, however, such obligation shall not apply to any Claim
resulting solely from an act or omission of the ARR.A, the CIC andlor the
city.
26.
address for Developer in its entirety and
Amended Section 17. Section 17 is hereby amended to delete the f rst notice
12
replace it with the following:
SCC Alameda Point LLC
clo SunCal Companies
Bay Area Division
300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, #342
Oakland, California 94512
Attention: Pat Keliher, Vice President Operations
Section 17 is hereby further amended to add the following notice address for Developer:
Cal Land Venture, LLC
clo D.E. Shaw & Co., L.L.C.
120 west 45th Street
Tower 45, 39th Floor
New York, New York 10036
Attention: Chief Financial Officer
27. Amended Section 20. Section 20 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced
with the following:
Section 20 Governmental Contact.
20.1 Developer Contact. Developer agrees that it will
not meet, or engage in negotiations, with any governmental officials or
staff bother than Alameda and its staff whose approval is required to a
Transaction Document, concerning the Project or the Pro j ect Site without
giving the Deputy Executive Director of the ARRA reasonable prior notice
and the opportunity to participate with Developer in any such meeting, or
negotiations. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the foregoing,
Developer is authorized to communicate directly with the Navy regarding
the Project or the Project Site so long as Developer promptly keeps
Alameda informed of all such communications.
20.2 Alameda Contact. ARRA agrees that it will not
meet, or engage in negotiations, with any governmental officials or staff
whose approval is required to a Transaction Document, concerning the
Project or the Project Site without reasonable prior notice to Developer.
ARRA shall keep Developer informed of the substance of any such
meetings and negotiations and shall permit Developer to participate in the
same. Subject to this Section 20.2, Alameda may, in the routine course of
governmental affairs, contact for be contacted by}, discuss, or meet with
the Navy or any other
13
governmental entity, and Developer acknowledges that such contact,
discussions, meetings, or responses may pertain in whole, or in part, to the
Proj ect andlor the Project Site.
20.3 Prejudice Parties Interests. Alameda. and Developer
agree to refrain from knowingly engaging in contacts or communications
with government officials (other than Alameda staff in a manner
reasonably expected to prejudice the interests of the other Party.
Amended Exhibit A. Exhibit A to the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and
2S.
replaced with Exhibit A attached hereto.
29.
replaced with Exhibit B-1 attached hereto.
30.
replaced with Exhibit B-2 attached hereto.
31. Authori .The persons signing below represent that they have the authority to
bind their respective party, and that all necessary board of directors', shareholders', partners',
redevelopment agency's or other approvals have been obtained.
32. Counte arts. This Second Amendment maybe signed by different parties hereto
in counterparts with the same effect as if the signatures to each counterpart were upon a single
instrument. All counterparts shall be deemed an original of this Second Amendment.
33. A Bement in Full Force and Effect. Except as otherwise expressly modified by
the terms of this Second Amendment, the Agreement remains unchanged and in full force and
effect.
~N WETNESS WHEREaF, the Parties have executed this Second .Amendment as of the
day and year first above written.
ARRA:
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
a joint powers authority formed under California law
By:
Name:
Title:
Amended Exhibit B-1. Exhibit B-1 to the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and
Amended Exhibit B-2. Exhibit B-2 to the Agreement is deleted in its entirety and
14
Approved as to form:
By:
Name: nt~,(/LGt Wl00Vl
Title: ~ ~'"• C?(~~I~,uJ CO V~/k~'
[Signatures continue on following page.]
I5
CdC:
Community ~mgrovement Con~rnission of ~e City of Alameda,
a publlC body, Corporate and politic
~y.
Name;
Title:
CITY;
City of Alameda,
a municipal corporation
Ey~
Name:
Title:
Approved as to fo
By:
Name: nhrl L1 ~O~
Title: ~ ~(~Ni(~w{ ~Vr~
Approved as to fo
By:
Name: ~ Y1G1 Itil,~uDy~CJ\~
Title: ~~ ~~f'
r
DE~'ELQPER:
SCC Alameda Point LLC,
a Delaware ' ited liability company
~y:
Name: ~ cl
Title: ~ 5~
~b
Exhibit A
Map of the Project Site
[Attached]
17
Schedule of Performance
(Mandatory Milestones)
All defined terms not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them
in the Agreement to which this Exhibit B-1 is attached.
Unless otherwise provided, all Mandatory Milestones are measured from the Effective
Date of the Original Agreement (July 18, 2007).
A. Mandatory Milestone Submission Date
1. Master Project Schedule Thirty (30) business days
2. Development Concept
3. Infrastructure Plan
4. draft Business Plan
5. Master Plan Draft (as described
in Section 3.2.6 above) and
final Business Plan (as described
in Section 3.2.3 above)
6. Ballot Initiative Determination
(Developer's written
election to either
submit the Entitlement
Application or pursue
the Ballot Initiative)
7. Entitlement Application
a. If Developer elects not to
submit a Ballot Initiative,
then the Entitlement
Application shall be
submitted on:
[submitted];
Updated quarterly thereafter
September 19, 2008 [submitted]
September 19, 2008 [submitted]
September 19, 2008 [submitted]
November 19, 2008
April 30, 2009
June 15, 2009
18
b. If Developer elects to
submit a Ballot Initiative,
but the City Election Official
determines that the petition
has failed to meet requirements
to be placed on the ballot,
the Entitlement Application
shall be submitted on:
8. Optional Entitlement Application
(as described in Section 3.2.5.2 above)
(if Developer elects to make such
submittal):
9. Finalized Navy Term Sheet
10. DDA as agreed by the Parties or
Developer's best and final offer
(as described in Section 4.2.1.11 above)
B. Mandatory Milestone
1. Project Pro Forma
The date that is forty-five
(45) days following the date
of the determination by the
City Election Official (as
described in Section 3.2.5
above)
January 15, 2010
July 31, 2009
July 20, 2010
Com letion Date
November 19, 2DOS
19
Exhihit B-2
Schedule of Performance
(Non-Mandatory Milestones)
All terms not defined herein shall have the respective meanings ascribed to them in the
Agreement to which this Exhibit B-2 is attached. Non-Mandatory Milestones described below
are good faith estimates by the Parties of the time required to complete the Transaction
Documents.
Non-Mandator Milestone Com letion Date
1. EDC M4A Amendment cif applicable July 20, 2010
2. NEPA Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEISE July 20, 2010
3. Section lOG Memorandum July 20, 2010
4. USFVVSINMFS Biological Documents July 20, 2410
5. Early Transfer Documents July 20, 2010
6. CEQA Documents July 20, 2010
7. CAA Apri130, 2009
8. DDA July 20, 2010
9. Development AgreementlEnt~tlements July 20, 2010
10. Tidelands Trust Exchange Agreement July 20, 2010
11. Public Planning Process November 19, 2008
20
N:1AIAiamcIAPlDocslw-ENA Alameda Point} 2nd Amend} ~~ 0-2-08} rev}
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER $, 2008
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
2263 SANTA CLARA AVENUE -1:00 PM
9-B. North Lincoln Strategic Plan. The Planning Board will be reviewing the August 2008
Public Review Draft of the Gateway District Strategic Plan and making a
recommendation to the City Council. The Gateway District Strategic Plan
recommends redevelopment and design strategies or the blocks on either side of Park
Street between Tilden Avenue and the Park Street Bridge. ~DG}
lan Ross, with City Design Collective, gave an overview of his consulting firm which was
responsible for preparing the repork. He presented the plan to the Board. He explained that
the approach used to create the proposal was based on land use history in Alameda and
discussed the purpose of the strategic plan as well as the process used to obtain public input.
The plan recommends eliminating single use zoning and creating flexibility to attract new
businesses. The proposal does not impact existing parcels but sets guidelines for new
projects. Economic recommendations include: creating custom land use options, targeting
businesses that complement the plan, and encouraging new residential uses.
In response to a question from the Board, staff reviewed the process for Board comments
and discussion, and how the Board's input would be incorporated into the strategic plan.
The public hearing was opened.
Joseph Yon spoke in support of including the Island High site in the Strategic Plan. He would
like the Island High site limited to 12 units. He also submitted written comments.
Christopher Buckley submitted written comments. He was pleased with the plan and
suggested some small changes detailed in his written comments.
Corinne Lambden spoke on behalf of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
~AAPS}. She expressed concern regarding building height and would like to see it reduced
from 100 feet to four stories. She was concerned that a parking structure would not meet
demand. She would like the plan to consider hidden historic treasures and did not believe
the maps contained in the plan included all historic buildings in Alameda, because the AAPS
shows 112 historic buildings in Alameda and the Strategic Plan states there are only 56.
Charles Howell from AAPS would like a comprehensive list of historic buildings. He would
prefer multiple small parking structures as opposed to one large structure and he would like a
reduction of building height from 100 feet to 40 feet.
Nanette Burdick believed it was a good plan but she did have some concerns regarding
building height and would prefer multiple smaller parking structures. She believed
redevelopment of the Island High site should be compatible with the neighborhood.
CCIARRAICIC
Attachment C to
Agenda Item #3-A
~0-o7-os
David Kirwin had some of his concerns addressed during Ian's presentation. He did not
believe the plan wauid negatively affect traffic, and should accommodate bicyclists as well as
pedestrians.
The public hearing was closed.
A Board discussion ensued regarding the vision and goals for the area. Green elements
should be incorporated into the Plan as much as possible. Acknowledgement that this is a
waterfront area and incorporation of marine uses should be included. A possible partnership
with Oakland concerning residential uses and water access should be explored. The plan
should consider noise and traffic with pedestrian uses as well as bicycle parking. A water taxi
from Jack London Square to Alameda should be considered and public access to the water is
important.
In response to an inquiry from the Board, staff responded that development regulations must
be revised prior to approval of the Strategic Plan.
The Board expressed concerns about providing widespread on street parking and agreed
with the public input regarding smaller parking structures. Use of the existing city parking
garage should be encouraged.
Staff responded that city-wide parking requirements would be presented to the Board at a
future date prior to zoning updates.
The Board provided the following direction:
• Nodrive-through access on Park Street
• Take inventory of and make accommodations for historic structures
• Underground all utilities
• At the intersection of Park and Lincoln pedestrian improvements are needed
• Tilden Street needs attention regarding bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways
• Pedestrian connection to Park Street bridge
• Link the plan to other initiatives, far example the Transportation Element, Parking, and
Public Art Commission
• Consider rooftop parking in addition to garages
• Identify parking structures that should be retained
The Board thanked the consultant for a very thorough analysis.
l~r-ocCamation
~~~~~~5, working women constitute 70 million of the nation's workforce and strive to serve
their communities, their states, and their nation in professional, civic, and cultural
capacities; and
~ ~~~~ women-owned businesses account for 30 ercent of all U.S. businesses eneratin
~ 1 S, g
p g
$1.5 trillion in sales and employing 9.Z million people; and
~1~~~~~S, women hold 16 ercent of the co orate officer ositions in Fortune 500 com anies; ~ ,
P ~ P p
and
1N~f~1~~~[S in the 110t" Con ress women hold 1d of the 100 seats in .the United States Senate and
g
71 of the 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives, plus three women ~ :
serve as delegates from .the territories; and
~~~~~~5, the major goals of Business and Professional Women/USA are ta. romote a uali for
p q tY
all women and to help create better conditions for working women through the study
of social, educational, economic, and political. problems; and
~ ~~~~5 since 1928 Business and Professional Women SA has been s otli htin the
~ 1 ~u g
P g
achievements and contributions of working women du~ .ring National Business ~~
Women's 'Week; and
tit1~ f ~~~~S, Isle City Business and Professional Women of Alameda have, since 1959, promoted
equality for all women and honored a variety of working women such as artists,
doctors, community activists, .judges, ..and firefighters as Women of Achievement
during National Business Women's Week; and
~~~~~~~, all Alameda residents, civic and fraternal groups, educational associations, news
media, and other community organizations are urged to join this salute to working
women and to encourage and promote the celebration of the achievements of all
business and professional women as they contribute daily to economic, civic, and
cultural purposes.
~0~, 1~~~~~C`~~~ L~~ ,~~ ~~SC~LV~l7, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of
Alameda, do hereby proclaim October 19~" through October 25t", 2008, as
N at'wna.L 3 wa~nza~ W rnnevJb W eek~
in the City of Alameda and urge all residents to join me in recognizing all those associated with making this
endeavor a reality, and wishing them ~e very best in the future.
City Council
Agenda Item #3-A
~ 0-o7-os
ln'rocCamation
tiV}f ~Z~r~1$, the month of October has been designated National Disability
Awareness Month; and
tiU~f ~~~~5, Disabili Awareness Month was first reco nized on Au st 11,1945, b
tY g ~ Y
a joint resolution of the United States Congress as the National
Employment of the Physically Handicapped week; and
ti11~~~~~5, Disabili Awareness Month was su orted with the si nin of the
tY Pp g g
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 DADA} by President George
H.W. Bush; and ~ -
~U}f ~%Z~~1$, disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way
diminishes the right of individuals with :disabilities to live
independently, enjoy self-determination, make ch~~ces, contribute to
society, and artici ~ ate in the economic, o~itical, social, cultural, and
p .p p
.. .
educational ~~ mainstream of Amerrcan society; and
~t1~ f ~~~~[S, Disabili A~vareness.~lVlonth hi hli hts the ro ~~ress the Ci of Alameda
tY g g p : g ,... tY
has :made in improving ern 1a ment o ~ orfuriities; overnment services, '~~
. p . Y pp g
public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications for
those with disabilities; and ~,.
1~11~~~~~5 Disabili Awareness Monf 1i also reco nizes that there is still work to be
. ty g .. ..
done to ~ remove barriers, whether .h ~ sisal ~ or social, that unreasonabl ~ ~~,
- - PY Y
prevent thefull par~.~ipation of Americans with disabilities; and ~ ,
.~..,
I~l~~~~~5, the Ci Council estalilished the first committee to rovide an enhanced
tY P
public f Drum to address local disability issues in 1974; and
~V~{~%Z~~1$, the City Charter was amended in 2004 to establish the Commission on
Disability Issues.
NOW, r}f~2~~OR~ '3~ IT IZ~SOL1~f (~, that I, Beverly j. Johnson, Mayor of the
City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2008, as
Dibabil~;tyAwareneaa~Movitiv
in the City of Alameda and all residents to join me in commemorating this occasion.
-~-, City Council
B e . jo son p enda Item #3-B
9
. Y~ ~0-o7-oa
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 16, 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:
0$- Public Em to ee Performance Evaluation X54957}; Title:
City Manager.
X08- } Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
X54956.9}; Name of case: Collins v. City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee, Council
and the City Manager met for a periodic performance review; no
action was taken; regarding Legal, Council received a briefing from
Legal Counsel regarding the status of litigation and potential
settlement discussions and gave direction to Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:55 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 16, 20D8
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 16 , 2 0 0 5-- 7; 3 0 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent; None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(OS- } Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to
consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Conditional Approval
[paragraph no. 08- J would be heard before the Public Hearing to
consider an Appeal of the July 14, 2008, Planning Board Approval
[paragraph no. 08- ].
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(08- 7 Proclamation honoring Bananas for thirty-five years of
service.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Judy Kriege
from Bananas.
Ms. Kriege thanked Council for the proclamation; stated serving the
community is an honor; Bananas is looking forward to many years of
service to the community.
(08- 7 Proclamation declaring September 21 through 27 as Fall
Prevention Awareness Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Jackie Krause
from Mastick Senior Center.
Ms. Krause submitted a flyer and thanked Council for providing
Mastick Senior Center to the community; stated the Annual Open
house event will be held on Sunday, September 21 between 1;00 p.m.
and 4:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the age requirement for
participating at the Mastick Senior Center.
Ms. Krause responded fifty and older; stated the oldest member is
ninety-nine years old, lives in Oakland, walks five blocks, and
takes two buses to volunteer at the Center two days per week.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
September 15, 2008
X08- } Mayor Johnson announced that there would be a Community
Action for a Sustainable Alameda ~CASA} meeting at the "0" Club at
Alameda Point on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, from 6:30 p.m, to
8:30 p.m.
X08- } Presentation regarding the Fiscal Year 2407-2008 Facade
Grant Program.
The Development Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired about funding levels.
The Development Coordinator responded funding levels have been
approximately the same amount for the last two years; stated tax
increment funding is used.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether funding levels are adequate.
The Development Coordinator responded funds are running low; stated
there is a waiting list for funding.
Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association ~WABA}, stated
WABA supports the grant funding; the grant funding brought Park
Street and Webster Street together; Pappo's windows were reused at
the Fireside Lounge.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association ~PSBA~, thanked
Council for the facade grant program; stated that the funding
process is easier than in the past.
X08- } The Interim Finance Director assured Council and the
community that the American International Group ~AIG} marketing
activity has not affected the City's portfolio; stated the City has
two guaranteed investment Contracts; one Contract invests reserve
funds for redevelopment and one Contract invests reserve funds for
the Community Facilities District Bond; the City has been assured
by the City's portfolio managers that the federal government has
decided to back AIG.
Mayor Johnson stated the City needs to watch Ca1PERS' policies and
investments because the City has retirements investments with
Ca1PERS; the City would pay more money if Ca1PERS' investments do
not perform.
The Interim Finance Director stated Ca1PERS has altered its
investment strategy because a significant amount of their portfolio
was in real estate investment trusts and inter-City urban
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
September 1.6, 2008
development projects which were not performing; an Off Agenda
.Report can be provided with a complete analysis CalPERS
investments; cost recovery changes if the portfolio does not
perform and the City is not able to have investment earnings to
help offset the costs.
Mayor Johnson stated the City picks up the tab if actuarial
assumptions are off; requested that the matter be placed on a
future agenda so the public understands the situation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
City Manager to enter into MOU [paragraph no. 08- ] was removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
(*08- } Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Cammission
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, 200$. Approved.
(*08- ~ Ratified bills in the amount of $8,561,927.16.
(*08-- } Recommendation to authorize execution of a Grant of
Easement to Pacific Gas & Electric for the Webster Street gas line
relocation. Accepted.
(*OS- } 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. Accepted.
(08- } 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
$1,100,000, and to execute all necessary documents to implement the
Project .
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Counci]. 3
September 16, 2Q08
Vice Mayor Tam stated the project sounds very exciting; requested a
short synopsis on what is involved and what the $1.1 million would
cover.
The Supervising Civil Engineer stated the project would provide
capacity enhancements without widening a street or adding more
lanes; the main purpose of the project is to provide traffic signal
priority, which offers transit buses extra green time; all Webster
Street bus stops would have signs to alert riders when the next bus
would arrive; signal coordination is another asset of the project;
a new signal would be added at the Webster Street and Pacific
Avenue intersection; signal pre-emption would be added along the
Webster Street corridor for emergency response vehicles; the
project would have Intelligent Transportation System elements;
Microwave Vehicle Detection Systems would be added along the
Webster Street corridor to collect real time traffic speed, volume,
and lane occupancy data; cameras would be installed at key
locations in order to monitor traffic.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the project would be funded through
grants and would not impact the General Fund.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
~*08- } Resolution No
Extension of the Regional
Bond." Adopted.
14265, "Supporting Measure WW, the
Open Space, Wildlife, Shoreline and Parks
~*08- } Public Hearing to consider an Amendment to the Grand
Marina Village Master Plan to adjust lat lines for five parcels in
the development and adjust the boundaries of open space and a park
within the development; and
~*08- A} Introduction of Grdinance Approving Master Plan Amendment
PLN08-0181 Adjusting Lot Sizes Within the Grand Marina Village
Master Plan. Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
X08- } Resolution No. 14266 "Reappointing Lamont Carter as a
Member of the Youth Advisory Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
September 16, 2008
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
t08- 7 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
X08- A7 Resolution No. 14267, "Denying an Appeal and Upholding the
Planning Board Decision Conditionally Approving Major Design Review
DR07-0086 For the Structural Expansion of a Single-Family Dwelling
and the Addition of a Second Dwelling Unit at 3327 Fernside
Boulevard." Adopted.
The Planning Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Applicant would be
limited to a thirty-foot height with the new condition, to which
the Planning Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed condition is the same
condition that the Planning Board rejected.
The Planning Manager responded the proposed condition is a little
different because a lower height maximum would be allowed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board saw the proposed
condition, to which the Planning Manager responded in the negative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Applicant would be able
to increase the height by no more than one foot, stay within the
thirty-foot height limit, and rework the back of the house, to
which the Planning Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board discussed
the concept of reworking the back of the house but did not think it
was necessary, to which the Planning Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is confused why a new condition would
be added at this point.
The Planning Manager stated the new condition allows the Applicant
to increase the height of the building, make it architecturally
compatible, and stay within the guidelines.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
September 16, 2008
Mayor Johnson inquired how long the project has been going on.
The Planning Manager responded the application went before the
Planning Board in June.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant is requesting added
height.
The Planning Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the added
height would not exceed the height limit for the property's zoning
district.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the compromise has been discussed
with the Applicant, to which the Planning Manager responded in the
negative.
Mayor Johnson stated the process is odd.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the back of the house has an addition
from some prior lifetime and is not architecturally significant;
the [back of the] house faces the estuary and cannot be seen from
the street; that she is trying to understand what is the motivation
in requiring the condition.
The Planning Manager stated the condition would remain consistent
with the Planning Board recommendation to achieve a condition that
is architecturally compatible with the existing house.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter went back to the Planning
Board recently.
The Planning Manager responded that the matter went to the Planning
Board in June for Design Review and went to the Planning Board
earlier in the year when variances were requested.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the Planning Board stipulated that the
structure should not exceed thirty-feet in height regardless of any
architectural detail; staff indicated an architectural detail would
exceed the thirty--foot height by nine inches; a condition is
proposed to bring the height back under thirty f eet which is in
conformance with what the Planning Board gave as a general
condition.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Applicant would still
need to clip the top of the house.
The Planning Manager responded the house would need to be clipped
by approximately nine inches.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
September ~6, 2008
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the reason for raising the
building.
The Planning Manager responded the Applicant wants to provide
height in the garage area.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents ~In favor of appeal}: Patricia Baer, Alameda; Elizabeth
Krase, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society ~AAPS}; Richard
W. Rutter, RAPS; Nancy Hird, Alameda; Christopher Buckley, RAPS;
Grinne Lambden, AAPS.
Opponents Not in favor of appeal}: JoAnne Chandler, Alameda: Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Kexis Brownson; Alameda; Donna Talbot, Applicant
submitted handout}; James Rauk, Applicant.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicants are not asking for
any variances and are not exceeding the thirty-foot height limit,
to which the Applicant responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant was told that the
Guidelines for Residential Design supercedes the Alameda Municipal
Code.
The Applicant responded that a Planner told her that the Guidelines
trump the Code.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the thirty-foot height limit
is the only Planning Board condition, to which the Applicant
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether tonight's recommendation is
for the thirty-foot height limit, the one-foot height increase, and
modifications to the back of the house, to which the Applicant
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff's recommendation is
twelve inches and the Planning Board's recommendation is fifteen
inches, to which the Planning Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Applicant questioned the three inch change.
The Planning Manager stated the three inches is a compromise.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
September 1b, 2QQ$
Mayor Johnson inquired who worked out the compromise, to which the
Planning Manager responded staff.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether AAPS had any input on the
compromise, to which the Planning Manager responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether raising [the house]
fifteen inches and making adjustments to roof level would still be
under thirty feet, to which the Applicant responded the peak would
be thirty feet.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the proposed massing and appearance
of the sides of the house are substantially larger; inquired how
the matter was interpreted as meeting the characteristics of a
craftsman style house; stated the intent of the guidance is not to
replicate a house but to have certain attributes that make the
house recognizable.
The Planning Manager stated staff recommends lowering the height
where the windows meet the top plate and incorporating features,
such as a dormer over the windows, to get craftsman architectural
features.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the elevation is obscured
by a large house.
The Planning Manager responded the opposite side has a more public
view of the side of the house.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the driveway side has a greater
distance between houses; inquired whether the elevations are the
same for both sides, to which the Planning Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Board rejected the condition
regarding changes to the side; inquired what is the relationship
between the Guidelines and the Code.
The Planning Manager responded the Guidelines are a resource that
the staff and public can use when evaluating a project for
compatibility with a neighborhood or existing structure.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Planning Department needs to have a
clear understanding of the Guidelines; stating that the Guidelines
trump the Code is wrong.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 15, 208
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board and Applicants came
to an agreement on what the Code and Guidelines require; the
Planning Board agreed to go with the design but wanted to observe
the thirty-foot height limit; she is concerned that staff made
changes after the fact and did not involve Applicant input.
Mr. Buckley stated that the Guide to Residential Design states that
"In order for a design review application to be approved, finding
must be made that the project conforms to the Guide to Residential
Design."
Councilmember Matarrese stated the elevation is less busy than what
would be for the right side elevation,
Councilmember deHaan stated the driveway is a concerning factor;
old architecture allowed driveways slops down into the basement;
level driveways have a nicer feel.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff advised the Applicant
that they could raise the building twelve inches with a thirty feet
limit in height, to which the Applicant responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the Applicant questioned what
happened to the extra three inches.
The Planning Manager stated the three inches are a compromise.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is trying to get to the point of
blending form and function; inquired whether the twelve inches
would allow sufficient room for handicap accessibility.
The Planning Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
garage roof layer would be raised to the height the Applicant would
need; adjustments would be made to the peak of the roof.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she does not understand what is so bad
about raising the structure by fifteen inches.
The Planning Manager stated that staff developed a compromise
between what was originally proposed which is not raising the
building height at all and what the Planning Board approved, which
is not allowing a building more than thirty feet.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff recommends changing the slope
of the roof .
The Planning Manager responded the Applicant would need to change
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
September 16, 2~D8
the upper slope to either achieve what staff recommends or what the
Planning Board approved.
Mayor Johnson stated that the project was recommended to go to the
Historical Advisory Board in error; the Applicants were ready to
come to Council a month ago; an error was made in the noticing
requirements; the project needs to move along.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of upholding the Planning Board
decision and overturning the appeal.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated that the compromise is not
between raising the building to be in conformance with the Code but
is about trying to balance the form and necessity of the function
of the building for the Applicant.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council would be denying the
appeal and approving the Planning Board recommendation with the
only condition that the building not exceed thirty feet, to which
Councilmember deHaan and Vice Mayor Tam responded in the
affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote- 5.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the project has had a litany
of fumbles; requested that a report be provided outlining
preventative and corrective actions to prevent further occurrences,
including communicating with applicants; the report should include
information on the use of the Guide to Residential Design versus
the Municipal Code, the place for review by the HAB, and
notification process; stated this is not the first time that the
notification issue has come up; he would like the report soon so
that Council should hear the matter within a month so that the same
mistakes are not made again.
Mayor Johnson stated the language in the section of the Guidelines
referenced by Mr. Buckley creates ambiguity; requested that the
Design Review Guidelines be brought back to Council for
clarification .
The City Manager stated a resolution would be provided to the City
Clerk to ensure that Council action is clearly recorded.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates staff's efforts
to move the project forward; staff reached a compromise and there
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
September 1b, 208
was no communication with the property owner regarding the
compromise; property owners need to be involved.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the requested report should include
some analysis of the root cause; he wants to be convinced that the
correction matches the cause; delays costs the Applicant and City
money.
Mayor Johnson stated that delays cost staff time also.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:57 p.m, and reconvened the
Regular City Council meeting at 10:11 p.m.
*~*
X08- } 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
(08- A} Resolution No. 14268, "Upholding the Planning Board's
Approval of Major Design Review PLN08-0090, Allowing the
Reconstruction of Building 1000, Located in the Alameda Towne
Centre, at 2230 South Shore Center." Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what type of process orchard Supply
Hardware ~oSH} would have to go through if they decided to take the
building "as is"; further inquired how long the process would take.
The Supervising Planner responded OSH would need to get a business
license; a permit would be needed if oSH wanted a sign; stated the
process could be completed in a morning.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether OSH could go in as a matter
of course if exterior changes were not being proposed.
The Supervising Planner responded a hardware store is a permitted
use in the Zoning district; stated there would be no discretionary
entitlement.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City has the legal
right to exclude OSH from the permitted use within the Center, to
which the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City could prohibit
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 1
September 16, 2008
another coffee shop in the Center if other coffee shop merchants
said no.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the tenant does
nat need to get permission if the use is permitted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents ~In favor of appeal}: David Giovannoli, Pagono's
Hardware; Claire Yeaton~-Risley, Alameda; Holly Sellers, Alameda;
Patty Jacobs, Greater Alameda Business Association; Richard
Burgess, Alameda; Alan Ryan, Economic Development Corporation;
Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; David Kerwin,
Alameda; Robb Ratto, Alameda; Patricia Baer, Alameda; Reid
Wetherell, Alameda; Iris Watson, Alameda; Arthur Lipow, Alameda;
Kate Eckhaus, Alameda; Richard Eckhaus, Alameda; Barbara Mooney,
Alameda; Nick Petrulakis, Alameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda;
Philip Jaber, Encinal Hardware; Richard Biggar, Alameda;
Opponents Not in favor of appeal}: Allan Ryan, Alameda; Robert
Mananquil, Trader Joe's; Peter Schamoni, Alameda Realty Center;
James Robinson, Fit Lite by 24 Hour Fitness; David Estep, Massage
Envy; Steve Hill, Orchard Supply Hardware; Mike Corbit, Harsch
Development; Randy Kyte, Harsch Development.
Neutral: Bill Smith, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the staff report mentions that there is
an existing Planned Development Agreement ~PDA} that modifies the
Alameda Municipal Code by requiring a PDA for an expansion over 5a
of the total shopping center area; the analysis shows there would
still be approximately 2~ of the total square footage if the
gardent center is included in the calculation; inquired whether
said analysis is correct, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is having trouble understanding what
is considered in the square footage and what is not.
The Supervising Planner stated the [garden] floor area is not part
of the building but would have merchandise for sale; additional
parking would not be required if an existing business wanted to add
an unenclosed garden area; additional parking might be required if
the building site was increased; adding square footage to the
shopping center would not trigger a planned development amendment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 2
September 1b, 2008
Vice Mayor Tam stated the existing planned development amendment is
more stringent; inquired whether the higher square footage
[including garden area] falls under the 5o trigger in the existing
planned development amendment, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated technical aspects are not the issue
tonight; the issue is what Alamedan's want; every EDC leakage study
contained a paragraph stating that existing retailers would not be
affected; urbanists are advising that the City should look at
retail nodes; Alameda has fourteen retail nodes which are extremely
important; the businesses discussed tonight are anchors; a major
Alameda asset [nodes] could collapse if anchors disappear; that he
is concerned with the fabric of Alameda; retail mix needs to be
reviewed and should go to the EDC for review.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the retail leakage analysis was done
through the EDC.
The Supervising Planner responded the Alameda Landing project was
thoroughly vetted through a wide variety of Boards and Commissions.
Mayor Johnson stated that she remembers a series of EDC meetings
held throughout the community; inquired whether the meetings were
part of the retail analysis, to which the Planning Services Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated there were no less that four different
retail analyses; all of the analyses said the same thing.
***
X08-296 Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the
meeting past midnight.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
*~*
Councilmember Matarrese stated a resolution adopted by the Planning
Board in 2003 required the applicant to submit a plan for a Planned
Development Amendment and Major Design Review prior to the
issuance of building permits for the Phase that includes the
present car wash site, Building 1800, Building 1000, and subsequent
phases; inquired how said resolution impacts tonight's discussion.
The Supervising Planner responded the Applicant was required to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 3
September 1G, 2Q08
come back with a different design for the shoreline area and gas
station location; the Planning Board did not want the 2003 Building
1000 built until a new Planned Development Amendment addressed the
the shoreline area; the Applicant complied in 2005 and currently is
going through Planning Board hearings; the 2003 Building 1000 is
not the same building being discussed tonight; the 2003 building
was much larger and in a different location.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she was~on the Planning Board at
that time; that she remembers the discussion regarding the
shoreline site and wanting to put restaurants at the former movie
theatre site; Page 14, paragraph 22 states that "The project may
include one store up to 90,000 square feet in floor area and two
stores each up of up to 6,000 square feet. Any larger store shall
require a Planned Development Amendment. Additions or modifications
of less than 5o in overall center area may be approved by
Administrative Design Review"; she has been a customer of all
retail establishments discussed tonight; she understand the
concerns; one speaker brought up the cigarette store on Park
Street; the City was sued and had to pay the rent for several years
until tenants rented the site; she needs to balance the
consideration of potentially being sued by the shopping center and
the precarious budget; she wants Alameda to be known as a City that
lives up to agreements.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the City's policies reflect the concern and
desire to make sure that small businesses survive; the City has
allocated money to support the Park Street Business Association,
West Alameda Business Association, and Greater Alameda Business
Association; a lot of money is spent on advertising, landscape and
lighting, and facade grants; the City cannot dictate the tenant at
a particular site; the City has to abide by established agreements
with Alameda Towne Center; there is not a lot of choice in
determining tenants at Alameda Towne Centre.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution [upholding the
Planning Board's decision].
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion,
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated the reality is that
OSH could take the building as is and open in one month because OSH
is a permitted use.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda Towne Centre is part of
Alameda; the developer would advise the City of an anticipated
lawsuit; inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore heard anything on
the issue.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 4
September 16, 20Q8
Councilmember Gilmore responded in the negative; stated she would
be remise if she did not consider the possibility of a lawsuit.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City put caveats into the Alameda
Landing PDA; a decision should be postponed for further discussion.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council discussed the type of retail
desired for the Bridgeside Shopping Center; the City did not get
the upscale retail desired; the developer showed her pages of
failed attempts to get upscale tenants; incentives can be provided,
but the free market allows a business to calculate whether money
can be made in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated that she met with the Appellants and Alameda
Towne Centre representatives; OSH is not her first choice; Alameda
Towne Centre representatives tried to get other tenants, including
electronic retailors; the City is not the property owner and cannot
select the tenants; the City is very supportive of small businesses
and has invested a lot of money in streetscapes, Theater
renovation, and facade grants; South Shore continued to decline
aver the last forty--five years; the City cannot buy or take over
the lease; small businesses can compete.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City has a certain amount of
control over what comes into the business districts; the EDC and
Planning Board need to review whether permitted uses should be
adjusted because times have changed; the 2003 Planning Board
resolution is a complex document and sets the context for what
would happen when the project came forward; OSH is a permitted use
and the project should be aapproved.
Mayor Johnson stated the City of Vallejo was fighting over what
should go inta the City; retailers decided to relocate across the
border of Vallejo; Alameda does not have enough sales and property
tax revenue; Measure P is being placed on the ballot reluctantly;
the voters will decide whether to support Measure P or have very
significant cuts made to the City budget.
Councilmember deHaan stated Target had an exclusive agreement twice
with Alameda Towne Center, Enterprise Landing, and Alameda Landing;
Target is a good fit at Alameda Landing; CSH could be a better fit
at Alameda Landing; putting OSH in the center of the City would
create a major impact.
Cn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor
Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 5
September 16, 208
SOS- } 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. Introduced.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how the proposed ordinance would
affect the existing Development Agreements.
The Planning Services Manager responded one Development Agreement
is with Harbor Bay Business Park and protects changes in zoning
requirements; the other Development Agreement is with Alameda
Landing.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Bridgeside Shopping Center,
the Northern Waterfront, and Alameda Point would be affected by the
proposed ordinance.
The Planning Services Manager responded all areas would be subject
to the proposed ordinance; stated MX zoning would require Master
Plans to be developed; Master Plans are mini ordinances for an
area.
Mayor Johnson requested clarification on where the proposed
ordinance would apply.
The Planning Services Manager stated the proposed ordinance would
apply to everywhere in the City with the exception of the area
covered by the Alameda Landing Development Agreement and Harbor Bay
Development Agreement.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents ~In favor of ordinance7:Mike Henneberry, UFCW Local 5;
John Nunes, UFCW Local 5; David Kirwin, Alameda; Phil Tucker,
California Healthy Communities Network; Mark Wolfe, California
Healthy Communities Network; Karen Bey, Alameda; Jon Spangler,
Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan stated the second paragraph on Page 2 of the
staff report states that "Existing projects with approved
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 6
September 7.6, 200$
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"; inquired why
"may be" is used.
The City Attorney responded the prohibition would depend on the
provisions within the relevant Development Agreement; stated the
Development Agreement would need to be reviewed; the Alameda
Landing and Harbor Island Associates Development Agreements are
exempt from the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated "may be" should be changed to "are".
Councilmember Gilmore stated the proposed ban went before the
Planning Board and EDC; inquired what was the recommendation.
The Planning Services Manager responded the immediate reaction was
that there is already a Use Permit process that allows the City to
turn down stores that do not work and also provides the flexibility
to approve stores that work; the City does not want to send the
message that the City is anti-business by adopting flat out
prohibitions; the Planning Board raised a couple questions
regarding administrative management.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board and EDC agreed that
the community does not want a Walmart or a super center; that she
is troubled that neither the Planning Board or EDC thought that
prohibition was not the best tool.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Planning Board did not
think the matter is a planning issue but more of an economic issue;
that he appreciates the focus on economics; there was consensus
that some type of prohibition is needed but sending the wrong
message is a concern; a Use Permit is needed for a building that is
greater than 30,000 square feet; Council has the benefit of
Planning Board and EDC discussions.
Mayor Johnson stated the measure is reasonable and is not too
restrictive or overly broad; the proposed ordinance does a good job
of accomplishing the goal with the combination of square footage
and non-taxable.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he supports the proposed
ordinance; leakage studies show that there is room for only one
more grocery store; the Del Monte project will take care of that
need; a grocery store threshold is approximately 160,000 square
feet; a Walmart is approximately 210,000 square feet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
September 7.~, 2QQ$
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the status of the Del Monte project.
The Planning Services Manager responded shell improvements are
being made; stated a large format retail Use Permit will be needed
before occupancy if there is over 30,000 square feet of retail; one
to two years of structural work is needed.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the proposed ordinance is a better tool than
using a Major Design Review and is consistent with the City's
policy to protect small businesses; the EDC minutes are very
precise; the EDC clearly understands the principle of using zoning
to ensure that there are businesses that promote good labor
practices; the EDC recognizes the other principles that go with the
economic and community impact of having a super store in Alameda;
the EDC would like to see a more nuance ordinance; it was not clear
what the nuance tool would look like.
Vice Mayor Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Gilmore requested staff to review the feasibility of
having the EDC and Planning Board review Use Permits for 30,000
square feet or more.
oRAL CQMMUNICATIoNS, NON--AGENDA
SOS- } Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed energy efficiency.
X08- } Robb Ratto, Alameda, stated that he questions a procedure
that allows people with no standing to appeal a Planning Board
decision on a residential matter; inquired whether there is any way
to limit who can appeal a residential Planning Board decision.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
X08- } Consideration of
Resolution No. 12121 Setting
Alameda City Council Meeting."
Resolution No. 14269,
the order of Business of
Adopted.
"Amending
City of
Mayor Johnson stated that having a section on the agenda for City
Manager staff communications would be a good idea; the public would
be updated on significant issues.
Councilmember Matarrese stated placement of the item could be
adjusted; the item should be before the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 $
September 16, 2008
Councilmember Gilmore suggested that the item be placed before or
after the Consent Calendar,
Vice Mayor Tam stated placement would depend upon the subject.
Mayor Johnson stated that the community needs to be kept informed
of significant items; most meetings would not have City Manager
reports.
The City Manager suggested that the item be placed before regular
agenda items.
Councilmernber Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution, with
moving City Manager Communications before Agenda items.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(08- } Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Economic Development Commission and Youth Advisory Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Harry Dahlberg and Michael J. Schmitz for
reappointment to the Economic Development Commission and continued
nominations for remaining vacancies; nominated Claire E. Forbes and
Maggie Mei for appointment to the Youth Commission; continued
nominations for remaining vacancies.
(08-- } Councilmember deHaan stated there would be a review of
the conceptual portion for the Alameda Point project September 19,
2008; he was hoping that the matter would come back to Council.
The Assistant City Manager stated many meetings have been held with
committees; a joint meeting is being scheduled with the
Transportation Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority for acceptance of the Master Plan prior to November.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the matter would be reviewed
by anyone else.
The Assistant City Manager responded the matter would be going to
the Recreation and Park Commission, Planning Board, etc.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 1:05 a.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council. 1
September 16, 2008
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
September 16, 2QQ8
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD ~PUB~ MEETING
TUESDAY - - ~- SEPTEMBER 30, zD08 - - - 5:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor Johnson; Board Members
Hamm, Holmes, Kurita, McCahan, and
McCormick -- 10.
Note: Board Member Hamm was present via teleconference from Vijay
Rattan Vihar, Gurgaon, India.
Absent: None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
X08- ~ Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision ~c} of Section
54955.9; Number of cases:One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Legal Counsel briefed
Council and the PUB on a received threat of litigation; Council and
the PUB provided direction to Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meting at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Public Utilities Board
September 30, 20Q8
UNAPPRQVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY -- -- - OCTOBER 1, 2 0 0 8 - - - 6 : 0 0 p . m .
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmember deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
~0$- } Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations:
All Bargaining Units.
OS- Public_EmploYee Performance Evaluation 1549577; Title:
City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received
a briefing regarding negotiations with various City bargaining
units; no action was taken; regarding Public Em to ee, the matter
was not heard.
Adjournment
There being no further business, 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
October 1, 2008
CITY ~F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Ann Marie Gallant
Interim Chief Financial Officer .
Date: October 7, 2DD8 .
Re: List of Warrants for Ratification
This is to certify that the claims listed on the attached check register and sh own below have been
approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and just charges against the City in
accordance vuith their respective amounts as indicated thereon. '
Check Numbers 'Amount
213486 - 214069 $3,fiD2,358.59
V 17581 - V17722 $96, 055.32
EFT 586 $fi7,84fi.05
EFT 587 $7,993.50
EFT 588 $45,763.09
EFT 5B9 $7,993.50
EFT 59D $36,833.86
EFT 591 $95,98D.49
EFT 592 $48,fi03.57
EFT 593 $32D,811.OD
Void Checks:
213647 ($194.37)
207696 ($52.74)
213599 ($1,000.00)
214024 ($1,218.00)
G RAN D TOTAL $4,327,773.86
Respectfully submitted,
Chief Financ' I fficer
BILLS #4-B
Council Warrants 101D710B 10/7/2008
CITY ~F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: October 7, 2008
Re: Accept the Bayport Phase 2 Public Backbone Infrastructure, stormwater
Treatment Pond Improvements, and Authorize the City Clerk to Record
a Notice of Completion for the improvements
BACKGROUND
In 2000, Catellus Development Corporation was selected as the Master Developer for
the BayportlAlameda Landing mixed-use development project at the former East
HousinglFleet Industrial Supply Center ~FISC} site. Pursuant to the Disposition and
Development Agreement ~DDA}, Development Agreement, Joint Implementation
Agreement, and Construction Reimbursement Agreement among Catellus, the City, and
the Community Improvement Commission ~CIC} for the Bayport Project, Catellus
Construction Company ~CCC} serves as the General Contractor for the CIC and is
subject to a Project Labor Agreement.
The scope of work for the Bayport Phase 2 Backbone Infrastructure included the
construction of the stormwater treatment pond located in the southwestern quadrant of
the FISC site north of the existing Coast Guard Housing and south of Warehouse 2 in
the Alameda Landing commercial project site. The stormwater treatment pond was
required to provide stormwater treatment in accordance with Regional Water Quality
Control Board ~RWQCB} permit requirements to serve the Bayport residential project
and the Alameda Landing project. The project included construction of an
approximately 2.5-acre treatment pond that provides for 100 percent treatment of
stormwater during average to 100-year storm events.
The project was competitively bid and awarded based on plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Harris & Associates, the City's
designated Public Works inspector for the project. The stormwater treatment pond was
bid in November 2005 through February 2006. McGuire and Hester was selected as
the lowest qualified bidder. A Notice to Proceed to start construction was issued on
March 8, 2006, and the project was determined to be substantially complete on
February 14, 2005. Since substantial completion, the City has worked with Catellus to
ensure that the plants for the pond were fully established and that the final punchlist
items were completed before final acceptance.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-C
10-07.08
Honorable Mayorand
Members of the City Council
DISCUSSION
October 7, 2008
Page 2 of 3
All work related to the stormwater treatment pond improvements was performed in
accordance with the approved Master Plan, Site~wide Landscape Improvement Plans,
Site Management and Air Monitoring Plan, Demolition Plan, Traffic Management Plan,
Storm ~11later Pollution Prevention Plan, Marsh Crust Ordinance, and AP&T plans and
specifications. Harris and Associates, City Engineer for the Bayport project, issued a
certificate of final completion for the improvement project on August 27, 2008. The work
is also acceptable to the Public ~JlJorks Department, A copy of the certification
documentation is on file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIALlMPACT
The cost for the stormwater treatment pond improvement project is included in the
Bayport project budget approved by the CIC and City Council in Apri[ 2005, and was
funded with CIC project revenues generated from the Bayport project.
ENVIRONMENTAL REViE~IV
An Environmental Impact Report ~EIR~ `was prepared for the Bayport project and
certified in 2000. No additional CEQA review is required.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Plans and specifications were prepared and implemented in accordance with the
Alameda Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Bayport Phase 2 public backbone infrastructure, stormwater treatment pond
improvements, and authorize the City Clerk to record a Notice of Completion for the
improvements.
Respe tfully s , mitted,
;~
~_
Leslie Little
Development Services Director
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
By: D bbi Potter
IV~nager~ Base Reuse & Community Development Division
By: Jen i~er tt
Re evel pment Manager
actober 7, 2008
Page3of3
DKILALIDPIJ~:dc
CITY 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: Gctober 1, 2008
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $234,598, including Contingencies, to
A-Plus Tree Service, for Pruning of City Trees for the Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 2009 No. P.W. 07-08-20
. ~ ,.. .
BACKGRGUND
Cn August S, 2005, the City Council adopted plans and specifications, and authorized a
call for bids for the pruning of City trees for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009, No.
P.W. O1-08-20. The project scope includes pruning City street trees, trees for Alameda
Power & Telecom, and trees for the Recreation and Park Department.
DISCUSSION
To solicit the maximum number of bids and most competitive price, specifications were
provided to 1l separate building exchanges throughout the Bay Area. A notice of bid
was also published in the Alameda Journal. Five contractors submitted bids, and the
bids were opened on September 10, 2008. The apparent low bidder, George Salinas
Tree Preservation, from Southern California, requested a withdrawal of its bid after staff
requested information detailing how the three-hour emergency requirement would be
met. Based on this information, the City consented to have the bid withdrawn. The list
of remaining qualified bidders, from lowestto highesttotal project cost, is:
Bidder Location Bid Amount
Geor a Salinas Tree Preservation Yorba Linda $156,220 WITHDRAWN
A-Plus Tree Service Vallejo $195,498.45
TruGreen ArborCare San Jose $208,370.10
West Coast Arborists, Inc. Anaheim $241,150
New Image Landscape Co. Fremont $283,350
Staff contacted several references pravided by the low bidder and received positive
feedback about the quality and timeliness of their work. Staff proposes to award a
contract to A-Plus Tree Service, for a total amount of $234,595, including a 20°/a
contingency. A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk's office. As with all
annual maintenance contracts, this contract may be mutually extended on a year-by-
year basis, for up to four additional years, based on satisfactory performance of all
City council
Agenda Item #4-D
~ 0-o7-os
Honorable Mayor and October 1, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
aspects of this contract. If extended, the contract would be for the same terms and
costs, plus an annual increase equal to the construction price index increase forthe San
Francisco Bay Area appropriate to the trades associated with the work, as reported in
the Engineering News Record forthe previous calendaryear.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program Project No. 438301 }, with
monies allocated from the General Fund for Annual Street Tree Pruning, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, and the General Fund under Contractual Services.
The total amount budgeted for tree pruning is $350,000. The remaining $115,402 will
be used to supplement the other tree contracts, which include removal and stump
grinding; pruning, structuring and root pruning of young trees; planting, raising,
restaking, and cutting damaged or broken limbs.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CRASS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, this project is
Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 ~h}, Maintenance of
Existing Landscape.
RECOMMENDATION
Award a contract in the amount of $234,598, including contingencies, to A-Plus Tree
Service, for pruning of City trees for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009, No. P.W. Ol-
08-20.
Respe ub fitted,
atthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Flavio Barrantest~.~. ~
Interim Public Works Superintendent
MTN:FB:gc
CITY aF ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: October 1, Zoos
Re: Award a Contract in the Amount of $160,990, Including Contingencies, to
Schaaf & wheeler Consulting Civil Engineers, for Assessment of the City of
Alameda Sewer Pum Stations No. P.w. 06-08-16
BACKGROUND
In June 2008, Public works staff issued a Requestfor Proposals ~RFP}and conducted a
selection process to choose consultant services to conduct an assessment of the
numerous sewer pump stations in the City. The study consists of: performing a condition
assessment of City-owned sewer pump stations; testing pump stations to validate the
sewer hydraulic model; and proposing capital improvement alternatives to enhance the
system's reliability and compliance with latest applicable codes.
DISCUSSION
The following four qualified civillstorm engineering consultants submitted proposals to the
City: Shaaf & wheeler from San Francisco; Lee & RO from walnut Creek; RMC of walnut
Creek; and winzler & Kelly of San Francisco.
The selection process was based on a presentation from each consultan# and a
subsequent interview to determine the most qualified firm. Staff recommends awarding a
contract to Schaaf & Wheeler for a total amount of $160,990, including a 15°/° contingency.
A copy of the contract is on file in the City Clerk's office.
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONIFINANCIALlMPACT
The project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program Project No. 904101}, with
monies allocated from the Sewer Enterprise fund.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
City Council
Agenda Item #4-E
10.01.08
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWII
October 7, 2008
Page 2 of 2
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, this project is
Statutorily Exempt under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15262, Feasibility and Planning
Studies.
RECOMMENDATION
Award contract in the amount of $160,990, including contingencies, to Schaaf & Wheeler
Consulting Civil Engineers for assessment of the City of Alameda sewer pump stations,
No. P.W. 06-08-16.
Respectfully submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
By: Paul Soo, Jr. ~ ~
Junior Engine
MTN:PSJ:gc
CITY ~F ALAi~EDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: Gctober 1, 2448
Re: Ado t a Resolution Reado tin the Cit ofAlameda's Bic cfe Master Plan
BACKGROUND
Caltrans has allocated Bicycle Transportation Account ~BTA~ funds for bicycle projects
for fiscal year 244912414. BTA is one of the principal sources of funding for bicycle
projects. For the 2449/2010 funding cycle, Caltrans will award approximately $7.2
million in competitive grants to local governments throughout California. Agencies are
allowed to apply for up to 25°/° of the total statewide funding.
DISCUSSION
To be considered for funding through the BTA program, applications must be submitted
no later than December 1, 2048. One of the application's eligibility requirements is that
a public agency must have a current approved bicycle plan and a resolution of the
governing body authorizing the application. The City's Bicycle Master Plan was
adopted in 2442, and in accordance with BTA requirements, must be readopted to be
eligible forfunding. Staff is currently updating the Bicycle Master Plan, and this process
will be completed in the fall of 2409.
The Bicycle Master Plan identifies a set of long-term projects, short-term high priority
projects, and ongoing support programs to enhance conditions for bicycling throughout
the City, Since the adoption of the Bicycle Master Plan, the City has secured funding
for several projects identified as priorities in the Bicycle Master Plan, including two BTA
grants totaling approximately $664,404. The recently completed path along Fernside
Boulevard from San Jose Avenue to the bike bridge is one of the priorities in the Bicycle
Master Plan.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIALlMPACT
The readoption of the Bicycle Master Plan will have no budget impacts, as it is not
directly associated with implementation of projects.
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda item #4-F
~0-o7-os
Honorable Mayor and October 1, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 2
MUNICIPAL C4DEIP4LICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
This action does not affect the Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution readopting the City of Alameda's Bicycle Master Plan.
Respectful) submitted,
Matthew T. Naclerio
Public Works Director
~~1~Q~
By: Barry Bergman
Transportation C ordinator
MTN:BB:gc
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION N0.
E
L
a
~.
READOPTING THE CITY OF ALAMEDA BICYCLE MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, demand for additional bicycle facilities for both recreational
and commuting needs is increasing; and
I .
WHEREAS, the Alameda City Council has determined there is the
potential to increase bicycle usage in Alameda through bikeway development
~ and bicycle programs; and
a
WHEREAS, support for bicycle use in the community is an essential
component in the City's efforts to reduce air, water, and noise pollution in and
~ around Alameda; and
WHEREAS, increased bicycle use will support the City's goal of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by 25°/~ below 2005 levels by the year 2020; and
WHEREAS, enhanced bicycle facilities will offer City visitors and
residents an additional transportation option, resulting in improved mobility and
reduced traffic conges#ion; and
WHEREAS, the Alameda City Council originally adopted the Alameda
Bicycle Master Plan ~Plan~ on January 20, X999, and readopted the Plan on
November 20, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the existing plan remains relevant and reflect the City's most
recently determined priorities for bicycle facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda readopts the City of Alameda Plan.
**~****
Resolution #4-FCC
14-41.08
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 lt" day of October, 2008, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSENTI~NS:
IN VvITNESS, UIIHERE~F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 8r" day of October, X008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY 4F ALAMEDA
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
From: Debra Kurita
City Manager
Date: October 1, 2005
Re: Adopt a Resolution Supporting the FOCUS Priority Development Area
A lication forAlameda Point
BACKGROUND
The FOCUS Program is a regional incentive-based development and conservation
strategy for the greater San Francisco Bay Area that seeks to work with local
governments and others in the region to collaboratively address issues such as high
housing costs, traffic congestion, and protection of natural resources. The prima oal
ryg
of FOCUS is to encourage future growth near transit and in the existing communities
that surround the San Francisco Bay, enhancing existing neighborhoods and pravidin
g
housing and transportation choices for the entire community.
FOCUS provides funding for planning grants and capital funds for development
activities in areas that have been designated Priority Development Areas PDA}, In
addition to financial assistance, the Association of Bay Area Governments ~ABAG ,
. }
Metropolitan Transportation Commission ~MTC}, Bay Area Air Quality Mana ement
. g
District ~BAAQMD}, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission ~BCDC}, and
other agencies throughout the region offer technical assistance, networkin
,. 9
opportunities, and best practices information.
Priority Development Areas must meet the following designation criteria:
• Lie within an existing community,
• Be located near existing or planned transit or served by comparable bus service,
• Planned or in the planning process far more housing, and
• Encompass a minimum of '100 acres.
DISCUSSION
The current planning effort for the former Alameda Naval Air Station at Alameda Point,
which incorporates housing and transit, as well as the area's size and unique urban
waterfront location, qualify Alameda Point as a candidate for PDA designation.
Therefore, staff submitted the Alameda Point PDA application, which was reviewed b
. v
regional agency staff and forwarded with their recommendation for approval to ABAG's
Regional Planning Committee on October 1, 2048. To complete the approval process,
City Council
Report Re:
Agenda Item #4-G
~ o-o~-os
Honorable Mayor and October 7, 2008
Members of the City Council Pa e 2 of 2
g
a resolution of support from the City is required by October 3~, 2008, rior to formal
p
adoption of the PDA designation by the ABAG Executive Board on November 20, 2405.
BUDGET CGNSIDERATIGNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
Designation of Alameda Paint as a Priority Development Area would ensure the Cit 's
.... Y
eligibility for potential grantfunds for planning and capital improvements.
MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE
Participation in the FGCUS Program is consistent with the goals of the Local Action
Plan for Climate Protection in that it encourages the development of housin near
. 9
transit to reduce traffic congestion. It is also consistent with the goals of the NAS
Alameda Community Reuse Plan to achieve a coordinated, environmental) sound Ian
Y p
of conversion and mixed-use development. The FOCUS Program will assist in
implementing the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment policies.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution supporting the FOCUS Priority Development Area a lication for
pp
Alameda Poin#.
Respectfully submitted,
By: Cath ~ oodbury
Planning and Building Director
cc: Pat Keliher, SunCal Companies
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO,
SUPPORTING THE FOCUS PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT
AREA APPLICATION FORALAMEDA POINT
o WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the
~ ~, Metropolitan Transpor#ation Commission in coordination with the Bay Area Air
~ ~ Q Quality Management District and Bay Conservation and Development
`~ ~ Commission collectivel ,the "re Tonal a encies" are undertakin a
~ ,, ~ Y g g } g regional
~ ~ planning initiative called FOCUS; and
c~
~ WHEREAS, FOCUS program goals support a future regional
~ ~ ,
development pattern that is compact and connected; and
WHEREAS, the regional agencies seek local government partners to
create a specific and shared concept of where growth can be accommodated
priority development area} and what areas need protection priority
conservation area} in the region; and
WHEREAS, a priority development area must meet all of the following
criteria: ~a} within an existing community, fib} near existing or planned fixed
transit for served by comparable bus service} and ~c} is planned, or is planning,
for more housing; and
WHEREAS, local governments in the nine county San Francisco Bay
Area are eligible to apply for designation of an area within their community as a
priority development area; and
WHEREAS, the regional agencies are committed to securing incentives
and providing technical assistance to designated priority development areas so
that positive change can be achieved in communities working to advance
focused growth.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Alameda authorizes
submitting an application to designate Alameda Naval Air Station a priority
development area.
******
Resolution #4-G CC
10-01.08
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 lth day of October, 2008, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIaNS:
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this 8t" ay of ~ctaber, X008.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY aF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE N0.
New Series
APPRGVING MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT PLN08-0181 ADJUSTING LQT
SIZES ~IIIITHIN THE GRAND MARINA VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
BE IT GRDAINED by the City Council of the City ofAlameda that:
E ~
~ Section 1. In accordance with Subsection 30-4.20 of the Alameda
~' Munici al Cade, Master Plan Amendment PLNOS-0151
~ ~, ~~ p , as shown on Exhibit
~, . A A is hereby adopted for all the real property within the MX-zoned site situated
`0 ~. Q within the City of Alameda, County of Alameda, State of California located
a ~ '
~ ~ generally north of Fortmann UVayand westof Grand Street.
~ Section 2. The Grand Marina Villa a Master Plan is hereb amended
g y by
~ replacing Pa a TM-01 showin the on inall ro osed arcel siz
g 9 g y p p p es with the
revised and improved parcel sizes shown in Exhibit A. Exhibit A shall replace
page TM-01 in the Grand Marina Village Master Plan.
Section 3. This Grdinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
the expiration of thirty ~30~ days from the date of its final passage.
Presiding afficerof the City Council
Attest:
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
~~~~**
Final Passage of Ordinance #4~H CC
10.41-OS
t ~ ~._.
Ln
o
n
n
r ~ ~ ~
m 0 ~
its
a ~
...__ ~
~~
~ ~
0
,.
N
p ~~~`~~
o ,~~
,:
.~
_.~ ~a
,,
~ i .f
~ I ~}
,~!
'Ii
'~1
H ;~~
~ ~~
s ~~~
~ ~ (ji
m' II
~~ ~
Q~
~Q
~,
a; +
z ~ i~
~a n ~ t
T,o? II
7 ~n
l 0 4
7 Z ;
d ~ w ~~~
n; I
~N~
~a ~
J V~
J ~
O
JDIb
~g z~oo14 Exhibits
r
\ ~ ~ vva
L
C~' ~
,~, ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ~~~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ C ~ ~,
~ ~~, r n_
~ ~ r
~ ~ `~ ~~
~ ., ; f ~ ~ ~
~ `I ~ `~', ' ~ $
~ \, ~
~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~
11 ~~'
r
~ ~~ ` ' \
. L
1
~ ~~
~ °~
~ ~I
c.~, \ ~
tit. ...._.. ~_~.~~,,.r......'.....«.~J.l_..._._T~ ~^ .._._...__._.~~~ ~r~ ~
GRAND STREET
R Exhibit for Planning Board.dwg Layoutl 6-12--08 D3: 9 PM hmnilrar
n
0
~i~
r.
!, 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:
ABSTENTIQNS:
1N WITNESS, vIIHERE~F, 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
CITYGFALAMEDAQRDiNANCE N4.
New Series
~;
~.
,~
,~
a
.a
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 IT GRDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that;
Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the
following definition to Section 30-2 Definitions}:
Super Store: A single retail store or fenan~ f1~at exceeds
90, 000 square feet in size and includes ~0% 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.S.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
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, a,s defined in Section 30-
~Lare prohibited,
Section 3. The Alameda Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding new
text to Section 30-4.9.c. ~ 6 ~C-2 Central Business District, Uses Requiring Use
Permits}, as shown below by underlined text, as follows:
Section 30-4.9.c.16 Large Format Retai! including conversion of
existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space
larger than 30,OOC square feet cif part of a planned development,
no use permit is required}, Super Stores, as defined in Section 30-
2 are rohibited. ~ ~ r
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
Final Passage of Ordinance #4-I CC
Ow11I ~O~
development, no use permit is required}, Su er Stores as
defined in Section 30-2, are prohibited.,
Section 5. The Alameda Municipal Gode 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:
30-4.1Q.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 30-4.10.c.15 ~C-M Commercial-Manufacturing, Uses Requiring
Use Permits}, as shown below by underlined text, as folfaws:
30-4.10.c .15 Large Format Retail including conversion of
existing multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space
larger than 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development,
no use permit is required. Super Stores, as~,ed in Section 30-
2 are rohibited.
Section 7. 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:
30-4.11.c.14 Large Format Retail including conversion of existing
multiple retail tenant spaces to a single tenant space larger than
30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development, no use
permit is required}. Su er Stores as defined in Section 30-2 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 30,000 square feet cif part of a planned development,
no use permit is required}. Super Stores, as defined in Se,ctio
2Lare prohibited. ~ ~ ~~~~
Section 9. This Grdinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the
expiration of thirty ~30~ 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 ar unconstitutionality shall 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. 1277, N.S.
Presiding Officer of the Counci!
Attest:
Lara vveisiger, 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, 2008, b the
. Y
following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN UvITNESS, UvHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 17th day of September, 2008.
Lara UVeisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO,
REAPPOINTING HARRY DAHLBERG AS A MEMBER OF THE
CITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
(MANUFACTURING/INDUSTRIAL SEAT)
E ,
a ~ BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that
~' pursuant to Section 214.2 of the Alameda Municipal Code and Resolution No.
~,
~ o
~ ~ 12149, and upon nomination of the Mayor, HARRY DAHLBERG is hereby
® v
~ reappointed to the office of Manufacturingllndustrial Member of the Economic
~ _
Development Commission of the City of Alameda, commencing October 1, 2008,
and expiring on August 31, 2012,
***~**
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular
meeting assembled on the lth day of October, 2448, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN V111TNESS, ~IVHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official
seat of said City this 8th day of October, 2008.
Lara Ulleisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
Resolutions #fi-A
10-O1-~8
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
APPOINTING MAGGIE MEIASAMEMBER OF THE
ALAMEDA YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION
E
o~
~ BE fT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Alameda that pursuant to
~' ` ° Section 2-19 of the Alameda Munici al Code and u on nomin '
~ a p r p anon of the
~ ~
~ ~' Mayor, MAGGIE MEI is hereby appointed to the office of member of the
~.
~~
~ ~ Alameda Youth Advisory Commission of the City of Alameda, for a term
commencing October 1, 2005, and expiring August 31, 2012.
*~****
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 lth day of October, 2008, by the following
vote to wit:
AYES
NOES;
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
fN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this 8f n day of October, 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: October 7, 2008
Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the August 11, 2008,
Planning Board Decision to Cerkify the Adequacy of the Alameda Towne
Centre Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report and to Approve
the Permitted Hours of Operation, and Outdoor Uses for Planned
Development Amendment PDA05-0004 and Major Design Review
DR05-0073
BACKGROUND
The Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Project includes the renovation and expansion
of the Alameda Towne Centre ~previousiy South Shore Center}. The major components
of this project include redevelopment of the shoreline area of the center by replacing an
existing car wash with two additional restaurants and open space; an expansion of
gross leaseable floor area ~GLA} ranging from 22,600 to 49,650 square feet over
previous entitlements; construction of a three-level parking garage; renovation of older
buildings on the property; and various other site improvements including new sidewalks,
bike and transit facilities, and signage. The proposal also includes a new,
comprehensive sign program for the shopping center. The plans for the proposal are on
file with the City Clerk's office.
On July 14, 2008, and August 11, 2008, the Planning Board held hearings to consider
this project. The staff reports from both meetings are included as Attachments 1 and 2.
At the July 14, 2008, Planning Board meeting, comments were submi#ted concerning
the adequacy of the project traffic study. The conflicting opinions about traffic presented
by the public raised concerns among Planning Board members. In response to these
concerns, the City retained an independent third party, Dowling Associates, to review
the project traffic study. Dowling recently prepared the citywide traffic assessment used
in preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report ~DEIR} for the City's General
Plan Transportation Element Update, which was published on August 4, 2008. Dowling
concluded that the approach and methodologies used in the Alameda Towne Centre
traffic study were consistent with accepted standards and City traffic study guidelines.
Dowling also concluded that the traffic study relied on conservative assumptions that
may have resulted in overstating projected traffic levels and impact significance. For
City Council
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #6-B
1 Q-07-OS
Honorable Mayor and October 1, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 2 of 9
example, in some cases, the Alameda Towne Centre study projected intersection traffic
levels that were up to 40 percent higher than those projected in the Transportation
Element DEIR. This peer review was included as an attachment to the August 11, 2008,
Planning Board repork and is Attachment 4 to this report.
4n August 11, 2008, the Planning Board approved a motion to certify the adequacy of
the Environmental Impact Report HEIR}, which is on file with the City Clerk's office, and
also approved the sign program, hours of operation, and permitted outdoor uses. Due to
the lateness of the hour, the Board continued the hearing on the remaining components
of the project to September 22, 2008.
After the August 11, 2008 hearing, residents living in the vicinity of Alameda Towne
Centre proposed additional conditions to address concerns raised by the public and the
Planning Board. The applicant has agreed to these additional requirements. Some of
these modifications apply to hours of operation and outdoor activities that were
approved by the Planning Board on August 11, 2008. These additional conditions are
included in the proposed resolution denying the appeal of the Planning Board's decision
to approve the hours of operation and outdoor uses for the Planned Development
Amendment ~PDA}. Qther modifications limit maximum store size or require additional
review for expansion of the center. These are outside of the scope of the appeal, and
consequently have not been included in this resolution. They will be included in the
resolution that will be considered by the Planning Board at a future public hearing when
the remaining components of the pending PDA are heard.
~n August 20, 2008, an appeal of the Planning Board's August 11, 2008, decision on
this project was submitted to the City Attachment 3}. The purpose of the public hearing
is to consider the appeal of the August 11, 2008, Planning Board decision to certify the
EIR and approve the sign program, hours of operation, and outdoor uses.
DISCUSSION
Basis of Appeal
The appeal consists of 11 elements. These elements and staff s responses are provided
below.
1. "The City of Alameda failed to give meaningful notice to residents significantly
impacted by the expansion of Alameda Towne Centre."
Res onset ~n June 24, 2008, the City published a notice for the July 14, 2008,
Planning Board hearing in the Alameda Journal. Notices were sent to neighbors
within 500 feet of the shopping center and to interested parties who had requested
notification of upcoming hearings for projects relating to the Alameda Towne
Centre. Notices were posted at five different locations in the vicinity of the Alameda
Towne Centre. ~n June 25, 2008, copies of the FEIR were mailed to all
Responsible Agencies that submitted comments on the Draft EIR. Pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA, the City must notify Responsible Agencies that submitted
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
comments on the I]EIR of publication of
project hearing. CEQA does not specify
statute defers to local jurisdictions to
practices.
October 1, 2008
Page 3 of 9
the FEIR at least 10 days prior to the
a public comment period for FEIRs; the
determine appropriate public noticing
The City Council's policy is to provide notification of Planning Board hearings 20
days prior to the hearing by publishing a notice in the Alameda Journal, mailing
notices to residents and property owners within 30D feet of the project, and posting
notices adjacent to the project site. The Planning Board hearings were widely
advertised for a period of 20 days. This included mailing notices to residents and
property owners within an expanded area of 500 feet from the shopping center and
to a list of interested parties. The FEIR was made available to the public on the
City's website, in local public libraries, and in the Planning and Building Department
off ces at City Hall. Digital copies were made available on CD at no charge, and
hard copies were available for purchase at a local printing shop. At the July 14
hearing, after receiving the staff report and public comments, the Planning Board
approved a motion to continue the hearing to their regular meeting of August 11,
2008. Although not legally required, another notice was mailed on Juiy 24, 2DD8, to
residents and property owners within 500 feet of the center and to an expanded list
of interested parties for the August 11, 2008, Planning Board hearing.
2. "The traffic study in the Environmental Impact Report DEIR} is seriously flawed, not
reality based, and technically inadequate."
Res onset The traffic study was prepared by Omni-Means, a licensed
transportation and engineering f rm. The study was reviewed by City staff, as well
as Lamphier-Gregory, the environmental consulting firm that prepared the Alameda
Towne Centre EIR ~Lamphier-Gregory}, The study was also peer reviewed by an
independent third party, Dowling Associates, which, as previously mentioned,
prepared a citywide traffic assessment for the City's General Plan Transportation
Element DEIR. The FEIR contains extensive responses to comments concerning
the adequacy of the project traff c study. Dowling concluded that the approach and
methodologies used in the Alameda Towne Centre traffic study were consistent with
accepted standards and the City of Alameda's Guidelines for Preparation of Traffic
Studies and Reports. Dowling also concluded that the traffic study relied on
conservative assumptions that were likely to result in overstating projected traff c
levels and impact significance. For example, in some cases, the Alameda Towne
Centre study projected intersection traffic levels that were up to 40 percent higher
than projected in the Transportation Element DEER.
The Planning Board independently reviewed and considered all relevant facts and
information -including public comments concerning the adequacy of the traffic
analysis -and made all required findings prior to certifying the EIR to be complete
and correct. As required by CEQA, the EIR discloses all reasonably foreseeable
environmental impacts and provides mitigation measures that would reduce
significant impacts to less than signif cant levels.
Honorable Mayor and October 1, Zoos
Members of the City Council Page 4 of 9
3. "The traffic peer review is technically inadequate. In addition, the public was not
given an opportunity to comment on it as required by CEQA."
Res onset Extensive comments were submitted at the July 14, 2008, Planning
Board hearing concerning the adequacy of the traffic evaluation performed for the
Alameda Towne Centre expansion project. This elicited concerns among some
members of the Planning Board. In response to these concerns, the City retained
an independent third party, Dowling Associates, to review the adequacy of the
project traffic study. Dowling is a licensed transportation and engineering firm, with
experience evaluating traffic conditions in Alameda, and that completed a citywide
traffic assessment for the City aver the last few months. That study is incorporated
into the General Plan Transportation Element DEIR that was released to the public
on August 4, 2008. Dowling concluded that the approach and methodologies used
in the Alameda Towne Centre traffic study were consistent with accepted standards
and the City of Alameda Guidelines for Preparation of Traffic Studies anal Reports.
Dowling also concluded that the traffic study relied on conservative assumptions
that were likely to have resulted in overstating projected traffic levels and impact
significance. For example, in some cases, the Alameda Towne Centre study
projected intersection traffic levels that were up to 40 percent higher than projected
in the Transportation Element DEIR.
The peer review was submitted to the City on August 5, 2005, and released to the
public on August 6, 2408 as an attachment to the August 11, 2008, Planning Board
report. The peer review is not part of the EIR. It was provided in response to
concerns raised by the Planning Board due to conflicting opinions presented at the
July 14, 2008, hearing. The peer review did not raise new issues or identify new
impacts. Consequently, the peer review is not subject to CEQA requirements
concerning review and not~ication.
4. "Material misstatements of material fact were made by Planning Department staff
concerning the necessity of adopting the EIR. These misstatements were relied
upon by members of the Planning Commission in certifying the E1R."
Res onset At the public hearing of August 11, 2008, the Planning Board
independently reviewed and considered all relevant facts and information, including
the staff presentation and public comments, and subsequently made all required
Endings prior to certifying the EIR to be complete and correct. Staff is unaware of
making any misrepresentations. Consequently, no additional response can be
provided at this time.
5. "The authors of the E[R failed to respond to public's comments on the draft EIR, as
required by CEQA."
Res onset CEQA requires Lead Agencies to provide good faith, well-reasoned
responses to comments on the DEIR. CEQA does not require the Lead Agency to
conduct every test or perform all research, study or experimentation requested by
commenters CEQA Guidelines Sections15088 and 15204, All comments on the
DEIR were reproduced in the FEIR. The FEIR included responses to all substantial
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
October 1, 2008
Page 5 of 9
environmental comments. In some cases, comments were submitted that addressed
issues outside the scope of environmental review permitted by CEQA. These
comments were reproduced and acknowledged in the FEIR. Additionally, an
explanation of the limitations of CEQA, as well as identification of appropriate
venues for raising these concerns, was provided.
6. "The EIR did not contain a noise or air quality analysis, as required by CEQA."
Res onse: Sections 5 and 9 of the DEIR include an analysis of potential noise and
air quality impacts. Master Responses 4, 10, and 11 in the FEIR provide additional
information and clarification of these two issues. Response 5 to the Appeal also
discusses CEQA requirements.
1. "The developer has not met all of the conditions contained in the 2003 Planned
Development Agreement."
Res onse: Compliance with all previous conditions is not required in order for the
City to approve the pending Planned Development Amendment PDA}. If the PDA is
approved, the new resolutions and conditions will supersede previous conditions.
City staff has monitored and documented compliance with the 2003 conditions of
approval, and the applicant is in substantial compliance with all conditions, as
modified by the Planning Board during subsequent hearings. All required mitigation
measures have been implemented. As required by the conditions of approval, a new
PDA application was submitted in 2005 that includes a redesigned shoreline area
and a location for a gas station. The construction of an east-west running sidewalk
along the southern edge of businesses fronting onto Otis Drive was initiated in late
August 2005.
5. "Recent traffic increases have had a serious detrimental effect on the neighborhoods
and environment of Alameda. Many retail spaces in Alameda Towne Centre remain
unoccupied. The EIR should not be certifed until those spaces are occupied and
already authorized construction is completed. Only then can the effects of allowing
further expansion be evaluated."
Res onse: This issue has been addressed in the FEIR. Dowling Associates' peer
review of the project traffic study confirmed that the assumptions used in the project
traffic study were consistently conservative, potentially resulting in an overstatement
of traffic levels and impacts. In some cases, the project traffic study projected future
traffic levels as much as 40 percent higher than the levels found in the General Plan
Transportation Element Traffic Assessment.
9. "The hours of operation that were approved are unreasonable."
Res onse: The hours of operation addressed in conditions 5, 9, 10, and 11 of the
Planning Board resolution are structured to provide a balance between the needs of
local businesses and those of neighboring residents. Condition No. 9 allows
businesses within the approved planned development to remain open from 0:00
a.m. to 12:00 a.m. This extension of one hour earlier and one hour later than
already permitted by right was found appropriate by the Planning Board because of
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
October 1, 2005
Page 6 of 9
the greater distance from residential areas than would be found in most commercial
districts in Alameda. A number of existing businesses in the center have previously
been granted use permits allowing extended hours, and this has not generated
public controversy or complaints. Businesses already operating under existing use
permits that allow extended hours of operation, of up to 24 hours a day, would be
allowed to continue to operate under the terms of those use permits. Additionally,
individual businesses may apply for use permits to stay open later, and each
application would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
More intensive activities would be limited depending on the noise levels generated
and the distance from residential properties. Condition No. S allows special events
such as art fairs, holiday festivals and similar events located On private courtyards
and sidewalks that do not include amplified music during regular business hours.
Events that include amplifed music would be limited to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to
9:00 p.m. and subject to compliance with applicable City noise standards and
regulations. Condition No. 5 also prohibits the use of street sweepers, leaf blowers,
lawn mowers and similar equipment within 200 feet of a residential district between
the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. Condition No.10 permits deliveries 24 hours
a day subject to certain (imitations. Diesel powered delivery trucks, with gross
vehicle weights in excess of 10,000 pounds, would not be permitted to remain idling
for more than five minutes. Deliveries to businesses located within 200 feet of
residential zoning districts would be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10. "The hours of operations that were approved are inconsistent with the limitations set
forth in the Municipal Code."
Res onse: The AMC permits businesses to operate beyond the hours of 7:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m., subject to use permit or planned development approval. A number of
use permits have been issued over the years, allowing individual stores to operate
up to 24 hours a day in the shopping center. The extended hours addressed in
Conditions 5, 9, 10, and 11 of the August 11, 2008, Planning Board resolution are
structured to provide a balance between the needs of local businesses and
neighboring residents as discussed above in Comment No. 9.
11."As of the time of filing this Notice of Appeal, the finalized Planning Board resolution
on this matter was not available to Appellants. Consequently Appellants reserve
the right to amend the basis for appeal to address any and all issues raised by any
unanticipated items contained in the resolution."
Res onse: The final resolution was emaifed to the appellant on August 21, 2005.
The Action Agenda for the August 11, 2005, Planning Board hearing was emailed
to the appellant on August 12, 2005, the day after the hearing. The appellant was
also informed that the video recording of the hearing was available on the City
website during and after the hearing.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
ENVIRQNMENTAL REVIEVI!
Qctober ?', 2008
Page 7 of 9
An EIR was prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Feasible
mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce all potentially significant
impacts to a less than significant level. In order for the City to approve this project, it
must first certify that the EIR is complete and has adequately evaluated all potentially
significant environmental impacts. All findings required pursuant to CEQA are included
in the Resolution.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report DEIR} was prepared and released on August 29,
2006; the City held public hearings to accept comments on the DEIR, before the
Planning Board on September 25, 2006, and before the Transportation Commission on
September 27, 2006. The DEIR evaluated the potentially significant impacts identified
in the initial Study and addressed comments received in response to the Notice of
Preparation of the DEIR. The DEIR was published and circulated for comments as
required under the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA}. Additionally, the City
held publicly noticed meetings to accept written and verbal comments on the DEIR.
In response to comments received on the DEIR, additional traffic data was collected
and evaluated. The additional analysis did not reveal any additional significant impacts
associated with the project. A Final EIR FEIR} was prepared that includes this
additional traffic analysis, responses to all comments on the DEIR, and an evaluation of
the revisions to the project that occurred after publication of the DEIR. The FEIR was
circulated to Responsible Agencies that submitted comments on the DEIR and made
available to the public. The DEIR and FEIR are available for review in City libraries and
on the City website. Electronic versions are available on compact disc and hard copies
may be purchased.
Im acts 1 Miti ation Measures
Potentially significant impacts were identified in the following CEQA impact categories:
Aesthetics, Hydrology, Noise, and Traffic. Feasible mitigation measures have been
proposed that would reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant
level. A summary of potentially significant impacts and proposed mitigations is provided
below.
• Lighting from evening operations could adversely affect nearby residents.
Mitigation Measure 4-1 requires the applicant to submit a Lighting Plan for review
prior to issuance of building permits.
• Vehicles making left turns from unsignalized shopping center driveways during
peak traffic hours could experience delays that would be considered a significant
impact.
o Traffc Mitigation No. 10-1 requires the applicant to install atwo-way-left-
turn lane ~TWLTL} on Park Street to function as a refugelmerge lane for
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
Gctober 1, 2008
Page8of9
outbound left-turn movements and to accommodate inbound left-turn
movements.
o Traffic Mitigation No. 10-2 requires the applicant to contribute a
proportional share toward the installation of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Gtis Drive and Trader Joe's driveway.
o Traffic Mitigation No. 10-3 requires the installation of either a two-way left
turn lane on Shoreline Drive or an all-way-stop-control at the Shoreline
DrivelProject Access-Post Gffice intersection. The southbound Project
Access-Post Gffice driveway shat[ also be re-striped far separate left and
right-turn lanes.
• Under Bay Area Air Quality Management District ~BAAQMD} CEQA Guidelines,
Construction dust may be considered a significant impact unless best
management practices are implemented.
o Mitigation Measure 5-1 requires the applicant and all contractors to
implement "Basic Control Measures" and "Enhanced Control Measures"
for dust emissions as outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.
• Construction related erosion could pose a significant impact to water quality.
o Mitigation Measure 8-1 a requires the applicant to comply with the regional
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ~NPDES} Permit, and
Storm vUater Pollution Prevention Plan permitting requirements, which
include implementation of best management practices for construction
activities.
• Construction noise in areas closest to residential uses, although exempt from
City noise standards, could pose a significant impact under CEQA.
o Mitigation Measure 9-1 a requires that all construction activities be
conducted in accordance with the City of Alameda Noise Grdinance,
which limits outdoor construction activities to the hours of 1:00 a.m. to
1:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends and
holidays.
o Mitigation Measure 9-1 b requires a construction and demolition schedule,
subject to approval by the Planning and Building Director. That will buffer
adjacent sensitive receptors.
o Mitigation Measure 9-1 c places limitations on demolition phasing of
Building 1000 in order to buffer adjacent sensitive receptors and prohibits
pile driving.
PUBLIC NGTiFICATIGN
This agenda item was adverkised in the Alameda Journal on September 26, 2008.
Notices were mailed an September 12, 2008, to residents and property owners within
Honorable Mayor and October 7, 2008
Members of the City Council Page 9 of 9
500 feet of the Alameda Towne Centre, the appellants, and interested parties who have
requested to be notified of upcoming hearings for projects relating to the Alameda
Towne Centre. The notice was also posted around the perimeter of the shopping center.
BUDGET CONSIDERATInNIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The applicant paid for the costs incurred in preparing the Environmental Impact Report
and processing the application for extended hours of operation and outdoor uses. The
appellant paid the appeal fee of $100, and the costs to process the appeal in excess of
this amount are borne by the Planning and Building Department.
MUNICIPAL CGDEIP~LICY DaCU,MENT CRGSS REFERENCE
30-4.13 Planned Development Combing Districts
30-4.8 C-1 Neighborhood Business District
30-4.9 C-2 Central Business District
30-31 Design Review
RECGMMENDATIGN
Hold a public hearing and adopt two resolutions to uphold the August 11, 2008,
Planning Board decision to certify the adequacy of the Alameda Towne Centre
Expansion Project Environmental Impact Report for Planned Development Amendment
PDA05-0004 and Major Design Review DR05-052; and to approve permitted hours of
operation, and outdoor uses.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy odbury
Planning and Building Director
By: ouglas Garrison
Supervising Planner
Attachments:
1. July 14, 2008 Planning Board Report without attachments}
2. August 11, 2008 Planning Board Report without attachments}
3. Notice of Appeal, dated August 20, 2008
4. August 6, 2008 Dowling Associates Traffic Study Peer Review
ITEM 9-D
DATE:
To:
PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT
July 14, 2005
HONORABLE PRESIDENTAND MEMBERS ~FTHE
PLANNING BOARD
FRoM: Douglas Garrison, Supervising Planner
5 ~ 0.747.5850
d~garrison @ ci.alameda.ca.us
APPLICATION: PDA05-0004 l DR05-0073 - 523 South Shore Center
Redevelopment and expansion of Alameda Towne Centre.
APPLICANT: Harsch Investment Corporation
ZGNING DISTRICT: ~ C-2-PD - Central Business District Zoning, Planned
Development Combining Zoning District
GENERAL PLAN: Community Commercial
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The project includes the renovation and expansion of Alameda Towne Centre
previously South Shore Center}, an existing shopping center. An Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared for this project. Feasible mitigation measures have
been proposed that will reduce all potentially significant impacts to a Less than
significant level. The major components of this project include redevelopment of the
shoreline area of the center by replacing an existing car wash with two additional
restaurants and open space, the addition of a second floor to Building 900 currently
Mervyn's}, construction of a three level parking garage, renovation of older buildings on
the property and various other site improvements including new sidewalks, bike and
transit facilities and signage. The proposal also includes a new, comprehensive sign
program for the shopping center. The proposal does not include plans for a new Target
store as was originally proposed to replace the old Safeway store. Currently an orchard
Supply Hardware ~4SH} store is proposed for that site. The economic effects of
locating an ASH in Alameda were previously evaluated in the Alameda Landing project.
Staff is recommending approval of the project. cit council
y
At#achment 1 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #fi-B
~ 0-o7-os
Honorable President and July 14, 2D08
Members of the Planning Board Page 2 of 14
BACKGROUND
Existing, Conditions
The project includes the continued renovation and expansion of the South Shore
Center originally developed in the late 1950s. The name of the center was recently
changed to Alameda Towne Centre. The center consists of one main group of primarily
one-story buildings along an open-air pedestrian mall, with freestanding buildings
located along the periphery of the shopping center. There are a number of businesses
located adjacent to the shopping center, on Otis Drive and on Shoreline Drive, that are
not owned by the applicant and are not included in the Planned Development.
Surrounding Land Use
North -Safeway Gas, a bank, a fast food restaurant, multifamily and single family
residences, and the lagoon.
west -Assisted care facility and medical offices.
South -Condominium multifamily dwellings, Post Office, Superior Gourt building,
McDonalds' Restaurant, and Crown Memorial Beach.
East -Bowling alley, professional offices, and motel.
Entitlement Histo
South Shore Center was developed in the late 195o's and early 1960's pursuant to
commercial zoning standards in effect at that time and was anchored by a J.C. Penney
Department Store and Montgomery Vllards. Over the years these anchor tenants were
replaced by other stores including a Mervyns's Store.
Planned Development BPD} zoning was applied to the property in 1984. Through
various Planned Development amendments ~PDA}, occurring between 1984 and 1991,
individual buildings were added to the center, new parking standards were developed,
and a sign program was adopted.
in 2002, the applicant submitted an application to expand the existing center by
approximately 112,000 sq. ft, of gross leasable floor area ~GLA}. At that time, the
existing GLA was approximately 544,000 sq. ft. Based on the proposed increase to
approximately 651,500 sq. ft. of GLA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared
that evaluated potential environmental impacts associated with that proposed
expansion and reconstruction of the shopping center. on July 28, 2003, the City of
Alameda Planning Board adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and granted
conditional approval to proceed with portions of that project. Construction of other
portians of the proposed development were specifically not allowed. The Planning
Board conditioned construction of these later phases on the submittal and approval of
revised plans that were to include a location for a gas station and a redesigned
Honorable President and ~ July 14, 2008
Members of the Planning Board Page 3 of 14
shoreline area that would incorporate shoreline oriented recreational design elements
and uses.
In 2005, the applicant submitted the current application, which addressed the
modifications requested by the Planning Board in 20D3. It also included an additional
expansion of GLA by approximately 40,100 sq. ft., increasing total shopping center GLA
to approximately 706,650 sq. ft. to accommodate a new Target Store. Major changes
from the 2003 proposal included: construction of a new three-level parking structure;
two new restaurants and associated public open space improvements along Shoreline
Drive, a new approximately 145,000 sq. ft. X127,000 GLA} discount department store
Target} that would replace the existing Building 1000 fold Safeway}, the renovation of
smaller structures ,located in the northwest corner of the site, and new signage
throughout the project.
In 2007, Target withdrew its proposal to build a new store at Alameda Town Center.
The applicants then revised their proposed expansion project to eliminate the Target
Proposal and shift the additional expansion space originally proposed for the area
around Building 1000 closer to the center of the shopping center. The specific changes
are described below under "Project Description".
In 2006, the City prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report ~E1R} for the 706,650
expansion with Target. Once Target withdrew from the project, staff made the
necessary revisions to ensure that the Final EIR reflected the revised 706,550 square
foot project without the Target store. No new significant environmental impacts were
identified with the revised project description, The environmental review is discussed in
more detail below under "Environmental Review".
Pro'ect Descri tion
The Alameda Towne Centre shopping center is currently undergoing a phased
renovation. The current proposal does not include an expansion of the project
boundaries. It does include an expansion of retail floor area from previous entitlements.
As described above, the application originally included a Target store. A Target store is
no longer proposed as part of the redevelopment of the center.
The proposed Planned Development Amendment would allow:
An ex ansion of ross lease-able floor area GLA to 706 650 s uare feet. The
current plans anticipate that the Center will only expand to approximately
680,150 sq. ft. of total GLA, but subject to Design Review, the floor area of the
Center could increase to the full 706,650.
As shown in page 2 of the submittal, the Alameda Towne Centre currently
includes 595,536 square feet of GLA. The next phase of development, which is
identified as Phase 2 in the plans and. in the conditions, would occur in the
vuestern area of the site, and would allow for an additional 2,271 square feet of
floor area for a total of 600,807. Phase 3 would include the waterfront area, the
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
July 14, 2408
Page 4 of 14
Building 900 second floor and the parking garage, which would add
approximately 80,912 square feet for a total of 681,912 square feet,
Phase 2:
• Renovation of Buildin 1004 the old Safewa buildin and former site of the
proposed_Target Store}. The building location, footprint and height will remain
substantially the same. The existing loading dock on the south side of the
building will be relocated to the north side of the building to minimize impacts on
nearby neighbors. An outdoor garden center is proposed on the north side of
the building. No signs will be permitted on the south side of the building.
• Buildings 1100 Alta Bates} and 1200 South Shore Cafe} will not be removed
and replaced with a single smaller building as proposed in the original 2005
application. Instead, the existing buildings will be renovated and reused.
Phase 3:
• A second floor addition on Buildin 900 the existin Me ns's and future site of
Kohl's . Total existing GLA in Building 900 is currently approximately 91,340
square feet. Mervyn's currently occupies approximately 83,500 square feet of
Building 900 and two restaurants occupy the remaining floor area. with the
proposed second story, the total GLA of Building 900 would be increased to
approximately 164,500. The ground floor would be reconfigured to
accommodate additional small shops fronting onto the interior courtyard.
Depending on the final configuration of these smaller shops, Building 900 could
also accommodate a single two-story store with 100,000 to 120,000 square feet
of GLA. In all cases, the building footprint would not be expanded. With the
proposed second story, the building height would be approximately 32 feet with
decorative parapets extending up to a height of 37 feet. fin, April 28, 2008, the
Planning Board approved Design Review PLN08-0155 allowing the renovation of
Building 900. That approval did not include the proposed second floor. The
second floor addition will only be built if needed and would be subject to Design
Review approval assuming that the addition of the second floor would result in
changes to the exterior of the building.
• Construction of a arkin ara a in front of Buildin 900. The parking garage
remains as proposed in the original 2005 application, except that the parking
aisles will be rotated to a north-south orientation that is more pedestrian friendly.
Under the proposal, the garage would only be built if needed to meet parking
demand generated by an expansion of the center. The garage would be subject
to Design Review approval at a future date and could be smaller than the three
levels shown, if parking demand does not warrant the full three levels.
• Redevelo ment of the shoreline area. The existing parking lot nearest to
Shoreline Drive will be relocated to the current car wash site and two additional
restaurants and new open space areas will be constructed along Shoreline
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
July ~ 4, 2008
Page 5 of 14
Drive. As part of Phase 3, the conditions require that the waterfront phase be
completed by 2012.
All phases:
• Additional edestrian and bic cle facilities.
• A revised Si n Pro ram, The program is designed to provide comprehensive
design criteria and permit new freestanding signs in the center.
ANALYSIS
Planned Development Amendment
Planned Development BPD} zoning is combined with existing zoning districts to allow
additional flexibility in site design and uses than would normally be allowed by the
underlying zoning. The current planned development amendment PDA} application
includes a proposal to allow expanded hours of operation, outdoor uses, reduced
parking, and increased signage. These issues are discussed below and incorporated
into the proposed conditions of approval in the attached resolution.
Phasin
Given that the proposed expansion and redevelopment of Alameda Towne Centre is
expected to occur over the course of four to five years, the proposed PDA includes a
phasing schedule. A phasing schedule is important to inform the community about
when major improvements will occur, and to ensure that important or required public
facilities are phased in at the appropriate time during the period. The proposed
redevelopment phasing is shown on the project plan sheet, "Masterplan with Phasing."
Construction of Phase 1 is essentially complete or being completed under existing
building permits. Two additional phases remain to be completed. Construction of
Phase 2 will be completed between 2005 and 2010. Construction of Phase 3 will be
completed between 2010 and 2012.
Staff is recommending a condition of approval to require that the waterfront
improvements within Phase III be completed by 2012,
Processin and Review of Future Phases
Because the implementation of the Alameda Towne Centre renovation and expansion
will occur aver several years and may adjust to accommodate the needs of future
tenants or market conditions, the PDA includes a condition that addresses processing
of future improvements. The AMC requires a Planned Development Amendment PDA}
when additions to commercial uses include more than a 25 percent increase in floor
area; or, when the Planning Director determines that proposed changes could
potentially have adverse effects on adjacent properties. Previous entitlements
contained unclear and in some cases conflicting standards for determining when a PDA
would be required.
Honorable President and July 14, 2048
Members of the Planning Board Page 6 of 14
Staff is proposing a condition of approval that would clarify the process for all future
permits. Under the proposed condition:
All future building improvements consistent with the PDA would require Design
Review approval by the Planning and Building Director.
Any future building improvement that exceeded the PDA floor area for that
building has shown on Page 1 of the Plans} by 25% would require Design Review
approval by the Planning Board.
Any expansion of any building that would cause the GLA of the center to exceed
106,560 would require a Planned Development Amendment approval by the
Planning Board.
Pam
A parking study was conducted for the project. The study concluded that 3.5 spaces
per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area would be adequate for a peak holiday
season day. The study included conservative assumptions that accounted for
increased shoppers, due to more popular retail stores replacing existing uses in
addition to increased square footage.
Under AMC standards, 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area would be required
for retail development. Under the PDA provisions, the parking standards may be
adjusted. Previous PDA entitlements required a minimum of 4 spaces per 1,000
square feet.
Staff is recommending a condition of approval that requires the applicant to maintain a
minimum of 3.6 spaces per 1,000 square feet and allows a maximum of 4.0 spaces per
1,000 square feet, This recommended condition is designed to:
^ Reflect the findings of the site parking study;
^ Ensure that the site is not "over-parked", which may detract from transit, bicycle,
and pedestrian convenience and comfort and encourage auto-use;
Reflect the recommendations of the Local Action Plan for Climate Protection,
which requires the City to carefully consider parking policies to minimize
automobile trips and automobile generated greenhouse gases; and
Create a mechanism whereby the applicant will not be required to build a garage
to accommodate more vehicles, unless the ratio of floor area to parking spaces
exceeds the minimum necessary. It is important to note neither the applicant nor
the City necessarily wants to add a garage at the center, unless the need and
demand for the garage is absolutely evident. Under the proposed condition, if
the ratio of GLA to parking drops below 3.6 spaces per 1,OOO, the applicants
would be required to increase the number of spaces at the center. Any proposal
to build the garage will be subject to Design Review. At that time, the Planning
Boaru, t"e ~viiiiuiiity, an u t~~ aNpii~a nt ~~Yill have t"e opportunity to consider
whether a garage is absolutely necessary, and if so, how many spaces the
garage needs to accommodate. The proposed plans show athree-floor garage,
which is the maximum size that would be needed.
Honorable President and July 14, 2008
Members of the Planning Board Page 7 of ~ 4
Pedestrian and Bic cle Circulation
The proposed Plan includes additional pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities, which
are shown on the page titled "Circulation: Proposed Additional" and "Circulation:
overall". The bicycle, pedestrian and transit network has been developed in
consultation with community groups and AC Transit. Through the conditions of
approval, individual improvements are conditioned to occur with specific phases of the
development, Cf particular interest to the community are the widening of the sidewalk
along Park Street and the east west sidewalk behind the buildings on Otis Drive. The
applicants are currently proceeding with the construction process for the east west
sidewalk.
Hours of D eration and outdoor Activities
In C~2 zoning districts, a use permit is required to operate a business between the
hours of 10:00 pm and 7:04 am and for outdoor uses, No exception to this requirement
was provided in previous PD entitlements for the center. A number of businesses in the
shopping center have applied for and received use permits allowing extended hours of
operation and outdoor uses. The currently proposed PDA would allow extended hours
of operation throughout the center under specific circumstances and mare clearly
defines what types of outdoor activities may be conducted during certain hours. These
changes address concerns raised by neighbors and business owners in the center.
These proposed changes are as follows;
BUSiIVESS NCURS: Businesses within the approved planned development may
remain open for business from 6.~DD am to ~2: DO am. Businesses rna y remain
open beyond these hours subject to use permit approval. Businesses operating
under existing use permits, that allow extended hours of operation, may continue
to operate under the terms of those use permits. Routine maintenance and other
activities, not open to the public, maybe performed within buildings twenty four
hours a day.
DELIVERIES: Businesses may receive deliveries twenty-four hours a day
subject to the following limitations: Deliveries to businesses located within 200
feet of residential zoning districts steal! be limited to the hours of 7:~DD am to 1 D:OO
pm. Deliveries beyond these hours may be permitted subject to use permit
approval. Diesel powered delivery trucks, with gross vehicle weights in excess
of ~ 0, o0o pounds, are requr'red to comply with the requirements of the California
Air Resources Board ~CAJ4B), which currently limit engine idling to a maximum of
5 minutes under most circumstances.
The following outdoor uses would be permitted.
D1N1NG: Outdoor dining would be permitted during regular business hours.
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
July 14, 2005
Page 8 of 14
SALFS: Display of merchandise for sale on prr'vate sidewalks, courtyards, ~ decks
and other areas; but not r"r~cluding parking lots orln the public right of way.
SPECIAL FVFlUTS: Art fairs, holiday festivals and similar events located on
private courtyards and sidewalks that do not include amplified music are
permitted during regular business hours. Events that include amplified music are
permitted between the hours of 9:OOam and 9:OOpm subject to compliance with
applicable City noise standards and regulations. The use 'of tents, or similar
temporary structures, and events located in parking areas or the public right of
way are subject to separate approval by the City.
~1AlNTE'NAI~CF: Routine maintenance activities, that do not Include
construction, and that do not include the use of noise generating power
equipment are permitted 24 Hours per day. The use of street sweepers, leaf
blowers, lawn mowers and similar equipment within 200 feet of a residential
district shall not be permitted between the Hours of X0:00 pm and T:00 am.
Sign Program,
In 1997, the City approved a sign program for the shopping center that allowed larger
signs, in some cases, than would ordinarily be permitted under zoning regulations. The
City approved the proposed increased size due to the relatively long distance to public
streets and the relatively large size of some store facades. In 2003, the City approved
a new Sign Program that further refined the important design elements to be
incorporated into future signage. The 2003 sign program established maximum letter
heights for each tenant type but did not establish a new maximum sign area. Currently,
new signs must be reviewed far consistency with the two approved sign programs and
the AMC, This is a cumbersome approach that often results in confusion for tenants
and City staff. Consequently, a new sign program is proposed that will supercede alf
earlier sign programs.
The categories used to classify tenant types used in the 1g~7 sign program and the
current proposal are different, making it difficult to quantify the changes that could occur
in terms of sign area. The mayor changes are summarized below:
1991 Sign Program
Tenant T e Si n Area Max Letter hei ht
fiver 50,040 sq, ft. 1.5 sq. ft.l linear foot; fi0" on 72"facia, 24" on 30"facia
175 s . ft Ifa ade max.
15,000 to 50,000 1.5 sq. ft.l linear foot; 24" on 30"facia, 48" on 72" ,
100 s . ft.l fa ade max. fi0"for wall si n
Less than 15,000 sq. ft. 100 sq, ft max. 24" on 30"facia, 42" on 72"facia,
75 sq ft max.lfa~ade if 48"for wall sign
multiple frontages not to
exceed 150s ft. total
Subtenants 25 sq. ft.
No single tenant sign may be larger than 100 sq. ft. if located within 250 feet of a public street.
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
2Dfl3 Si n Pro ram
July ~4, 2008
Page 9 of 14
Tenant Type Sign Area Max letter height
Anchor 1997 program applies 36"
outward Facing Vehicle 1997 program applies 18 "
Qutward Facing Pedestrian 1997 program applies 18"
Paseo Facing 1997 program applies 18"and 24"for blade signs
Garden Facing 1997 program applies 18 "
Center Court Facing 1997 program applies 18"
2008 Sign Program
Tenant Type Sign Area Max letter height
Anchor over 50,000 sq, ft. 200 sq. ft.1 facade 60"
Anchor less than 50,000 150 sq. ft. I facade 48"
Outward Facing Vehicle 150 sq. ft.1 facade 36"
outward Facing Pedestrian 100 sq. ft. I facade 24"
Paseo Facing 100 sq. ft. I facade 24"
Center Court Facing 100 sq. ft, lfacade 24"
A maximum of 100 sq. ft. per facade if located within 200 feet of a public street.
The current proposal maintains the original approach of determining maximum sign
area based on store size and distance from public streets. Previous programs limited
the size of a single sign on any store located within 250 feet of a public street to a
maximum of 100 sq. ft. The current proposal limits total signage to 100 square feet per
facade for any tenant sign within 200 feet of and facing a public street or residential
use.
The 1991 program limited sign area based on a fixed formula, typically 1.5 square feet
per linear foot of store frontage, up to a maximum of either 175 square feet or 100
square ~ feet depending on store floor area. The current proposal establishes a
maximum sign area depending on tenant type but does not include a specific formula
linked to store frontage size. Maximum letter height has been increased from the 2003
sign program. Generally, but not in all cases, these changes would be expected to
result in larger signs than would have previously been permitted. However, the
propased sign area maximums are consistent with current industry practice and other
recently approved retail projects in Alameda.
Planned Development Amendment Findings
The proposed PDA must be evaluated for compatibility with neighboring uses and
specific findings must be made by the City before the PDA may be approved. The
following discussion addresses these required findings. .
Finding 1. Tl~e development is a more effective use of the site than is possible
under the regulations for the district with which the PD district is
combined.
Honorable President and July 14, 2008
Members of the Planning Board Page 10 of ~ 4
PD zoning allows additional flexibility in site design and range of uses to encourage
creative site designs and synergistic relationships between uses. This PD is a more .. ,
effective use of the site than is possible under the regulations for the C-2 zoning district
because the design provides consolidation of the proposed uses and more creative
design components such as: more effective pedestrian orientation of the buildings and
walkways, grouping of building frontages to allow for a more visually pleasing project,
creative layout of open space improvements and a comprehensive site design for
building location, parking lot design, and landscaping and internal circulation uses for
the site. For example the project includes outdoor dining and other uses that take
advantage of the extensive open space areas located throughout the center, enhancing
the quality of the shopping experience. Reduced parking requirements are appropriate
based on observed demand and will result in smaller expanses of asphalt parking lots.
Additionally, the PD includes transit stops adjacent to major retailers in the center and a
comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian improvements, further reducing the
need for vehicle parking,
Finding 2. The project wil! not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent
land uses in the City.
The Planned Development incorporates design elements that reduce potential adverse
effects. Additionally, an EIR has been prepared for the project. Feasible mitigation
measures have been identified that reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less
than significant level. Consequently, the project will not have a significant adverse
effect on adjacent land uses.
Finding 3. The location of the proposed use is compatible with other land uses
r`n the genera! neighborhood area, and the pro ject design and size is
architecturally, aesthetically, and operationa!!y harmonious with the
community and surrounding development.
The project consists of the redevelopment and increase in floor area ofi an existing
shopping center that was established in the late~950's. The shopping center is located
in a fully developed urban area. Feasible mitigation measures have been identified that
will reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. The
proposed changes to the shopping center are consistent with previous direction
provided by the Planning Board concerning the design and use of the portion of the site
that is adjacent to a public recreational area. ether than the proposed changes to the
shoreline area, the location and scale of existing buildings wil! not be changed
substantially from existing conditions. Building 1000 the old Safeway building
incorporates design changes that promote a more harmonious transition between this
commercial building and nearby residential uses. The proposed parking structure
design incorporates design elements found throughout the shopping center and is of
similar scale to other nearby buildings. The EIR includes an evaluation ofi aesthetic
impacts.
Honorable President and July 14, 2045
Members of the Planning Board Page 11 of 14
Finding 4. The proposed use will be served by adequate transportafr'on and
service facilitr`es including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities.
AC Transit serves the site. The project includes new bus stops within the shopping
center and a comprehensive network of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The EIR
prepared far this project identified potentially significant traffic impacts. Proposed
mitigation measures reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.
Finding 5. The proposed use wit! not adversely affect other property r'n tl~e
vicinity and wit! not have substantial deleterious effects on existing
business districts or the local econom y.
The Planned Development, because it incorporates a!I the mitigation measures in the
Environmental Impact Report, will not have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land
uses. The EIR for this project included an urban decay analysis, as required under
CEQA, that focused on the inclusion of a 145,000 square foot Target store. A Target is
no longer proposed. An orchard Supply Hardware oSH} store is currently proposed for
the site previously evaluated for the Target store, in the Alameda Towne Centre, and a
Target is being considered for the site previously evaluated for an 4SH, in Alameda
Landing, The economic effects of a [anger oSH were evaluated in The Alameda Retail
Landin Retail Im acts Assessment U date that was prepared for the recently
approved Alameda Landing project. It was determined in that study and in the E[R for
that project that sufficient retail leakage existed to support the proposed oSH without
causing substantial adverse effects to existing business districts or the local economy.
Based on the evaluation of economic data, concerning retail leakage, the project will
not have substantial deleterious effects on existing business districts or the local
economy.
Fr nd i n g 6. The proposed use relates fa vorabl y to the General Plan.
The proposed Planned Development Amendment is consistent with the existing
General Plan designation of Community Commercial. The Community Commercial
designation is intended for a wide range of commercial uses including large format
retail. The proposed expansion of retail commercial, restaurant, and parking uses
would be consistent with this designation. General Plan policies support the continued
operation of this facility as a regional shopping center.
Design Review
The proposed project and sign program have been reviewed to ensure that the
proposed development is compatible with the site, adjacent or neighboring buildings
and surroundings, and promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character
between designated land uses. The proposed project is consistent with the design
principles and standards as articulated in the Alameda Municipal Code:
1. The proposed project provides an improved interface with the shoreline public
open spaces and the adjacent residential and commercial properties.
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
July 14, 2x08
Page 12 of 14
2, The proposed massing and height of the buildings is compatible with the existing
buildings in the center and the larger buildings are located at the center of the
site furthest from the shoreline and adjacent residential uses.
3. The proposed circulation system provides improved access and convenience for
pedestrians, bicyclist, transit riders, and vehicles.
4. The site includes an appropriate mix of hardscape and landscape features to
provide visual interest and spaces for relaxation and user enjoyment,
5. The conditions of approval ensure that all individual building designs are subject
to Design Review approval to ensure compatible architectural styles throughout
the center.
ENVIRQNMENTAL REVIEW
An EIR was prepared for this project pursuant to the requirements of CEQA. Feasible
mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce all potentially significant
impacts to a less than significant level. In order for the City to approve this project, it
must first certify that the El R is complete and has adequately evaluated all potentially
significant environmental impacts. All findings required pursuant to CEQA are included
in the attached Resolution.
A Draft Environmental Impact Report DEIR} was prepared and released in August of
2006 that evaluated the potentially significant impacts identified in the Initial Study and
addressed comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation of the DEIR.
The DEIR was published and circulated for comments as required under the California
Environmental Quality Act CEQA}. Additionally, the City held publicly noticed meetings
to accept written and verbal comments on the DEIR.
The DEIR included an urban decay analysis, as required under CEQA, that focused on
the inclusion of a 145,000 square foot Target store. A Target is no longer proposed. An
Orchard Supply Hardware BOSH} store is currently proposed for the site previously
evaluated for the Target store, in the Alameda Towne Centre, and a Target is being
considered for the site previously evaluated for an OSH, in Alameda Landing. The
economic effects of a larger OSH were evaluated in The Alameda Retail, L,~ng Retail
Im acts Assessment U date that was prepared for the recent) a roved Alameda
Y pp
Landing project. It was determined in that study and in the recently certified EIR for that
project that sufficient retail leakage existed to support the proposed OSH without
causing substantial adverse effects to existing business districts or the local economy.
In response to comments received on the DEIR, additional traffic data was collected
and evaluated. The additional analysis did not uncover any additional significant
impacts associated with the project. A Final EIR FEIR} was prepared that includes this
additional traffic analysis, responses to all comments on the DEIR, and an evaluation of
the revisions to the project that occurred after publication of the DEIR. The FEIR was
circulated to Responsible Agencies that submitted comments on the DEIR on June 19,
2008 and made available ~to the public. A notice of the upcoming Planning Board
hearing and availability of the FEIR was published in local newspapers on June 24,
2008. The DEIR and FEIR are available for review in City libraries and on the City
website. Electronic versions are also available on compact disc.
Honorable President and July ~ 4, 2008
Members of the Planning Board Page 13 of 14
Im acts 1 Miti ation Measures
Potentially significant impacts were identified in the fallowing CEQA impact categories:
Aesthetics, Hydrology, Noise, and Traffic. Feasible mitigation measures have been
proposed that would reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant
level, A summary of potentially significant impacts and proposed mitigations is provided
below,
• Lighting from evening operations could adversely affect nearby residents.
Mitigation Measure 4-1 requires the applicant to submit a Lighting Plan for review
prior to issuance of building permits;
• Vehicles making left turns from unsignalized shopping center driveways during
peak traffic hours could experience delays that would be considered a significant
impact,
Traffic Mitigation 10-1 requires the applicant to install atwo-way-left-turn lane
~TWLTL} on Park Street to function as a refugelmerge lane for outbound left-turn
movements and to accommodate inbound left-turn movements.
Traffic Mitigation No. 1D-2 requires the applicant to contribute a proportional
share toward the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Otis Drive
and Trader Joe's driveway.
Traffic Mitigation No. 1 D-3 requires the installation of either atwo-way left turn
lane on Shoreline Drive or an afl-way-stop-control at the Shoreline DrivelProject
Access-Post office intersection. The southbound Project Access-Post Office
driveway shall also be re-striped for separate left and right-turn lanes.
• Under Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA Guidelines, Construction
dust may be considered a significant impact unless best management practices
are implemented.
Mitigation Measure 5-1 requires the applicant and all contractors to implement
"Basic Control Measures" and "Enhanced Control Measures" for dust emissions
as outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines,
• Construction related erosion could pose a significant impact to water quality,
Mitigation Measure 8-1a requires the applicant to comply with the regional
NPDES Permit, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan permitting
requirements, which include implementation of best management practices for
construction activities.
• Construction noise in areas closest to residential uses, although exempt from
City noise standards, could pose a significant impact under CEQA.
Honorable President and
Members of the Planning Board
July ~ 4, 20Q8
Page 14 of 14
Mitigation Measure 9-1 a requires that all construction activities be conducted in
accordance with the City of Alameda Noise ordinance, which limits outdoor
construction activities to the hours of 1:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays.
Mitigation Measure 9-1b requires a construction and demolition schedule,
subject to approval by the Planning and Building Director. That will buffer
adjacent sensitive receptors.
Mitigation Measure 9~1 c places limitations on demolition phasing of Building
~ 000 in order to buffer adjacent sensitive receptors and prohibits pile driving.
PUBLIC NOTICE
A notice for this hearing was mailed to the property owner and properties within 500
feet of this site and to other interested parties, published in the Alameda Journal and
posted at the subject property. Five letters were received in response to the public
notice and are included as attachments to this report. Three letters requested that a
decision on this project be postponed to allow additional time for review. one letter
addressed the FEIR and one letter addressed the potential effects of including a
hardware store in the shopping center.
RECOMMENDATION
Certify the adequacy of the Environmental Impact Report, adopt the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program and then approve the Planned Development
Amendment, Sign Program and Design Review.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY:
Douglas Garrison
Supervising Planner
Attachment(s):
Andrew Thomas
Planning Services Manager
1. Resolution Certifying EIR With Exhibits "A" ~CEQA Findings} and "B: Mitigation
Monitoring Program}
2. Resolution Approving PDA05-004 and DRO5-ool3
3. Project Plans
4., Sign Program
5. Public Notification Map
6. Public Comments
City of Alameda
Memorandum
ITEM 9-B
DATE: August 11, 2005
T0: President Kohlstrand and
Members of the Planning Board
FROM: Douglas Garrison, Supervising Planner
RE: Supplemental Staff Report for Planned Development Amendment, Major
Design Review ~- PDA05-0004, DR05~OO13 - 523 South Shore Center. The
Applicant Requests Approval of Planned Development Amendment and Major
Design Review Entitlements and Certification of the EIR for Redevelopment
and Expansion of Alameda Towne Centre.
BACKGROUND
0n July 14, 2008, this project was reviewed by the Planning Board at a publicly noticed
hearing, After receiving the staff reportand comments from the public, the Planning Board
continued this item to August 11, 2008 due to the meeting extending beyond 11:00 pm and
to allow more time to review comments submitted at that hearing. Staff sent notices of the
August 11, 2x08 hearing to all previously noticed residents and concerned parties and to
all individualswhosubmittedcomments onthe Draft Environmental Impact Report~DEiR~.
ANALYSIS
The following discussion addresses comments submitted to the Planning Board at the July
14, 2008 Planning Board meeting,
Nose
Comments were submittedconcerning noise levelsatanearbyresidentiai propertylocated
across Otis Drive. The City has received numerous complaints from this commenter in
recent months about noise generated by the parking lot sweeper and trucks idling in the
shopping center. On January 23, 2008, City Code Enforcement staff visited this property
and measured noise levels on the commenter's balcony between the hours of 6:00 and
1:00 am, while the street sweeper was operating in the north parking lot of the center.
Measured sound levels did not exceed City noise standards and were substantially less
than noise levels generated byAC transit buses and athervehicles using Otis Drive. City
staff did not note undue building shaking or rattling as was also alleged in the complaints.
Although noise impacts were determined not to be significant or violations of City noise
standards, staff has included conditions in the attached resolution that further reduce
potential conflicts between commercial and residential land usesbylimiting more intensive
outdoor activities within 200 feet of residential uses to specific hours and reauirina that
City Council
Attachment 2 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #6-B
X0.07-0$
President Kohlstrand and Members of the Page 2 of 3
Planning Board August 11, 2005
delivery trucks comply with State law which currently limits most trucks to idling for no more
than five minutes.
Traffic
Comments were submitted concerning the adequacy of the traffic analysis that was
performed for this project, The Gity retained Dowling Associates, to review the traffic
analysis that was prepared by Omni Means. Their August 5, 2008 peer review is attached
Attachment No. 3}. Dowling also prepared the City-wide traffic analysis that was used in
preparation of the DEIR for the draft General Plan Transportation Element that was
recently published by the City. Dowling Associates concluded that the approach and
methodologies used in the Omni Means report complied with the requirements of the Gity
of Alameda Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Studies and Reports and were well
within widely acce ted en ineerin ractices. Dowlin also noted that the stud
p g gp 9 y
assumptions were generally overly conservative and that this resulted in higher predicted
traffic levels and impacts than are projected in the Transportation Element traffic
assessment. In some cases, prajected traffic volumes in the Omni Means study were over
50 percent higher than in the Dowling study.
Future Expansion
Some Board members expressed concern over potential future expansion of the center
and requested additional clarification of this matter, Staff is recommending approval of the
current plans which include approximately 681,900 square feet of retail floor area. This
represents an expansion of approximately 81,000 square feet from existing conditions and
approximately 25,040 square feet more than was evaluated in the 2002-2003 entitlements.
Additionally, staff is recommending approval, through the PDA, of approximately 25,000
square feetof additional retail floorareaforatotal build-outof 706,650 squarefeet. Under
existing Cityzoning regulations, the applicant can potentially expand floor area bytwenty-
five percent without approval of an additional PDA. Under the staff recommendation,
future expansion, under this PDA, would be limited to less than five percent and would still
be subject to City review and approval. The EIR prepared for this project evaluated the
impacts of a shopping center build-out of 706, 650 square feet. Reducing the project size
to 681,000 square feet would not after impact significance or required mitigation measures.
Thus, the applicant will be required to mitigate the impacts of the 106,650 square feet
build-out under either scenario. The intent of this approach is to provide flexibility in
meeting future tenant requirements and to ensure that future expansion is adequately
controlled to ensure compatibilitywithneighboring land uses. The applicant has provided
additional information concerning the potential location of future expansion. The most
likely scenario would be a second floor in Building 900 Kohl's} that could accommodate
additional storage, office and retail uses, new ground floor retail shops in the proposed
parking garage and small expansions of existing shops that may be required to meet future
tenant needs.
President Kohlstrand and Members of the
Planning Board
RECOMMENDATION
Page 3 of 3
August 1 ~, 2408
Certify the adequacy of the Environmental impact Report, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, and approve the Planned Development Amendment, Sign
Program and Design Review.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY:
Douglas Garrison
Supervising Planner
Attachments:
Jon Biggs
Planning Services Manager
1. Resolution Certifying EIR With Exhibits "A" ~CEQA Findings} and "B: Mitigation
Monitoring Program}
2. Resalution Approving PDA05-004 and DR05-0073
3. August 5, 2008 Traffic Study Peer Review
4. Comment Letters
5. July 14, 2008 Planning Board Report without attachments}
6. Public Notification Map
~~"~
a
n.+~s~am PETITION FOR APPEAL OR CALL FOR REI~IEW
This pefition is hereby filed as an appeal or calf far review of the decision of fh~
~~ ~N~ N~ o ~~..D ,which
~Piannin~ ~ire~ar~onin Admin~~~tarl~iann~r~ Bo~rd~stQrical Ad~sory Board}
~~r~~~1.~ ~~ .~ ~ ~ ~~li a ~~C~~IQn ~ M~r~'Q/yi+J~~~ ~ f~R ~~l ~~y~~ N'
~Doniedl~ra~n~s~a~l~i~ed C~nd's~ p~ica~an ty~~
(Applica~on iVuenb~r} (Street Address)
on ~~- ~cl- //. 02 00~l
(Sp~cify~ate)
the basis of #~~ appea# or tali for re~riew is:
l ~H~ C'.7~v ~ f' ~}~~iy~~ ~.3iG~_v ~'D Girre i~.~~ ~,!a«. !''u
/V o Tic p ra ~ s. ~,M TS - SY~~,.~. ~. c~ iv TL v ~~i~ot~cr~.~ .~ s~
7'~/~ ~'X.d~.us>o~/ oo ~GA~,,~~~a ?a`v.~i~ ce~vT.~e ;
~'ii~uPJan ~ ~tie~ /ree~)
cif mare space is Headed, ntinuo an the reverse side or attach additionai sheets.
~ elland; ' L`. ~~,u~ ~ ~.~.
p~
~ ~ ~am~~~}F Pion ` Bc~~r~ hem r ar ~ounci~ 1~~b~r~
r / one] ~' f • ' ! `~ S f/t~r r
D~ f (o 2~~1~ ws~ o~-
~Z o~
Address ,~ ~
~ slant Address ~ ~ ~
~ ~ D 1 T ~f~~VAL. ~'I~/Y~T~~~s ~~~'I''
~~~ Section ~4 ~~, Appeafs antl Coifs for ~evie~, provides thaf wri~hir~ ten ~ ~ a~ days a decision
of the PlaHS~i l~ire~or or honing Adn~inistrafor may ~~ appealed #o the Pianrting Baard, and
tlecisjans of fihe Plan€~ing Beard ar His#orical Advisory Board may be appealed to the Gity
Council. ~n addifiion to ~e appeal process, decisions of the Planning Director or ~anin
,. 9
Adrn~nistrator may be aired for rerr~ew within fien ~~0~ days to the Pianning Board b}~ fhe
Planning Board or by the City Council and decisions of fhe Planning Board ar the Historical
Ad~risory Baard mad be caked far review by the Cifiy Council or a member fihe Cifiy Council.
A pr~cessin~ fee of ~~ .~ must accompany the Pefition for Appeal. loo fee is required far a
~a!! for l~ev~e~.
****
(For 41~ice Use Uniy) Date ReceNed Sfiamp ~ ~ (1 ~ ~ ~ ~ n
Received BY~ ~ ~_.._. ~~~.J
Receipt ivo.: AUG 2 0 2008
City Council
~~ ~ ~ Attachment 3 to
~~ ~ ~ Public Hearing
Agenda Item #6-B
14-07.08
ATTACfIlV1ENT TD PETYTTDN FCR APPEAL, PDA05-0004zDR05-0073
The basis of the a eal continued
~} The tta~ic study in the Environmental hnpact Report HEIR} is seriously flawed,
not reality based, and technically inadequate.
3 } The traffic peer review is technically inadequate. In addition, the public was not
given an opportunity to comment on it as required by CEQA.
4} Material misstatements of material fact were made by Planning Ilepartment staff
concerning the necessity of adapting the EIR. These misstatements were relied
upon by members of the Planning Commission in certifying the EIR.
S} The authors of the ElR failed to respond to public's comments on the draft E1R,
as required by CEQA.
6} The EIR did not captain a noise or air quality analysis, as required by CEQA..
7) The developer has not met all of the conditions contained in the 2003 Planned
Development Agreement.
S} Recent 1xa~c increases have had a serious detrimental effect on the
neighborhoods and environment of Alameda. Many retail spaces in Alameda
Towne Centre remain. unoccupied. The ElR should pat be certified until those
spaces are occupied and already authorized construction is completed. Dnly then
can the effects of allowing further expansion be evaluated.
9} The hours of operation that were approved are unrea.sanable.
1 ~}The hours of operation that were approved are inconsistent with the limitations set
forth in the Municipal Code.
11 } As of ~e type of filing this Notice of Appeal, the finalized Plannuag Board
resolution on this matter was pat available to Appellants. Consequently
Appellants reserve the right to amend the basis for appeal to address any and all
issues raised by any unanticipated items contained in the resolution.
The A ellants are in order of si tore
Janet Libby,17I5 Broadway, Alameda CA 9450
Christine Healey, 2209 Otis #5, Alameda CA 94501
Holly Sellers,1~24 San Antonio, Alameda CA 94501
Eugenie Thomson, 299 Johnson Ave., Alameda, CA 945x1
Claire Yeaton-Risley,1101 Grand Street, Alameda. CA 94501 _ ,~ f
Fred Reid,1220 Broadway, Alameda CA 94501
180 Grand Avenue, Suite 995
Oakland, CA 94512
510.839,1742 510.839.0811 fax 510.839.8433 bbs
e-mail: dyush@dowlinginc.com
Memorandum
FINAL
Da#e: August 6, 20Q8 Pages: 3
To: Doug las Garrison Email: DGarrison C ci.alameda.ca.us
Ci of Alameda
From: Debbie Yueh, Senior Transportation Planner
Rey Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Traffic Study--Peer Review
This memorandum presents the findings of the peer review on the Transportation and Circulation
Impacts for fhe Proposed Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Final Draft Report prepared by Omni-
Means, Ltd (Apri121, 2006j. The purpose of the review is to ensure consistency between the approach
and methodologies used in the Report and accepted standards and guidelines far traffic analyses in
Alameda as described in the Guidelines for Preparafion of Traffic Studies and Reports City of Alameda
Public Works Department August 2001 revised November 28, 2005}. In addition, the approach used to
derive the baseline and cumulative volumes were evaluated. A comparison of the traffic forecasts
under the cumulative scenario of this report and the forecasts from the recent General Plan
Transportation Element ElR was also performed. This peer review has been reviewed by Mark
Bowman, a licensed professional engineer,
Approach and Mefhodologr'es
The Guidelines dictates that project impacts be identified and analyzed in accordance with the current
Highway Capacity Manual HCM} and the level of service LOS} be based on methodology and
procedures outlined in the most recent ed~ion of HCM. The intersection LOS in the Report was
calculated using the 200Q HCM, which is the current edition. HCM contains concepts, guidelines and
computational procedures for determining the capacity and quality of service on the roadways and was
prepared by the Transportation Research Board in cooperation with the Federal Highway
Administration and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
The Guidelines also states that new trips generated by a proposed development should be computed
in accordance to thet~atest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers SITE} Trip Generation
Manual. The latest l edition of the Trip Generafr'on 1+2003} was used to compute the number of trips
generated by the proposed expansion. The number of new vehicular trips generated by the expansion
was estimated by subtracting the total number of trips generated by the project before the expansion
from the number of trips generated after the expansion. An adjustment for pass-by trips was then
made to arrive at the number of net new trips. A pass-by rate of 10 percent was used. This rate is well
within acceptable perimeters outlined in ITE's Trip Generafr'on Handbook and may even skew towards
the mare consenratr've side considering the average pass-by rate for shopping center is 34 percent.
The procedures used m calculating the project generated taps are consistent with the guidelines from
the Trip Generation.
City Council
Attachment 4 to
Public Hearing
Agenda Item #6-B
O-O~-~~
Baseline Condif%ns assumpflons
Because of continuous development on the project site, the "existing" gross leasable floor a~ea~~G~[A~ is
dynamic. As a result, the Report elected the most conservative approaches to derive the "~x~stin~" end
baseline volumes on which the impact analyses were based. First, the higher of the 2002 or ~~0~~~
turning movement counts were used to represent "existing" candi#ion. The baseline volumes were
calculated by adding the "existing" volumes, trips generated by approved projects, and the total number
of previously approved GLA ~1 X2,400 sgft} for the Alameda Towne Centre. Since a portion of
approved project has already been constructed thereby the associated trips would already be included
in the 2005 "existing" volumes, double counting of these trips may potentially result.
In determining the distribution of the baseline project trips, the Report took into account the proposed
Catellus and Alameda Pointe developments citing that these developments would "contribute ane-third
to one-half to the overall project trip distribution via Otis Drive and Shoreline Drive". However, only the
Catellus development was included as an approved project under Baseline Conditions. The Alameda
Pointe development is only considered under Cumulative Conditions. Consequently, the baseline trip
distribution percentages along Otis Drive and Shoreline Drive to the west may be overstated and the
percentages along other routes maybe underestimated. However, considering the number of project
generated trips and the LOS presented in the report, it is not likely that the re-distribution of a portion of
the westward bound trips would result in additional significant impact at the study locations.
Consistent with City traffic study guidelines, the previously evaluated ~ ~ 2,000-square foot expansion of
the Alameda Towne Centre was included as ane of the approved projects in the Baseline Conditions
rather than a part of the proposed proect. Some may assert that this constitutes "project segmentation"
under the California Environmental Qual~y Act ~CEQA). Consequently, a risk for potential challenge for
CEQA compliance exists. This should be addressed m the Environmental Impact Report for this
project.
Cumulafive Conditions Assumptions
The cumulative base case volumes were calculated according to methodology outlined in the
Guidelines, The cumulative base case volumes were calculated based on a background growth of
ane-half percent per year between the baseline year ~2005~ and the horizon year X2025}. Further, trips
generated by the approved projects not already accounted far under the Baseline Conditions were then
added to arrive at the cumulative base case volumes. Again, this approach tends to be conservative as
the vehicular trips generated by the approved projects may already be included in the assumed growth.
This may explain why the cumulative volumes used in this Report are substantially higher than those in
the Transportation Element EIR even though the horizon year for the Transportation Element EIR is
2Q30. For instance, the roadway volume on Otis Drive east of Park Avenue is about 40 percent higher
in the Report in the AM peak hour and about ~ 5 percent higher in the PM peak hour. The difference is
particularly acute on the westbound direc~an in the AM peak hour where the link volume is about 57
percent higher. This finding of higher projected volumes was consistent throughout the analysis
segment along Otis Drive between Grand Street and Broadway where data are available from both
studies though the extent varies,
• Page 2
Conclusion
The approach and methodologies used in the Report are consistent with those in the Guidelines. The
volume assump~ons are generally conservative and the cumulative forecasts in the Repart are
significantly higher than those in the recent Transportation Element EIR. This combination most likely
resulted in an assessment of higher impacts than would have been identified using new ~20g8~ traffic
counts and travel forecasts consistent with the Transportation Element EIR.
Dowling Associates does not possess the necessary CEQA expertise to fiully assess the potential risk
far CEQA challenge. The issue of project segmentation under CEQA should be further reviewed by
appropriate counsel.
• Page 3
APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT DF APPEAL
The Honorable Mayor, Beverly Johnson
Vice Mayor Tam
Councilmember de Haan ~ ~.~~.,
~~~,
Councilmember Gilmore ~ . ~~=~ ~-~~
Councilmember Matarrese `-~-~ ~~ ~~
;- ~ ;
RE: Appeal of Certification of Environmental Impact Report, PB-a$-19
r~ _~
The Environmental Impact report HEIR} for the Planned Development Review far~Towne
' '. ~ -., pry
Center is totally inadequate. ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ '
c . -~-~~ ~
To limit the impact review only to residents within 50o feet of Towne Center~i's ludi~us.
The increased truck traffic to serve Towne Center and the increase in customer vehicular
traffic adversely affects every one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of residents living
along any of the vehicle access corridors to Towne Center, Not giving any notice to any
of these residents who are affected by the increased traffic is a serious omission,
Numerous residents along Broadway and Otis complain of having to wear ear plugs at
night in order to get a full night's sleep. This is a significant environmental impact! The
dirt and pollution caused by the increased vehicle traff c is readily observable on any of
the houses along the traffic corridors. We can only wonder what these increased pollution
levels are doing to the respiratory systems of the people with breathing problems,
children, seniors, and other adults. This is a significant environmental impact! For the
Planning Board and Planning Department to say otherwise is totally irresponsible. For the
Planning Department and Planning Board to approve an EIR that does not contain a noise
or air quality analysis as required by CE~A is a serious dereliction of responsibility. The
citizens of Alameda rely on and trust these people to look out for our best interests. They
have broached that trust,
As anybody, and I mean anybody, along these traffic corridors serving Towne Center will
tell you, the traff c volume, noise, and pollution along these corridors is already too high.
It needs mitigation now. VL~e don't know how much worse it will get if Towne Center f lls
out its currently allowed leaseable space. we do know it will make exacerbate an already
intolerable situation. To approve any expansion beyond that is unthinkable. A better idea
would be to freeze leases at the current occupancy level until the traffic situation can be
evaluated, and hopefully mitigated in some manner.
Finally, the approval of 24 hour deliveries at Towne Center is unconscionable. As noted
above, trucks already thunder down our residential streets in the middle of the night
waking residents and disturbing their sleep. There is no need for noisy, trucks to be on
Alameda residential streets in the middle of the night. why did the Planning Department
recommend and the Planning Board approve this unnecessary additional intrusion on our
quality of life? It doesn't increase sales tax revenue, It won't increase retail sales. None of
the businesses currently there would leave because they have to make daytime instead of
night time deliveries, So why did they kowtow to the developer's request at the expense
of adversely affecting the lives of thousands of Alameda citizens? They have broached
our trust again.
~.- ~~,
Y ~~
. _~
:,
,, y
L
~.,
,~
L ~T
~y~~~
Re. Agenda Item #6-B
~0-o7-os
For the reasons mentioned above as well as the comments submitted by the other
Appellants, we respectfully request that you rej ect the current EIR and direct that a full
and complete EIR, including ail CEQA requirements, be conducted that includes all of
the Alameda citizens that wi11 be affected.
Sincerely,
Janet Libby, appellant
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
/~ ~'1 FAQ A~,~ 1'• sY ~ S} ~.
I~
'~ ~ ~
`J ., ..I..~'t
The ~IQr~}~rab~~e ~;Il~ayar~ everiy Johnson
Vice Ma or Tam
Y
Councilmember deHaan
Councilmember Gilmore
Councilmember Matarrese
October 1, 2008
RE: Appeal of the August 11th, 2008 Planning Board certification of the
adequacy of the Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Project
Environmental Impact Report for Planned Development Amendment
PDA 05-004
we're writing to support the appeal of the August 11 ~n Punning Board decision, Alameda
residents who live on the truck route to the mall were not notified of the public hearing
on further expanding the mall and its operating and truck delivery hours.
we moved to Alameda with our two children in 1999 and we have enjoyed being a part
of this community. We live on Qtis Drive, between Park Street and Broadway, which as
you know is the truck route far deliveries to the Alameda Towne Centre.
For the most part, we like the new Towne Centre. We go there often and it's a
signif cantly more pleasant place to shop than it was a few years ago. we try to buy in
Alameda whenever passible because we know our city needs the tax revenue.
Despite our generally positive feelings towards the mall we are against its further
expansion. we have been walling door to door and holding meetings in our home to
notify neighbors about the Planning Board's decision to approve 24-hour truck deliveries.
we've met dozens of neighbors on Qtis and Broadway and we have heard an earful!
we've heard from neighbors who can't sleep at night because of the truck traffic that
already exists. Neighbors whose asthma is aggravated by the pollution on the truck route.
Neighbors who spend f fteen minutes trying to back out of their driveways. Neighbors
who suffer through warm days because they don't dare open their front windows far fear
the exhaust will harm the health of their young children. And like us, neighbors whose
houses shake Tike a small earthquake has hit when the big trucks go by.
My family and my neighbors believe that traffic is already bad on Qtis and Broadway. At
peak hours, traff c on Qtis Drive going towards the mall backs up past Regent.
Re: Agenda Item #6-B
~o-o~-os
At its September 22~~ meeting, Planning Board members estimated that 43Q,Q00 s ware
q
feet of the mall are now occupied. Mall developers are asking the City for permission to
expand to 706,Q00 square feet. That represents a ~4% increase. This expansion can only
lead to a significant rise in traffic. We understand that the main way that developers plan
to deal with the certain increase in traffic on Broadway and on Dtis is by adding a traffic
signal at the Trader Joe's entrance. We don't see how that will make a difference in the
thousands of additional cars and trucks that will be passing our home and our neighbor's
homes.
We know that once the mall builds out to 7Q~,OQO square feet, there's no going back. We
will be left with the consequences.
How will the City deal with the increased traffic?
Will the City pay to install double-paned windows in our homes to deal with the noise?
Will the City pay to reinforce our foundations to endure the shaking from increased truck
traff c?
'~Ue would like to know if you plan to expand Dtis Drive from Broadway to Park to four
lanes? Do you plan to expand Broadway to four lanes? Will you widen our streets? Will
you take away our street parking? V~ill you take away our front lawns?
We believe that the environmental impact report supporting further expansion of the mall
is inadequate. The projections for increased traffic are understated. We'd like to know
why the air quality was not tested in our neighborhood where the full brunt of increased
traff c will be felt?
Vie rely on you to balance the interests of development with the interests of the people
who call this island home. '~Ve urge you to be responsible. Deny any further expansion of
the Alameda Towne Centre, restrict the hours of truck delivery, and hire a competent and
impartial consultant to conduct a new environmental impact report.
Sincerely,
Michael & Dolores Radding
2450 Otis Drive
Alameda, CA 94501
APPELLANT"S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
October 1, X008
f ~; r,~
_..._. _+~ r_- ~~
.~. .. C.~ n., .~ni,
. ~ ~ „ ~~
The Honorable Mayor, Beverly Johnson ; -- ... ~,~ , .~~.~
. F.
Vice Mayor Tam ~ - : ~ : k _ .~
~~
Councilmember deHaan ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~
,. ~~ ..1
Councilmember Cr~lmore ~ ~.
Councilmember Matarrese
_.~.~
., ~~._
RE:Appeal of Certification of Environmental Impact Report, PB-QS-19
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is inadequate for numerous
reasons. I will focus on only a few. Most importantly, it does not make
sense. It tells us that the impacts caused by the proposed expansion are, for
the most part, insignificant. This is not true. You will hear testimony and
receive letters from numerous residents our community detailing the horrors
that the ongoing expansion have already caused. Nowhere in this EIR will
you fmd these quality of life issues adequately addressed.
The Planning Board Resolution that is the subject of this appeal states that
the developer has eliminated some of the potentially significant impacts of
the proposed expansion by "reducing the amount of square footage
originally requested". This is untrue. While the developer is no longer
proposing a big box Target store, the square footage that it is requesting is
identical to that requested earlier. It is saying that it does not intend to use
the full entitlement, if granted, at this time, but it is requesting the same
entitlement that it did earlier.
At the August 11~` Planning Board meeting, President Kohlstrand began the
Board's discussion of this matter by asking planning staff the threshold
question of whether failure to certify the EIR and/or the accompanying PDA
would limit development of the shoreline improvements. Planning staff
member Doug Garrison stated that "both" were required for the shoreline
improvements to go forward. This was a misstatement. It was very material
to the Planning Board members who have made it clear that they want the
shoreline improvements, including the two new restaurants, to be completed
in the near future. The shoreline restaurants were included in the 2003
Re; Agenda Item #6-B
10-Ol-OS
Negative Declaration. To say that further environmental approval is required
is a clear misstatement.
The EIR does not contain a Congestion Management Plan as requested by
both the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency and AC Transit.
A congestion management plan would analyze traffic impacts over a much
wider area than that analyzed in the EIR. There is a threshold for when such
a plan is required. In asking for the plan, the Alameda. County congestion
Management Agency noted that the analysis in the draft EIR incorrectly
calculated the increase in peak hour traffic caused by the proposed
expansion, and if the analysis had been done correctly, the projected trips
would exceed the threshold for requiring a congestion management plan.
That letter, as well as the one from AC Transit, is appended.
The EIR is deficient not only because it fails to analyze traffic impacts over
the areas of this island that are significantly and deleteriously affected. It
also fails to analyze the ongoing effects of the noise, pollution, vibrations,
and heavy delivery trucks across this entire island, instead focusing on only
those inconveniences that will occur during construction.
In October 2006 when comments and questions were submitted regarding
the draft EIR Andrew Thomas said over and over again in front of the
Planning Board that each and every question would be answered and every
comment considered. The EIR does no such thing. It totally ignores specific
questions and gives vague and misleading information in other responses.
See, Memorandum from Holly Sellers of even date.
Another deficiency in the EIR and the accompanying responses is that it
appears that Lamphire-Gregory provided every response and comment. If
that is so, it makes no sense and is irresponsible. Every question or comment
that was directed at a specific report prepared by an "expert" should have
been answered by that expert, not Lamphire-Crregory. If a traffic comment
was made, one would expect the traffic consultants, Omni Means, to respond
to it. The same is true of air quality and noise issues. This "final" EIR should
be rejected on this issue alone. There is no accountability if the originator is
not the one to respond to comments. Reject this EIR as written.
This "final" EIR is an insult to your intelligence and to the intelligence of the
Planning Board and the residents of Alameda. Lamphire-Gregory should be
2
ashamed to waste our time by issuing this inferior, unacceptable product.
Please make them do it correctly.
I hereby incorporate by reference all of the items enumerated in Attachment
"A", part II of Resolution No. PB-08-19 and all comments, both oral and
written, made by me, other individuals and agencies who comment on the
matters raised in this appeal, including those made to the Planning Board
and those made directly to Planning staff.
Sincerely,
Claire Yeaton-Risley, appellant
3
~~OM- C4~
~~
W
~~~'M~1IVAIGti'~'~~~
~~ \ `~
~ 1. `j~r ~~ _,~!~. ~\~; 1'. ~~.
\~~f `+~~\ ~4 ~F~T j. J~~J ~J ~1 ~lj'1 ~! ~1t5t A ~~~~ ~4~1 y.~~~ I~ ` `_ ;~,1'~r ~~
1333 ~i]f~q'r~pY, ~LiTE 21'J •'.`~r1i(I ~1Nf} [;A `J4G~2 ~ PH~N~: ~510f ~35-~5~0 ~ `,~% ,:~I~) r!;~6~~'~5
F 1~`~fl. ~r3.;,~~~~una.CB ~~Gv ~ '~1-`~ 51 F ar.cm.1 ~:,- tJtN
~c r~~
.~r ~r
~~
Octotx;r 1 D, ~ 006
S~r•~r~r~
~~'~~~~ :~1,C. ~)OU~Id5 (larr[surl
~xc~r
Planner lu
~,~,~~~,,,
,~,~~,..~ Planning and $uilding Department
:~~~x~,~
~?b3 Santa Clara Avenue, Room l~~f}
~~~~~
~~ Ala,neda, CA 94501
~.~
MM~~..M.~a..~ti ar
CST ~ 3 ~~0~
PER•`~if'i' CENTER
ALAM E DAr ~,a 9~~^ 1
our SG?1'3JF;~;T: (;ommcnts nn the ~7raft Environmental Impact itcport for the Alameda
~~
n.,~~, Towne Centz'e ~farmerly South Shore Shopping Center} Project
Clh of M~
GC~u ~r,3~r DCiir l~r. GarriSE~n:
.S +i3'~Or".~+~
c~ ~ ffn `I~hani~ you tur the opportunity to comment on the City of Alarncda's faraft Envirc~t~fltental
~~~~'.~~m ifnpacs Report ~1]L:IR) for the prr~posed expansion and renovation ~~f the Alameda Towne
atyalfr~nruM ~'cntre ~formerl}! South Shore ,Shopping Center} Project. ~l"he proposal in~~l~~des:
U~p
~~~, cctr~struction ~~~' a new three-level parking Structure; two new restauraf~ts and associated
~~ ~ ~,~ public open space improvements along Shurelil~e Dnve, a new appro~xitnat~;ly 1 X5,0()0
i~ sq,ft. discount department More ~Target~ along with other related improvements. lt'
''~~"~`~'' "" tipproved, the t~~tal gross leasable area ~G~A} fc~r the Alameda Towne Centre will be
cfh ~ ~"""~ approximately 7Uf,~47 sq.ft. an increase of 4,132 sq. t~ from the previc}usly ~fppruved
~~
Ac~cr~CtaDet X57,5 ~ 3 sy.~t.
+~h d ut~r.Rr
"~°' The ACC,~A respectlitlly submits the following comments. ~~Vhr~re p~~ssible the Ul'~IR
!~~~ ~
Cf1~ M fiwM~llil p`i~~., ~1 ~~II~ C1C~S Zr'. f ~ ~L' ~'~.:I lt£; .
C~un~~~r~d
~~~ ~ C'~1P Analysis: ~1'he DF1R states Page ?5, Apper~di~: B '1'ratfc Stucly~ that the net p,fn.
~~~~~~ peak hour trips generated from the rrctposed expansion is 95. Sirxce this is below the trip
~,~.~c~~~ generation threshul~k ~}f 1~?a p.m. P€ak hour trips to require a Cry1~P analysis, anc~ therc~fure '
*~~s~~ the D1:1R did nut include a (;I~[~'tr~~~~ic impact analysis.
Clt~ of rrl~d~Mll!
`~'~"r~'pi Page 25, Appetlclix l3 ~l~ra~'ftc Stucly- 'Trip fJeneratiun. The following are the cc~rnlncnts
~~~~~ relatc,~cl tc~ trip generation cst.imation incll~~led in the I)1:{n Tr~i~~fiC study:
cur e>i P~~ea
,;,~
x~e~ c,ler~r~a ,'t rr~ lrrurrr ~.r11?L~ ~15'~ {.'uc~e: '1'17e ~}>`-.iR t~sc~l 1'l'!-: Trip tlrneratit~f~ r;~tes ~7~h E~litian} fr)r
~l~ t
c~r~a~~.l..~an 1.aitd Case ~ ~?i~ `Shopping Ccftter' to estimate the trips generated [r~rin ~hc prra,jcc;t. tiiltc~~
~:,~~,
~r,,~,,~ this ~xpanSlOn prc~pnst's t~l' ltring 1n ~~ f )isCOUttt Sl~perfr~arkct I..l'arget} to tltc ~h~~C~piiig
cl~o~u~l..ut~ ~c~'nter, ~ gcnlrral ~5hc}~~~yi1t~; C~;r~1cr' t1'ip gcn~:ratit~n r~~te is ltc~t :~pprr.~priate. 1~hc ~tr~~re
~~~
4xKUdr~ 01-ecfw
~r^r~, ~. I ry
~.~
~ti~Ir. [)~~uglas ~aarriscm
{~ctuher 1 U, ?a0b
Page 2
,appropriate land use code uf~ either `Freestanding Discount Stnre (~ ~ 5}' or `Freestanding '
Discount Superstore' ~:~ ~ :i}should be ~~sed to estimate the trips for the Target More,
Trip (;enerct~iUn Rates ,for ~xi,s~~ing cxrrc~ Prr,~~r~,sed Lane! ~~~,s~e: '1'0 ~Stimate the trips
generated from the apprUVr~d existing :~ncl proposed uses, two different trip generation
rates have been ufied in the 17FIR. For example, for the p.m. peak hour, for the existing
use the trip generation rate used is 3.30 trips~'ksf, whereas for the prnposed land c~.~e the ' ;
trip generation rate used is 3.~2 tripslksf, which iy 0.(~8 tripslksf less than the rate used far ,
the existing use. Please clarify ~vhy dil~'erent rates were used and how the rates were
calculated. It is suggestc;d that same trzp generation rates be used for huth existing and
proposed !and rises.
In view of the above, it is requested that the project trip generation estimation in I]EIR he ~
revised. Since the curront net p.m. pc;ak hour trips estimated is only 5 trips less than the
C?VIP threshold of loo p.rn. peak hour taps, it is anticipated that the revised trip '
generation will exceed this threshold, and therefore a C~1P analysis should be carried cut
as requested in our response to the NOP dated February l f , ?006.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment un this DEIR. Please do nUt
hesitate to contact me at S I01~36-~56o ext. 24 if you require additianai information.
Sincerely,
5aravana Sutha~~thira
11ssc~c;iate x'ranspc7rtation Planner
cc: C~ hron
file: ('MP - Fn~~iranmental Review Opini~ms - Responses - 2DD6
~ l y r
>:~
TRf,~/VS/T
~~ .:
s s \~~~~
1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA 94fi 12 - Ph. 5101891 X716 -Fax. 5101891-7157
Nancy Skowbo
Deputy Genera! Manager -Service Development
October 12, 200fi
Douglas Garrison
Planning & Building Department
City of Alameda
22fi3 Santa Clara Ave. Rm. 190
Alameda, CA 94fi01
RECEEV~D
ocr i 2 Zoos
HERMIT CENTER
AlAMEOA, C,r~ 94501
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Alameda Towne Center Redevelopment and
Expansion Project
Dear Mr. Garrison:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment an the Draft Environmental Impact Report HEIR} far the
Alameda Towne Center Redevelopment and Expansion Project.lNe also commented, in 2003, on
the Notice of Preparation far the earlier application for expansion of the shopping center
Project Description -
The E!R anafy~es the impact of expansion of the Alameda Towne Center, formerly known as the
South Shore Shopping Center. The si#e is bounded by Park Street to the east, Otis Drive to the
nor#h and Shoreline Drive to the south, In 2003, the City of Alameda approved expansion of the
center from 544,OOU square feet #o fi56,0oa square feet. Thls EIR considers the cumulative impact
of adding an additional 49,000 square feet, and proposes a revised master plan for the center. The
main changes from the previous plan are the addition of a Target store and placement of some of
the parking in a new parking structure.
AC Transit provides service through the center an Whitehall Way, It is served by line 50 to Fruitvale
BART and San Leandro, and on line 63 to Fruitvale, Uves# Alameda, and Downtown Oakland ,
Same early morning and la#e evening trips on line 50 bypass the center. Transbay Line W also
operates along the edge of the center on Otls Drive. Line 50 is one of the more frequent lines in the
AC Transit system, providing service every 15 minutes,
AC Transit Concerns
At this existing retail-only shopping center that is being expanded, AC Transit's primary concern is
that transit buses are able tv operate safely and without delay, In general, operation in the center
along Whitehall Way has proven effective far AC Transit, providing a good service location for our
passengers. However, we do have a number of spec:iftc concerns:
A~ditianai 8~, StoQ,,,,,.~,o~~i~ Current plans provide AC Transit with two pairs of stops in the
center-fine near park Street and one near the western end of the center. An additional parr Qf 5taps
in the middle of the center, near Safeway, would be helpful. Before the rebuilding of the center, AC
Transit had three pairs of stops. An additional stop would provide easier access far bus passengers,
near the store likely to be the single largest generator of passengers, A stop in this locatlon would
also reduce passengers' need and desire to walk along Uhitehall to mare distant stops, reducing
potential vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
a F ~ r
Park 5tree Whitehall tum: The EIR proposes mitigations to ease turn movements at this location
far cars, However, the EIR does riot discuss the fact that the right turn from Park Street to Whitehall
Way 4designated ''north driveway" in the EIRE is difficult for buses. The bus cannot tum from Park
into the driveway without crossing the centerline. This forces the bus to wait until there are na cars
exiting the shopping center, causing delays far buses. The Center should assure that the westbound
driveway is wide enough for buses to use without crossing the centerline, given the increase in auto
trips anticipated on Whitehall, which is adjacent to Target,
Whit h II c n t' ;The plan far the center asks Whitehall Way to perform a number of
functions, and to handle cars, tn~cks, pedestrians, bicycles, and buses. This could result in conflicts
and congestion at times, It would be helpful ff some vehicle operations were shifted off Whitehall #o
other roadways. Access to parking seems t4 have particular potential fQr conflicts, The proposed
parking garage has an entrance on Whitehall Way, There is a potential for delay in the flow of
eastbound traffic ~carslbuses} due #o cars waiting in traffic to tum left into the garage. Any type of
delay along this roadway decreases the quality of bus service that can be provided. This in turn may
cause the choice bus rider to forgo the bus entirely and opt to drive,
A l f - i tersections: The EIR does not analyze po#ential traffic impacts at any
intersections beyond the periphery of the center, It argues that the projected peak hour traffic
volume--95 cars per hour is below the threshold at which the Alameda County Congestion
Management Agency ~CMA} requires analysis ~ t 00 cars per hour. Given that the estimated traffic is ,: ~ -~ .~
so close to the CMA threshold, l# would seem prudent to analyze potential impacts on outlying
intersections. AC Transit is particularly concerned about the potential for delay on Park Street, which
is both a major access route to the center and a major ~ansit corridor.
Pa~~Having a surplus of parking spaces only encourages consumers tv drive to shopping
centers, rather than find an alternate means of transportation. The center is being required to
provide 4.Q parking spaces pe; 1,004 square of gross leasable area at all times during the
construction process. This ratio Is being required even though the EIR Hates that surveys of the
center during the Christmas peak period indicated demand of 3.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet. If
the center were allowed to use the lower ratio, same 700 parking spaces could be eliminated. This
could free up as much as 5 acres of land for other uses, reducing the dominance of parking in the
center's land use. Decreasing the size of the northern parking lots would allow far an increase in
the width of Whitehall vVay, which could be used for turning lanes along Whitehall. It could also be
used to increase the sidewalk along Whitehall Way adjacent to the Center; bike lanes that endlstart
at the Gffice Max entrance could be extended into a bike way an the extended sidewalk
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Nathan Landau, Senior Transportation
Planner, at 891-4792.
Sincerely,
.c
Na c kowbo
Deputy General Manager for Service Development
cc: AC Transit Boardmembers
Rick Fernandez, AC Transit, General Manager
Tina Spencer, AC Transit, Long Range Planning Manager
S~;an DiestLorgivn, AC Transit, Transportation Planner
Nathan Landau, AC Transi#, Senior Transportation Planner
October 1, 2008
y~eta ~'~ ~°ry ~~_~, ,i ~ r
~r t., M1~. '. .. ~ a ~ .. -n ~ti~.
r.~ ~-
+~ 7 '-,
Mayor Johnson, Vice Ma ar Tam, Cvuncilmember Mata~~s~~~ ` ~ ~~~
Y ,
Cvuncilmember Gilmore and Cvuncilmember deHaan ~.. ; -~ ~ ~, ::- ~ :. ~,.~ :~~~~
City of Alameda ; f. ~ ~~ ~,- ~ ~ ::~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~„ ;~ ;~'~ ~~ _~.
4J~.•~•,,~ ~....'..~' i
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Re: Appeal the approval of FEIR for the ATC Expansion
You need to be aware of serious problems that are in Resolution PB-OS-19 that the
Planning Board approved for the ATC EIR.
In Resolution PB-08-19 Planner Doug Garrison has made the City of Alameda
responsible for some of the cost of the O#is~"rader Joe's mitigation measure - as a
taxpayer l objectl The prior Resolution APB-03-40} said that when the signal is needed
"applicants ..will have 104°/o financial responsibility. Why change it now?
The resolution states that ".. by reducing the amount of square footage originally
requested for the shopping center." This is not true. The applicant continues to request
49,100 sq fee# of expansion for up to 706,641 sq ft GLA.
Resolution PB-03-40 is still in effect. Sad to say that - to date -Harsch has not
implemented but one of the conditions of that resolution.
The fact that Harsch has not finalized most of the conditions of the 2003 resolution is in
direct conflict with this FEIR and needs to be examined further. The conditions set forth
at that time were required immediately or tied to a set phase or permit ~i.e. the eastlwest
sidewalk was to be complete PRIDR to the new Safeway being issued an occupancy
permit}. How many years do #hey need to follow #hrough on conditions that resolution
43-40 set in stone? When will the #rees in front of Trader Joe's be added as promised?
Comments on the FEIR:
In October 2006 when comments and questions were submi#ted regarding the ATC
DEIR Andrew Thomas said over and over again that each and every question would be
answered and every comment considered. The Final Environmental Impact Report
FEIR}dated June 2008 by Lamphire-Gregory is nothing even close to that. It totall
. Y
ignores specific questions and gives vague and misleading information in other
responses.
Specif tally - to emphasize just a few of the unanswered comments:
Omni Means QOM} has been asked twice for an explanation of the 5, 800 missin new
. g
car trips per day. In 2003 OM says ATC will have 28,852 new vehicle trips per day and
in 2006 OM says i# will only be 23,098 new vehicle trips per day. What happened to the
5,800 vehicle trips? The response to this question was: "The referenced numbers relate
to the currently proposed expansion of the project, and the previously analyzed
Re: Agenda item #6-B
1 O-O~-O~
Appeal of ATC FEIR actober ~, 2008
Alameda City Council Pa e 2
9
expansion project." That is not an answer to a very serious question.
Comments that the NorthlPark Street drive is unsafe because it is too narrow for buses
and trucks that must use this entry have been asked time and time again. The pictures
taken 8121108 on the next page show that the widening they say has occurred is not
enough. Buses and trucks cannot enter the site without swinging ou# over the double
line -meaning that if 2 or more cars are waiting to exit ATC the bus has to sit and wait to
enter which backs up traffic on Park. The response to this question was to give us the
definition of a Two Way Left Turn Lane ~TWLTL}. A TWLTL is not going to mite ate this
. 9
issue. But, Lamphere Gregory refuses to address our safety concerns.
Lamphere-Gregory has been repeatedly asked that air quality tests be done, especiall
. ~ Y
on the truck route and the intersection of Park and 4#is, rather than use a meaningless
sensor in San Francisco. These requests have been ignored. The answer X19-3} says
that "The project does not meet the threshold for cumulatively considerable contribution
to air quality impacts. How can you know the cumulative air quality if you do not know
the base air quality on Alameda's surface streets. Please Mayor and Council
Members -for the health of those in high volume traffic areas, insist that air
quality tests be taken.
The Consultants refuse to get any reality based numbers for noise, air quality and traff c,
preferring to rely on modeling which can hand is more often than note be manipulated.
Additionally, consultants need to explain why they continually ignore legitimate re uests
. .. q
for information from government entities. For instance -Alameda County Con estion
. 9
Management District and AC Transit have pointed out a need for a Congestion
Management Plan as part of the FEIR. See ACCMA Letters dated 10/10106 and
2116146 and AC Transit letter of 10112106.} ACCMA also notes that multipliers used b
. Y
Gmn~-Means were faulty resulting en an understatement of traffic impacts. This roblem
P
was not corrected in the FEIR.
The above comments are just a drop in the bucket of unanswered and vague comments
in the ATC EIR.
!n Gctober 2006 Claire Risley and I asked that the Planning Board have a work session
to gather input from the residents of Alameda before considering approving the FEIR.
We renewed that request in written comments before August 11th. Man ,man issues
. Y Y
need to be addressed and interested Alameda residents are eager to help, We still think
that a workshop is needed. Please uphold this appeal and refer the EIR back to the
consultant to address our concerns and have more public input.
Appeal of ~
Alameda C
ber 1, 24D8
Page 3
Appeal of ATC FEIR
Alameda City Council
October 1, 2408
Page 4
Thanks forworking with concerned Alamedans on this very imporkant matter.
Sincerely,
~~
Holly C. Sellers
1624 San Antonio Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
510/521-2299
Attachments: Letters referred to above from ACCMA and AC Transit
.!
o ~
z
c~ ~~'
~c
~~M~rvw~e~'~~
~_f' v
T'~
.~
~~~ ~~ ~~ _
~. ~+'~~1_ .r'Irj ~C~ ~~1~:' ~ YYIaLI ~~1 ~ C .~+,.~.~~ ~ti y
~C Trinslt
Cl~cciar
Lub'@5 J~ile1 ~ ~ ~ ~~I~ll it I~' ~ L-. ~ of-~
Alemede County -
S~eN~rv
4a~e~'~y ' '~Il'. U~~u~laS ~litl•['IS(~11
~~r~~~ Plarlrler Ill
Y~E rh3lsDe'SDrt
Planning and Building Departr~lent
City of ~iemede
M~ .
Cltti oaf.-llam~:da
ate'', '~~ a ~~tllt~ Clara ,A~~erlue, ROC~rrt I90
Crtl- of Illbony , ~ I ~1111 r° (~ ~{, [~,q ~L~ 5 ~) l
~wf
Alan lug
~~In
~~~
rrwo+naz a
~~CEI -
~ED
FF~ 2 ~ 2~
~~AIbEDrTCENTER
A. Cq 9
a5pi
SUBJECT: Cc~rnrnents on the Notice of pr
~paration of a Draft Environmen a m act
Report far the Alameda To~~lne Centre {forlrlerl , p.
y South Shore Shappln~;
Centers Project
~ ~ ~~rt~.ay . ~
ca~~ ..
~rasw~;r,a,a„ Dear N~1r. G~trrist~rl;
CttY nt ~ubllu
Mayor Tl~ank you l~?r the oppurtunity to comment art the C'it
y of Alameda's hc~tice ~~t' Pr~'par~lti~-~I~
J~~°~~`' t ~lUl~'~ c~f~ a 1Jral~ Environn~erltal
C~tl~etr:muyrl~rr Impact Report ~DEIR~ for the rra i~secl ~'~, ~~rl ~' ,
r~n~~ti~~~tl~)I1 cf[ the A lam~da Townc Certt.re forme ~ p ~ ~41c n ~rI1Cl
~+
~ r y South Shore Shc~pp+ng C.crit~~t•~ Pru ~~t.;[.
~,~,,~~ Tl1e propa;;;31 includes: constr~lctic~n ul~ a ne~~~ thre - ,, . • .~
r~'titallr~}r1~~ and ~ ~' y • , e leti~l ~.,al l~tn~~ s~l-cr~~r~rlc~: t~~~C~ rr~ti~
ClhtolFnmant asS~ c.rat~.d public, open space ilrlprc~venlerlts al~3n~ ~E~c~r•t~l~ ~ . ~ „ ,
Mayor apl~roxlnlately 1~S,00Q s .ft. discount de ~- I t l~rl~-~. a rrt4~
RotfenWasserrr~r- q partrllent store Target) al~~ng with ~~[llc•r~ r~.'1~11c.
improvements. if approved, the total Toss leasable ar `l
ctry ar H~yw~rd , . g ea ~G~,A } fnr the ,~ l~tlntrd~r ~f au }~e
Mayor C.tntre u'fi11 be approximately 7U~,C~O s .~'t.
q
Roberta Cooper
cltyotur~or~ T11~e .gCC'M~ I•e5pectfully submits the foll~w~in co111r11e '•
t
g
,~~ n
s.
,~~
•
cityotMeweric
.l-h~.' C'it}~ ~l' al~imeda ~ldvpted Resolution l ?3()8 nn 7 • c ~ ~ .
,,. ~u~u~t I,~. l I1r., es~~thlisl~in+~
~
Ca~c~-ne~er
~~is~re~tas ~LtI~
~;E;!~'ti ~+'!' ''r~'~I~''.~''.r;~' C.`:+.' ~I''~'1~~'~c ~~~ ~(~C'~'~l ~~t11{~ tltie T
~~I~~'.sr~~-11~ cc7nw~istc•nc ~~ i[11 tl~~'
f~lame~ia C'c-ur~ty Cc}n
estian ~~
'
'
cif of D,krend ~
anag~,
rllerlt Nr
o'I-an1 C'Ni '
NUP anr~l l - ~ t N j. ~~a~c{~ ~?I1 c~u. I ~ ti It•tiv c~il~ t':I.
t 1e I~tnd uses that are being cor~sidcred
th
•
~~~,,~~,ta~r
,,.
,F ,
e rt7 used
p p pr~lect appears [c~
~rerlerate at Least l ()0 p.rl~. peak hour trips aver c:xistin ~ co
di
i
'
~
ei~
Cr3R_C„~~ n
t
orls. [f
C~ ~ tllrs is file case, tl~e
1P Land L.}~C ,4nalysls Prograrll requires the Cit ~ to con - •
y dint a t
fl`
'
CltyotPtedmont rtt
rc. analysts ~~t
tllr
pl•n•lec[ using t11C Cc~unttilulide Trallsp~~rtatic~n Deill~nd N[{~del 1'~~
~ , ~ ~ ~
-~
~.aurzc~nTbe~
WN.~
r r ~
, „ ..
~}rl~l ~Q'S curlditlClns, Plc~tti~,' 17u[' I r~~)t~,tl(tn ti c.cir ti ...[~ I ~1
~ file I~~llnu,~llr~ par•<<~I~~Iph~ ~I.~ [l~~'~ +
,
~h
I;.ct}~
y
e ,
.
s
I'~'till~ll}:illtlll~~ ~l~l Il~ll~dt'llll!'.
-
City of Pree~eptan '~
~~~' ,
' l l~~' (.1.'1.1 i3{~,~t'E~ ~I1}[.'11(l~d [!le C IJI~ ~lil Il~l~lr~'lt ~(1~,~, ~ ~j~+~ tit
[l-i,lt l~a:~;lf )lll~!ti(i!t l~r~llti
'
C!h'atSm~aondra ~ a}
i noel respc}nsible iur cur~ducting tl~e mode! rules [l~~~rl~~~~l~~•s ,r ~, „
< X111 r !I
i~
~
'
•
ti,~y,~ ~
~
C'i)1ltillltaf~[.
!
h~' C`l21 ~)~~ ~~~ 1it111t'Cli~ 11a, ~i ~i~nctl C~~ul~[ ~~~'icl~ 1.1/y ~ 1 r. • , . , .
~' a tAJrtiC
Cit
orU
i I `''
rl]l' !'~~~~~. ~-'l.~ d~ltt[1 J[Il~uill,} ~~~, l~{}~~..r~]t C~~)~rrl~~l~~4i(!t' n)~~ ~ + .,
1(
-dt'1 111~'(~I'll~~l'~lllll
~
1~3
y
n
a~rCity
~~~,,,,, .
`. ~
! ~,
• ,~
I~i~], ~' ., I ~. .,.
~l u, ~ ~l~i[~I fnl l ro)c.~tll)rl.~ ..f[!?~' Iti ~I~~~tilahle to tl~~ Ic,~,,
~l E ; tlrl titli~~tiunti ii~r LIB ~
~,~lK ','w•1
~xecutiye Director ~~
I,..I". ~ l~. i ;,y
~'!r. f)ot~gl~ts Garrisc~n
Febr~t~ir}~ l~, 2[~f)6
P~}~c
purpose Hu~~~~cver, heft~re the 1~~ode1 c;an be released tc~ you
must be submitted to the } ~~r y~o~~~~ c~~nsulta~~t. a Icttet~
ACCMA requesting use of the ~7~ade1 and dcs~r~ .
project..A capy~ of a sam le lette lb~ng tl~t
p r agreement is a~~ailable upon request.
. Potential impacts of the project on the ~ti~fetro olitaa
p ~ Transpo~rtat~on System (MTS} need
to be addressed. {See 2(105 CMP Fi tires E-? an _
should a g d E 3 and F,gure ?}. The anal ~sis
ddress all potential »npacts of the ro ect ol~ t y
s stems. These ' P ~ he MTS roadway ar~d transit
~ ~i7clude State Route bl, I-SSO, Atlantic Avenue ~~
Central Avenue, Constit .Broadway ~,glameda},
ut~on way, Fruit~~ale Avenue {Alameda , H~ h~ Scree
and Dakland}, Main S ~d } g t ~Ala«~eda
treet, Qt~s Drive, Park Streetr23 {Alameda and
Poseylwebster Tubes, Webster Scree ~akland~,
~~~,~, t~ t {Alameda and Oakland, S`~ Street Alar~neda
$ Street ~Qakland}, Harrison Str ~ }'
eet {QakIand} as v~el! as BART and ,aC Transit,
Potential impacts or the project must be addre
sled for 2010 and ?025 conditions.
.~ :; Please note that the ACCMA does not have a
policy For determining a threshold of
significance for *Level of Service for --~
the Land Use Ana~s~s Program of the CMP
Professional judgment should bed lied t '
im acts p PP v determine the significance of` ru~ect
rt p (lease see chapter 6 of 2005 CMP for more i P ~
o In addition the ad nformat~on j.
opted 2005 CMP requires using 19$5 Hi hw
for freeway capacity standards, g aY Capacity I~~fan~ial
The adequacy of any project miti ation mea
1993 the CMa g sores should be discussed. Un Februar ~ ?5,
4 Board adopted three criteria for evaluatin y
g the adequacy of DEIR project
mitigation measures:
- Project mitigation measures must be ade ti
q ate to sustain C'MP service standards for
roadways and transit;
- Project mitigation measures must be full
- Pro'ert ' ' ~ y funded to be considered ade uate•
~ m~t~gatron measures that ref on state q '
~nFluenced b th y or federal funds directed b or
Y e CMA must be consistent with the y
established in the Ca ital Project ftrnding priorities
p Improvement Program (CrP section
Regional Trans ortatio ~ of the Cll-iP or the
P n Plan {RTP).
The DE[R should include a discussion on t
he adegtacy of proposed miti atian ~
relative to these criteria. In particular the D ~ neafiLll"es
EIR should detail whey pro used ruadw
transit route improvements are expected to be corn P ay ar
what woo Id be th pieced, how then u-ill he f u~zd~ci. rind
e e~~'ect on LQS :f only the funded orti r
asst~~ned to be built rior to ~•o'ec P ans of these pr-a~ects ~~ere
P p ~ t cr~inplet,on.
• Potential impacts of t1~e project on CMP tra '
ns~t le~~els of service must he analti-zed. Se
7005 C'~9P, Chapter 4~. Transit service ~ ~ e
standards are 15-30 minute headwa ~5 far
service and 3.75-15 minute headwa 's for B } b"~
address tl S ART during peak hours. Thr 1)F_,IR sh
1e ~ss~ie of transit funding as a miti anon m Quid
l~oEi~~ies a~ discussed ab v g easure i~~ the c~fntext ~~l'tl~e ['~1,1.~1'~
o e.
• Tl~e DElR should also consider demand-re
fated strategies that are deli ned Cu
~~e~~d for new ~~oadway facilities over the ion g reduce tl~e
g term a,~d to make the 177ost e~`ticicnt use ~~(~
existing facilities {see 2()05 CMP, Cho ter ~ .
TD'~1 ~~~ ~ P 5~. i~he DElR should conside~~ t~~e Ei ~~ '
cast~l es, Ili Co!]~tlllct![)Il I~Vltll rna[lti~±;~y and trap ' Sec i
stt ilnprot~eme~~t5, as ~f i~~~°~3ns cif'
• ~ ~~r. Douglas Cias~ris[)n
~'ehru~~ry 16, ?OUb
f'a~e
attaining acceptahle levels of Service. V~'l~ei~etiler possible, mec:hanisins that e ~ ~Y
n[.oura4 k
rideshari~lg, flextime, transit, hicy'cling, telecommutin and other ~nrar~s of r
g educing peak
)lour traffic trip, should he considered.
O~~ce again, thank you fur the opportunity to comment on this NAP for a
DEIR. Please do
not l~esitate to contact me at 51 ~/SAG-25b0 ext. Z4 if you re wire additional ii
q ~format~oiz.
Sincerely,
5aravana S~,thanthira
.~~ssaciate Transportation Planner
cc: Chron
~~` file. AMP • Environmental Review ~pin~ons -Res onses - 2
P orb
t
*~~- c:~U
~~
~"
CR"~ (,(~
,ti r' •~
,r '~ 1~'~? ~1~~1~CJ'rVAY, ~~,f"E ~'~ • !.`~I:~+1l~ ~.'A'}4(,1? • 1'{iJhC r~'!t3i ~~n-~'~6J • ~;J( ,,~1'1~ ~;a~i ;"~?!~
~ ~4 ,
1
~ Tn~rr
;~r, ~r n
iuc~a ~~urc !r ^ T ~ ~ ~~~
f~n~~ ~e~
~~~
~,~ ~ "~ 11r[r.1)ouglas (>:arrisc-n P ~ ~ ~~ i ;~ ~. E ~ ~- E ~
:~'~'~L:Z+h ALAM~DA, C~~ 9~~Q 1
'~~T~~ Planner Ii1 __...-~...,....__.__~._ .
arrr~u~o.a~ C'lani~ing and BuElclirlg D~~partrnent
}~' ~'ity c~I` A I~~mc'~..Ia
rs~y x~r~
2?~3 Santa Clara Ati~cnue, Room I ~:~(~
~ ~~ ~"~ A 1 ar~~eda, C,A 94 ~ 0 I
~~f ~~
~"r SC;~i~E~;CT; ('~ommcnt5 on the I~ra.ft Environmental Impact I~cport ~i}r the Alazrteda
~~~~,,~ Towne ~:entre (i`c}rmerly S~}uth shore Shipping C~r~t~r) I'ro~~ct
clry d Mdodry
u~ ~~~ scar I~r. Garris~~n:
ah~ al~n `I~hanit you 1~~r tht' oppc~~unYty to c~}rnmenE on the City uf' ~tlam4da"s f~raft ~n~irt~r~~,~crt~il
~~~~.~~ Impact Report l:Dr[R) for the pmposcd expansion an~1 renavativn if the Alameda Ta~~~ne
ptyalE~r~rlllr CC1tiL.Te ~formc'rl~, South Share Shr.~ppirlg Center} Project. ~I•'he pr~~pifi3l igc.Iti~1Cs:
V'~ cc~rlstnlction ol` a new three~le<<eI parking 5trucn~re; two nrw restaurrEi~ts and .is5c}~iarcd
p~~ win
a1y~s~~Mt puhlic open ,space irnprnvernents along; 5hurelir~e Drive, a nc~v ~~ppr~~xiil~~~tely I~~,~y{)0
~x sq.ft, diticount department ~tnre ~T~~rgetl along r~vith atl~cr 1•elated impri~vements, l1`
'a~~ ~~~' T~ apprc~~~ed, the t~~t:al gxus5 leasable: area (CJL.a} fc~r the f~.l:~rnet~ Towne C'.~ntre will lie
~'°~"''""""~ apprtfximately 7~1C,G4? sq.ft. an increasC of` ~~,13Z sy.f~t from the prev~ic~usly ~fpprc~vuc!
~r~~
a~5.-~c~~~ 657,515 sy.~t.
t~h ~ ~~~
'"'~' Thy AC;C;1~iA respcc;El'izll~r subn~its the following comments. ~'~'h~~re I~nSSiblc ~Iie f)~lR
~1~~
Clh M INw+~ri~
~~~~~~ C'~1P Analysis: The ~i)I<'.I~ states Page ?S, Apperidi;~ B '1'ratfc St11cIy~ that t~h~ net p,~~z.
c~~Q~~~a Leak l~nur traps ccncrateci frot~~ the propustcl expansion is y5, Since r.his is heluw tlic; trip
~~~ r ;,lr,~ r~~r
y.,Y ~~ gerierau~~n threshulcl ~}~ l~~~J p.m. freak hour taps to riryuilc ~~ C~VIi' analysis, rind thcrcl~~re
f-~~~5>> t41c D1;IR dkd r~c~t ir~clcrclc a (till' tr~~fl~c: Im~~a~l ~~naly'~ls,
City olt Pl~deoat
`~~r~' I'a~e ~S, A}~pct~clix E3 'I raffir `~tucfy- Trip Ci~ncrr~tiin: ~i lac ft~lluu~ing ~erc she: ~~nftill]ti'iZtS
.~ ~~~
related t~, trip ~cr~erataon cstlmation ir~clu~led i~~ fhe 1)I~.Ir~ Tr~ll~li~: ~tudv:
Clt~ 0l1 PIy~eM .
~~~.
.~x~I ~,JG7~1A ,1~rj~rr~f~riu~c~ l.~arrr~ Try~~~ ~~uc~~',~ The (-)I:Ii~ ~~~~~d l l F~: Trip f~~~'i1Cr~~ti~~~l I,itl.'S ~;i~r~ l-:~iiti{ln} i~fr
cn~r~r~a~~~. I aifd [.'sr ~ ~'() '~huj~pin~ C'er~ter~' t~~ estimate tl~c trips ~~c;r~erat~.cl 1r~~r~~ tl~c ~~rr:~j~.'c:t. wil~c~~
,,: ~ .
~~.~ ~~~~~ ~flis e,~par~stu!~ I~rc~p~7sc~s t~f i~rir~~ 1f~ ~~~ I)lsrount ~ltprl~lrl,irl~~'t ~ 1'~r~;t°t} to ~I~~ ~t~~y~~~~il~~
cltyafUnlo~clry «ntrr. ~~ ~enrral ~SIY+~~~~lyii7~ t.'~'ntrr~r' r-~-p ~;~'n~:r~~tii)~Z r~rtc.+ ~s lif}t ~tppt'c~~ari~tle. l~hc tlicSr~
~~:~r
Execudt~ ilkettN
k~ K, i r~
f, '
NIr. I7~-uglas Garriscfn
~)ctc~h~:r ~U, ~D06
I'a~e 2
,~Pprnpriatc I~tnd use code ril~ either `Frccst~~nding Discount ~t.ure (~ ~ ~~' or `Freetitarldit~g '
I)iscaunt superstore' t.~ ~ 3} shaulci bc: ~~ed to estimate the trips for thy: ~'srget ,tore.
Trip (-'enerr~[iun l~ate.s ,fur ,_xi.ctt~7g cxnd Pr~~~~r~.sed Lc~nc~ ~..s~e: 'I'a estimate the trips
generated I'rc7rn the approved existing and prapvscd uses, twn dit~crent trip ~encratiun
rates itavc b~;en used in the 1)F~.IR Fc~r example, for the p.m. peak hear, far the existing
use the trip generation rate used is 3.3D tripslksf, whereas for the pr~aposed Iand use tl~e '
trip generation rate rased is 3.22 tripslksf, which is ().~18 trips/ksf less than the rate riled for
the existing use. ~'Iea,SC clarify ~vhy diifirent rates were used and haw the rates ~~c;re
c~~lculated. It is sug6estcd that Same trip generation rates be used far huth existing an~i
prnposcd land uses.
In view of the above, it is requested that the project trip generation estimation in DEIR he
revised. Since the current net p.m. peg hour trips estimated is Unly 5 trips loss than the
C'IV1F thxesh~Id of I (~U p.rn, peak hour trips, it is anticipated that the revised trip ' .
generation will exceed this threshold, and therefore a CI~1P analysis should be canned out
as requested in nor response to the NOP dated February 1 ~, 20U6.
once again, thank yjvu fvr the c~~rpartunity to comment on this DEIR. Nlease da nut
hesitate to cantac;t me at S I U1836-25bQ ~:xt. 24 if you require additiona4 information.
~inccrely,
5aravaa~a Suthar3thira
llssc~~;iate ~~~r3~tsp~rtaticjn Planner
cc: (;laron
file: ('h~1P - F',nvirc~nmcntal Review ~piniims - R~~spc~nses - 2~t06
~ ~ ti ~
:.~
Ti4f~N5/T
s~ s ~~~~
Nancy 3kowbo
Deputy Ganflral Managar • Service Development
October 1 ~, 20D0
Douglas Garrison
Planning 8~ Building Department
City of Alameda
22fi3 Santa Clara Ave. Rm. ~ 9D
Alameda, CA 94501
RECE~1lED
OCT 121006
~ERMfT CENTER
ALAMEDq~ ~,q 9
~5p1
Re; Draft Environmental Impact Report, Alameda Towne Center Redevelopment and
Expansion Project
Dear Mr. Garrison:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report HEIR} far the
Alameda Towne Center Redevelopment end Expansion Project. We also commented, in 2003, an
the Notice of Preparation for the earlier application far expansion of the shopping center
Project Description
The EIR analyzes the impact of expansion of the Alameda Towne Center, formerly known as the
South Shore Shopping Center. The site is bourded by Park Street #o the east, Otis Drive to the
north and Shoreline Dnve to the south, In X003, the City of Alameda approved expansion of the
center from 544,000 square feet to fi5B,00Q square feat. This EIR considers the cumulative impact
of adding an additional 49,000 square feet, and proposes a revised master plan for the center, The
main changes from the previous plan are the addition of a Target store and placement of some of
the parking in a new parking structure.
AC Transit provides service through the center on Whitehall Way. It is served by line 50 to Fruitvale
BART and San Leandro, and on line 63 to Fruitvale, West Alameda, and Downtown Oakland ,
Some early morning and late evening trYps an line 50 bypass the center. Transhay Line W also
operates along the edge of the center on Otis Drive. Line 50 is one of the more frequent lines in the
AC Transit system, providing service every 15 minutes.
AC Transit Concerns
At this existing retail-only shopping center that is being expanded, AC Transit's primary concern is
that transit buses are able tv operate safely and without delay. In general, operation in the center
along Uvhi#ehatf UVay has proven effective tar AC Transit, providing a goad service location far our
passengers, However, we do have a number of 5peciflc concerns;
Ad ~tion o ation: Current plans provide AC Transit with two pairs of stops in the
renter--one near park Street and Qne near the western end of tha center, An additional pair of stops
in the middle of the center, near Safeway, would be helpful. Before the rebuilding of the center, AC
Transit had three pairs of stops. An additional stop would provide easier access for bus passengers,
near the store likely to be the single largest generator of passengers, .A stop in this location would
also reduce passengers' need and desire to walk along Whitehall to more distant stops, reducing
potential vehit;lelpetiestrian roi~flirts.
16D0 Franklin Street, Qakland, CA 94fi 12 - Ph. 5101891-4716 • Fax. 5101891-7157
l ~ t '
r
Park treetjVllhitehali tum._ The E1R proposes rnitigations to Ease tum movements at this location
far yrs. However, the ElR does not discuss the fact that the right turn from Park Street to Whitehall
Way designated "north driveway" in the EIRE is difficult far buses. The bus cannot turn from Park
into the driveway without crossing the centerline. This faFCes the bus to wait until there are no cars
exiting the shopping center, causing delays for bases. The Center should assure that the westbound
driveway is wide enough for buses to use without crossing the centerline, given the increase in auto
trips anticipated on Whitehall, which is adjacent to Target.
Whit-ehall W~,y cQnge~~Qp,; The plan for the center asks Whitehall Way to perform a number of
functions, and to handle cars, trucks, pHdestrians, bicycles, and buses. This could result in conflicts
and congestion at times. It would be helpful if same vehicle operations were shifted off Whitehall to
other roadways. Access to parking seems to have particular potential for conflicts. The proposed
parking garage has an entrance on Whitehall Way. There is a potential for delay in the flow of
eastbound traffic ~carslbuses) due to cars waiting in traffic to tum felt Into the garage. Any type of
delay along this roadway decreases the quality of bus service that can be provided. This in turn may
cause the choice bus rider to forgo the bus entirely and opt to drive.
A I tersectians: The ~ EIR does not analyze potential traffic impacts at any
intersect7ans beyond the periphery of the center. !t argues that the projected peak hour traffic
volume--~-95 cars per hour is below the #hreshold at which the Alameda County Congestion _
Management Agency ~CMA) requires analysis X140 cars per hour). Given that the estimated traffic is ~ --. -~
so close to the CMA threshold, ft would seem prudent to analyze potential impacts on outlying
intersections. AC Transit is particularly concerned about the potential for delay an Park Street, which
is both a major access route to the center and a major transit comdor.
Pa~.,,~rkinc,~Having a surplus of parking spaces only encourages consumers tv drive to shopping
centers, rather than find an alternate means of transportation. The center is being required to
provide 4.0 parking spaces per x,000 square of gross leasable area at ail times during the
construction process. This ratio !s being required even though the E!R notes that surveys of the
center during the Christmas peak period indicated demand of 3.0 spaces per 1,OOQ square feet. !f
the center were allowed to use the lower ratio, same 700 parking spaces could be eliminated. This
could free up as much as 5 acres of land far other uses, reducing the dominance of parking in the
center's land use, Qecreasing the size of the northern parking lots would allow for an Increase in
the width of Whitehall INay, which could be used for turning lanes along vhitehall. It could also ~
used to increase the sidewalk along Whitehall Uvay adjacen# to the Center; bike lanes that endlstart
at the Gfflce Niax entrance could be extended into a bike way an the extended sidewalk
If yc~u have any questions about this letter, please contact Nathan Landau, Senior Transportation
Planner, at B9t-4T9~.
Sincerely,
lea c~ kawbv
Deputy Genera! Manager for Service Development
cc: AC Transit Boardmembers
Rick Fernandez, AC Transit, General Manager
Tina Spencer, AC Transit, Lang Range Planning Manager
Sean DiestLorgion, AC Transit, Transl~grtation Planner
Nathan landau, AC Transit, Senior Tr~anspnr#~~tian PlannE;r
TTE
October I , 2008
Honorable Mayor Beverly Johnson and City Council Members
Alameda City Hall
2263 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, California 95401
Reference: Final Environmental Impact Report ~FEIR}
Subjet~ Appeal of the Planning Board Decision August I I ~', 2008,
Dear Mayor Johnson and Members of the City Council:
~~~~
acr_~z~
C ry C ERK'g OF ~~E
This letter and the comments that follow represent a true grassroots appeal to the City of Alameda Council.
The first and most immediate appeal to overturn the Planning Board decision and not certify the Final
environmental report until a new, reality-based traffic study is conducted of the traffic impacts.
The second appeal is to conduct major analyses that were omitted from both the 2003 Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the first I 12,000 square feet of gross floor area expansion and were also omitted from the
240b Draft Environmental Document for the second 49,100 square feet of gross floor area expansion. These
missing environmental studies include:
• air quality analyses,
• noise analyses and
• truck analyses
The Bay Area Quality Management District with Mr. Bill Norton as their acting Executive officer had in
2003' commented that air quality analyses should be conducted; however the City ignored the Air District
comment to do air quality analyses. The air quality analyses was necessary because the traffic estimate of
8700 vehicles per day is above the 2000 vehicles per day threshold that the Air District uses to require an
air quality analyses. This and the concern of seniors who have balconies and patios within 50 feet at the
~ ~ Letter to Greg w~ Planning and Building Director, from Mr. Bill Norton, Bay Air Quality Management Distr+ct may 12~', 2003 staffed , , ,. "we find your agency's air
quality analyses to be incomplete, and we are concerned about the proposed project's potential impacts upon air quality,"
C:ITTEIProposalsl2681 Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal.docxl.ast saved: 1411/2008 7:40:00 AM
Thomson Transportation Engineers, Inc. • 29b9 Johnson Ave • Alameda, CA 94541
Telephone ~5 i 0} 8b5- 1959 • Fax ~8b6} 302-6b57 • E-Mail: th ms n island ! m da om
Re: Agenda Item #6-B
~ 0.41.08
October 1, 2048
congested intersection of Otis and Park should have been alerted that air quality was a concern and air
quality analyses need to be performed for the expansions now totaling I b 1,100 square feet which with the
Safeway Gas Station, would result in 13,004 additional vehicles per day.
Truck analyses have not been performed to estimate the increase in volume for the noise and air quality
assessments and to da the engineering check for adequacy of roadway widths at the tight intersections. For
example, Broadway and Otis Drive east of Park are residential streets and currently tight geometry exists at
the Broadway and Otis Intersection which require trucks making a southbound right turn onto westbound
Otis Drive to sweep into the opposing eastbound lanes on Otis Drive. No engineering checks have been
included to verify if mitigations are needed. And noise problems have been cited by residents along the truck
route. However no noise analyses due to increase in truck traffic has been evaluated for the increase from
545,004 square feet of entitled Center size pre 2003. It should be noted that today's occupancy between
444,000 and 450,000 square feet For current site plan see below and for larger site plan and spreadsheet for
building by building estimated occupancy see Attachment A~.
~.~ __ .
1 ~ ~ -
~ n/M
R. R, ~
l i~~'Il~ill~ 1 ~-/1
11 ~ i l 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ K~,~ /
~~ ,.
~.~. ,
. ~ 0 ari, Irl mar-ivn's to
~. ~ .. i
Occupancy=
4aD,~D-
45D,DD0 sq. ft
Proposed. ~oT,aOn
~, ~ ~. ...
,.
~,
. ~~;.
1 ~ _:
_ ~!g
~.~~4Y'«~~,
._~~
vacant stores
MAST~RPLAN
ALAMEDA
Wr N
MAO M
.JMax
TCINNE CENTRE
1 ~..
-~
I~
Oar*-- ~
~~
,
cc~pancy as o~ Septem der 2D0~
estima#ad occupancy by buckling provided cn June 20, 2008
,~~~, sepsrafe sp~eadshe~e# and field verged Sept ig, 9"-601-0~
2~8
Otis Drive
.. _ . ~M,+ , ~.11~
WI .i ® ~ ~~ 1~.
-..~
algreens
~rra +~oo
~afev+rd _~~ Park
.. it .. .~.. _. ~ ~ `-
Bardars
~~
C:ITTEIProposals12b81 Alameda TargetlFEIR1FEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA kr to CC for ATC Appeal.docx - 2 - Last saved: 10/212008
7:40:00 AM
i4yr .. -- ..Y lt~ ~.'r~?
1'. 12 ~~.b ! ~ ~ ,
~~ . 1 r.' _ ~ ~ II
'W- - ......1 +1 ~ 1 1
- h4yl
'• ~:IY~ '1~~~:
,~V• 'lily 11+~^I~ ~I M
. - ~1.
October I, 2008
The third, underlying appeal is a plea for the City Council to adopt an open, transparent process when
analyzing proposed developments on Alameda Island-a process that places citizens squarely at the center of
every development debate; a process that recognizes that the very purpose of city government is to respond
to the concerns of its citizens; a process that emphasizes the "public" in the term "public servant."
That is, all of the Traffic reports were not made available to the public during the public comment period.
These reports were the primary bases for the summary traffic reports in the environmental documents. And
we the citizens were not able to either comment on these major parts of the environmental document nor
receive responses to our comments.
All the records supporting the traffic portions of the DEIR were at the consultant offices not at City Hall. It
took numerous emails and the City Attorney to finally receive a copy of the reports ~7 months after the
public comment period had closed}. In a larger sense, it simply should not be this difFcult or take this long for
the public to get accurate information and straightforward answers about a proposed development project
and we should be provided the complete environmental documents and our comments should be responded
to.
A discussion with Mr. Stu Flashman, a well known CEQA attorney, took place on July 9, 2008. Mr. Flashman
stated that the exclusion of the Traffic Technical Appendices not only is unusual, but unheard of in his
experience. He further stated that due the exclusion of traffic technical information, the DEIR substantially
relies on, makes the DEIR an incomplete document Judicial precedents have held that the underlying
technical information must be provided for public review and comment ane case pertinent to technical data
is shown in the footnote below.'
' 'See Protect the Hstaric Waterways v. Amadvr Water Agenry ~2004~ 116 Cal, App, 4~' 1099, I IOb. An EIR must ind~de_und~r-ITr~g t~chni.~~l data so readers can evaluate
the mndusions; technical data may relegate to appendices, Guidelines section 15147; San Frar~iscans ~Or Reasorrabk Growth v Gty and Caurny of San Frandsco ~198TJ 193,
App, 3d 1544
C:ITTEIProposals11681 Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallParket to CitylA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal,dooc - 3 - Last saved: I o1212008
7:40:00 AM
October I , 2008
Fourthly, no responses were provided to the comments or incorrect comments were provided. The
responses typically restated what was already in the DEiR and were responses without factual information.
As a result the FEIR is incomplete.
For example, FEIR did not SOUTH SHORE CENTER
respond to the factual HIGHEST SALES TAX CQMPARlSON
comment that the occupancy BY ECQNOMIC SEbMENTS/SALES TAXE5/YEAR
and activity of the Center Highest Year
, .
„
was significantly down when . , ~,
the existin
traffic
t DEPARTMENT STORES $30D,562 X996 $235,377 $65,185 $223,614 X78,948
g
coun
s FOOD MARKETS $2D4,915 2005 $168,830 ~36,D85 $204,915 $D
were obtained in 2002 and MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL $197,266 2pp0 $182,337 ~i4,929 $146,576 X50,690
RE57AURANTS $139,57D 2003 $123,838 X15,732 $121,516 X18,054
2005
Durin
both surve
s APPAREL STORES $159,923 1996 $109,377 X50,546 $96,243 -$63,680
.
g
y
, DRUG STORES $61,065 2005 $57,222 -$3,843 $61,065 $0
the sales tax revenue had OFFICE EQUIPMENT $59,168 2005 $54,953 X4,215 $59,168 $D
RECREATION PRODUCTS $27,142 Y005 $22,678 X4,484 $27,142 $D
dropped between 23 % and FURNITUREIAPPLIANCE $12,258 zoos $8,772 X3,4&4 $12,256 $D
LIQUOR STORES $5,577 1003 $5,025 -$552 $5,577 $0
3 I % according to City BU5INESS SERVICES $19,044 1998 $2,033 X17,011 $2,303 X16,741
AUTO PARTSIREPAIR $950 ?002 $950 $D $719 X231
Finance De artment
P FLORI5TINURSERY $1,835 1997 $684 X951 $570 ~1,D65
MISCELLANEOUS OTHER $57 2000 $42 $15 $35 X22
Records. The reS onse to
P BLDG.MAn5-WHSLE $1,010 '1996 $o -$1,010 $0 X1,010
LIGHT INDUSTRY $704 9997 $D X704 $D X704
this comment in the FEIR was MISC. VEHICLE SALES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SERVICE STATIONS $69,954 9996 $56,428 -$13,526 di $0 X69
954 di
that the h igher of the two ~ - T o~ T~.ia ~ ~s : ~~ ~ .. .... s~~~a;78s ~ , . ~ ~ ~:..: ~ s~ 02~ sari ~~.~~~~ z8~- .z~:58%: ,
~9B'1699 ~Z99 099. ~31.1~%
surveys were used. However, 5aurce: Gty of Alameda Sales Taxes (10 year corrparaon)
this had already been stated in the DEIR and did not address the effect of the poor sales in the traffic counts.
For example, there was no evaluation of the additional traffic due to the vacancies and poor business
activities during both these surveys. It appears an occupancy check was not done and as a result there was no
response.
Similarly no occupancy check appear to have been done when the Consultant performed the parking
demand survey in December of 2002 and as a result the parking rate of spaces per 1000 square feet is very
low. A recent parking demand survey at Alameda Towne Center on Saturday September 13~', X008
illustrated the parking demand rates were close to what the consultant had said would occur in a Christmas
season. That does not make sense because sales are usually double in the month of December versus
September when this recent parking survey was conducted hence again the consultant produced an unusual)
y
low parking demand estimate for the DEIR Traffic Study.
l The Cali forma Environmental Quality Act Tale 14, Chapter 3, Amide 7. E1R process
15088 Evaluation o f and Response to Comments
cj The written response shat! describe the dis~posipon a f srgrri ficant environmental issues raiseed. (~g revrsrons to the proposed project to mitigate arrtidpated ~ or objec~or~) In
parti~ui'ar, the major environmental issues raised when the lead Agenc}~s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the cammerr~ must be addressed in
detail giving reasons why specific reasons why specific comments and sugges~ons were not aaepted There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response..Conclusary
statements unsupported by factual in formatior+ will not st~ica.
z Parking Generation 3'~ Edition, by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, page 194 states sales of average months sales for the month of December is 174% while
September is 88% of the avenge month sales. ITE on page 197 shows the average parking demand rate for a Saturday peak as 4,74 vehides per 1000 s~. ft G!A in
December while on page 201. ITE shows the average parking demand rate for the peak period is ~9 vehicles per 1000 sq. ft GLA, for a non December Saturday,
TTE parking occupancy survey on Saturday Sept 13~', 2008 observed parking rates close to that for a non December rate in the ITE manual, The Consultant in the
Traffic Study had stated the December parking demand as per his survey was 3.01 vehicles per 1000 sq. ft, GLA
C:ITTEIProposals12b81 Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA ftr to CC for ATC Appeal,dooc - 4 - last saved: 1011!2008
7:40:00 AM
October I , 2408
An incorrect response was provided to the DEIR comment that no engineer was in responsible charge of the
traffic study as required by City Traffic Study Guidelines. The response to this comment in the FEIR was an
engineer was in responsible charge and had co-authored the traffic study. However, the records from the
City Finance Department showed no civil engineer had charged to the project to be in responsible charge or
to co author. Furthermore, the DEIR had indicated Mr. Peter Galloway the preparer of the Traffic Study, was
an engineer and he had been called a traffic engineer and the invoices indicated he was a traffic engineer and
billed as such. However Mr. Peter Galloway is neither an engineer nor a trafFc engineer, he is a
transportation planner. See a more detailed comment of the consultant including the lack of consultant
selection process. See detailed comment on page 17 and the invoices and contract of consultant in
Attachment H.
The pattern of responses to comments consistently supported the 2406 Traffic Study without factual
information; hence the comments were either not factually based ar not responded to. Additional discussion
on this point follows in the detailed comments starting on page 8.
At the request of a group of Alameda citizens, I have completed exhaustive reviews of the Traffic Studies
embodied in the 2003 Mitigated Negative Declaration for the first I 12,000 square feet expansion and those
traffic studies in the 2046 Draft Environmental Impact Report ~DEIR~ for the proposed additional 49,100
square feet expansion at Alameda Towne Centre and those additional traffic studies in the Final
Environmental Impart Report adopted on August I I ~', 2008 by the Alameda Planning Board.
Why was I asked to evaluate these documents, which supposedly was created for public consumption?
Quite simply, I was asked because the citizens themselves were stymied by the sheer volume and intrica of
c}'
these daunting, two inch-thick, techno-speaks volumes of the MND, the DEIR and then the FEIR. When
stacked these document reach to six or seven inches in height Even as a licensed civil and traffic engineer,
understanding the basis for the reports` conclusions required several days each time during the past several
years to fully understand.
The citQens who asked me to review the Traffic Studies were motivated by one, simple, common-sense uestion:
• .. q
How can a project o f thrs magnrtude have negl~g~ble or zero 1rr~pact on streets leading to and from ATC,
as the report concludes?
There is a simple answer to that question: the tra f ~c Study in the DFJR and that rn the 14D31V1itigated Negative
Declaration ane not reality-based. In fact, many of the assumptions that were used to form its conclusion zero traffic
impact on Broadway. ~r for example, the roadway capacity assumption employed for the Level of Service analyses
at the Otis Drive and Park Street Intersection are flatly wrong. As traffic engineers, we cannot foretell the future
with absolute accuracy, so we base our projections on a variety of assumptions about potential traffic impacts. Each
of these assumptions involves a range of values that we assign, based on the nature of the project The vast
majority of the time, the values fall in the middle of the range.
C:ITTEIProposals126$l Alameda TargetlEEIR1FEIR AppeaflPacket to Cit~+lA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal.dooc - 5 - Last saved:10121200$
7:40:00 AM
October I , 200$
Comparison of Trip Rates
2003 and 2006 DEIR rates and Shoppping
Centers
(Vehicle Trip ends/ Weedday PM Peak
Hour/1000 square feet of gross floor area )
35
~a
25
zo
t5
10
~~ ~
. ' . , . ~~
....,: -. -
---~ Previous
. ~. ~: .~ .. 112,D00 Sq Ft of
.:
- ~ - ~ ~ ~~ Retail at Town
- ~ - .~ , -
~~29: Center, Table 2
. ,
. _ -
_
- - ,, Estimates for
: ~.
:
: - ~
~ - - -:
- Baseline, DEIR
,
.
. , ~ -
. ~. -.
, - f _ _.
' f- Alameda Tawn
. - :
., :
.: ~-
~ ;;~ Center DEIR
- . " ..: .
~ ~
~ . ~..
' ~ ~
-f-Institute of
..
- : ~ ~ .~. , Transportation
= ~~~ - Engineers,
. ~ ~ .. ,~ _ ~ ; ~ ~ .. Freestanding
,~ ~ ' - .
-
n,.
~~ 1 fti ~ - -
~/.. .5 Discount Stores
1 - -
_
-
~ ._.. .
~ ~~ ~
~- Five Walmarts
.. .
- .- - ~.~.; , .. ~ .. (2003}
- :~a; -
- ~ ~
~ .-.. -~ Institute of
- ~'`
'
;r ~ ~3 ~7
~ ~ ~ Transportation
.
_ ~
'~ _
~- ;~2~,9
_ ~ ~
Engineers,
2.4 ;~ - -
- ~2.~2 ~ Shopping
_ _ .. Centers
0:
- -
;. ,
Minimum Average 4r Maximum
Used
Time after time, the consultants who conducted the
2003 and 200b Traffic Study assigned the lowest
possible value to the assumptions used for the
proposed expansions. They did this with respect to
defining the project type and size, baseline conditions,
traffic counts, trip generation, trip distribution and
impact analyses. With respect to trip generation alone,
the consultants used the lowest available trip rates
based on national studies without adjustment or
checking for local conditions and with data that had
signif icant variation and hence statistically required field
validation. For traffic counts, the consultants plugged in
numbers taken at a time when the shopping center's
sales were down 23 % and 3 I %. For roadway capacity
the consultant used higher geometries than existing, for
example, ignored that traffic utilization of the second
westbound through lane on Otis drive at Park Street
intersection is significantly reduced due to the
upstream one lane constraint The consultant in effect
assumed two lanes westbound unimpeded that is full
utilization of all four lanes and which field surveys
clearly illustrate is not happening due to tight upstream
geometry. This unqualified assumption had the effect of
reducing the traffic delay and improving the levels of
service results for the intersection of Qtis and Park
Street
These and other traffic assumptions were not validated.
Hence the Traffic Studies are not reality based.
C:1TTE1Proposals12681 Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to City1A ~- to CC for ATC Appeal.docx - b - Last saved: 10121200$
7:40:00 AM
October I , X008
In October 1006, Thomson Transportation Engineers
~TTE}and Traffic Data Services ~TDS} conducted
engineering field surveys at the key intersection of Otis
Drive and Park Street. These engineering field surveys
illustrated an amazing finding. The Traf~it Study
grossly underestimated the congestion. This
finding illustrates perfectly how misleading the results
can be when minimal and theoretical assumptions are
used.
one has to wonder: Why were the lowest-range
assumptions used repeatedly? Was it simply that
neither the consultant planner who prepared the 2006
Traffic Study, nor the engineer from the City, were
licensed civil engineers, as required by California state
law and as required by the City's Traffic Study
Guidelines?
Neither 1, nor the citizens who asked me to review
the Traffic Study, are against new development on
Alameda Island. An expansion of this magnitude from
545,000 to 706,000 square feet to a regional mall
should not be located on the beach side of the island,
where vehicles must travel through surrounding
neighborhoods to get to their destination. Typically,
Comparison of
Field Measured D I vs The Calculat d
D
2 b DEIR Tr #I'i Studi s
~t otis Drive and, Park Street
60 0 ~Vl/eekday PM peak
55.0 '~'~
5a.a
45.0
as
.~ 40
0
.
~ 35.0
a
c 30.0
0
~ 25.4
N
~; ~a
a
, .
o 15.0
I o.o
5.a
o.a
field Measured Existing "Existing Traffic
~200b) Conditons " 200b Traffic
study
regional malls are located on four- to six-lane arterials near freeways. Preferable locations for retail
expansion should be nearer the estuary which would be a more central location in their trade area. That was
our point in 2006 and we are glad Target is negotiating for a store near the Alameda tubes. At that time the
studies had not considered alternative sites for a Target store nor were alternatives sites considered for this
retail expansion.
The simple truth is this major expansion at Towne Centre project has not been evaluated properly. Anew,
reality-based Traffic Study is needed in order to give the citizens of Alameda a clear picture of the traffic
including truck impacts of the project on our community, particularly those who live along Broadway, Park,
High and Otis, Eighth and in the neighborhoods adjacent to the project. Alameda is an island - a small city
with a finite amount of land. We must give more careful consideration to the way we develop our limited
area than most cities. If we are to maintain our quality of life, we cannot afford to rush to judgment
The c~izens o f Alameda are not o~osed to growth; we are apposed to recldess grown for the benefit o f big developers.
We demand that our city government be open and inclusive. We implore the City Council to overturn the
Planning Board decision and not approve the FEIR for the Alameda Towne Centre project until areality-based,
technically correct assessment of its impacts can be presented and reviewed by the public. This is the democratic
process on which our country was founded. The attached comments clearly indicate the need for a new Traffic
Study, that the FEIR is substantially incomplete and that our comments were not responded to.
C:ITTEIProposalsl2b81 Alameda TargetlFEIR1FEIR AppeallPacket to Cit~-IA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal.do« - 7 - Last saved: 10!?1~008
7:40:00 AM
October I , 2008
Following the detailed comments are attachments A through I including the City Traffic study guidelines.
We recommend the City Council do the following:
I. OVERTURN THE PLANNING BDARD DECISION AND RE ECT the associated FEIR
granting further expansion rights to the developers of Alameda Towne Centre.
2. Insist that the developer complete all aspects of the project that have already been approved and then
insist they complete all conditions of the first Planned Development Agreement
These conditions include bicycle facilities and other amenities such shopping cart corrals and landscaping,
the required mitigations, construction of site sidewalks, widening of internal driveways so the fire trucks,
delivery truck and buses fit within the roadways.
3. Then -and only then ~-conduct new, reality-based environmental studies for any further expansion.
Allow ample time for thorough public review and comment on the new evaluations.
The bottom line is that tra f tic, noise and air quality doesn't lm~a~t roadways; it impacts ~eo~le.
!t impacts quality o f Ii fe, health and we! fare.
Respectfully .~.~--~_--~._.---.-~
~~.
N -r,
/~
Eugenie .Thomson P.E., PTE
Consulti g Civil and Traffic Engineer
N~.1~3 8 +~r„'
# E~ ~~r~~~ae ~
5
~~
~~~,'~~~~+~ F ~~ ~~~~~~
F ~A~.~
~ ~ ~~~~~~
~~`~ ~ '~ tea,
'~ h~~~ ~~8~2
~ ~
~~ E~gp.3/81JOq ~
f
~? C ~~/
C;ITTEIProposalsl2b81 Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA Itr- to CC for ATC Appeal.dooc - 8 - Last saved: I o12l2408
7:40:Q0 AM
October I , 2008
COMMENTS
Traffic Studies, Final Environmental Impact Report August 2008
Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Shopping Center)
Consider the following:
1. Peer Review by Dowling Transportation upon which the Planning Board relied in making ~teir
August ~1th decision is seriously flawed and not prepared by a professional engineer.
The City staff hired DowlingTransportation atthe end of July to prepare a Peer review of theTraffic Study in the
DEIR.The memo in the Planning board packet is datedAugust 5th, 2008.This memo was prepared by a
transportation planner who is working on theTransportatron element update on the General Plan amendment
The three findings in the Peer review memo are seriously flawed.A discussion is provided below.
First, DowlingTransportation states the methodologies are consistent with City Guidelines.
We disagree for the following reasons,
• No civil engineer signed the traffic study because no civil engineer worked on theTraf~c Study as
required by the Cit~sTrafiic Study guidelines.
• The Highway Capacity Manual guidelines were not followed as required by the City Guidelines in
calculation of levels of service impacts. See our discussion below how the consultant did not account
for upstream nor short turn pockets in estimating the roadway capacities and
The consultant failed to verify national trip rates versus local conditions and other procedures set forth
in the institute of Transportation Engineers guidelines for trip generation, parking demand generation
and other procedures.
Second DowlingTransportation,statesche volume assumptions for baseline conditions are conservative.
Dowling states in paragraph one on page two the following:
...the higher o f the 2002 and 2005 turning movements were used to represent existing condi~on....N Since a portion off'
the approved protect was bunt in 1005 existing volumes, double counting o f these trips may poten~ally occur.
This finding is incorrect because in 2005 the shopping center was well below the pre 2003 entitled size of
545,000 square feet InApril of 2005 when the counts were obtained, neitherWalgreens nor Safeway had been
constructed.
C:ITTEIProposals126$ (Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal.dooc - 9 - Last saved: 101?J2048
7:40:40 AM
October i , 200$
The third and last finding by DowlingTransportation is theTrafflc Study is conservative for the future year or
2030 cumulative condition. Dowling bases this finding on the fact stated as follows:
Again this approach lends to be conservative .....................
This may explain why the cumulative volumes used in this Report are substantially higher than those in the Transportation
Element F1R even though the horizon year for the Transpo-~tation Element EJR is 2030. For instance, the roadway volume
on Otis Drive east o f ParkAvenue is about 44% higher in the Report in theAM peak hour and about !5 percent higher
in the PM peak hour.
We disagree that the future year analyses in
the Traffic Study is conservative because the
data used by Dowling is seriously flawed. That
is, the 2030 cumulative traffic from their
Transportation Element for Otis east of Park
Avenue is mistakenly the same as or less than
existing counts for Otis Drive from the City
Files. obviously the traffic model in the
General Plan is flawed in this area and this
report has not been approved. See graph and
for the City existing counts and Peer review
memo see Attachment I}
Comparison of Traffic
Data for Otis Drive
East of Park
City of Alameda Count
for 2004
Dowling's estimate for
Cumulative Year 2430
Therefore, for the above reasons the Peer review
is flawed and cannot be relied upon.
We have made requests for the factual information
upon which the Peer review document is based.
None has been made available and we have been
told that the Transportation Element is what was
ATC DEIR estimate for
2025 with project,
Figure 14A, 2006 DEIR
^ Vehicles per hour during the PM Peak Hour
^ Vehicles per hour during the AM Peak Hour
relied upon and was inserted recently into the administrative records for the ATC expansion files at the
Planning Department» As per our Public record requests and review of the records at City Hall, no other
information exists except the brief Dowling memos one dated August 5~' and a later memo not used by the
Planning Board and dated August 6~' and then one invoice.
2. Appropriate nodce and response periods have not been allowed.
provided extensive written comments to the DEIR. The City did not contact me the responses were
available; much less send me a copy electronically or via regular mail. Those who were contacted
received the notice at a point so near the deadline for comments, they had no time to review the almost
400-page FEIR -especially considering the Fourth of July weekend. C. Yeaton Risley received her notice
on June 27, 2008, and the written comments were due before July 7.
I made this comment at the July 14~'~ Planning Board Hearing when I had not been contacted and the
Planning Director did not respond to my email in which I had suggested a continuance so we could
C:ITTEIProposalsl2b81 Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA kr to CC for ATC Appeal,dooc - I o - Last saved: 1012!2008
7:40:40 AM
0 50010001500 2000 2500
October I , 2008
provide written comment to the FEIR. The Planning Board re-noticed the hearing; however, only I was
added to their previous notification list between the new 500 foot radiuses from the project boundaries.
ethers still have not been contacted, that are those who attended the October 2006 DEIR Planning
Board hearing to provide oral comments and who provided written comments, and the residents along
Broadway and other impacted streets have not been contacted.
3. The FEIR gready increases the scope of the Traffic Assessment
The FEIR adds six more intersections for the Traffic Impact Assessment of the project. This is an
increase of almost 50 percent in traffic scope. The FEIR includes a whole new Traffic Study. This
significant increase should require a recirculation of the DEIR to allow for public review, and the
comment and responses process.
4. Many of my previous comments appear to have been ignored.
My comment letter with attachments was 14 pages long. only I b pages of my letter were included in the
FEIR. The excluded eight pages were attachments supporting my comments and were referenced in the
letter. Another copy of the complete letter is provided in Attachment B. The lack of attachments
appears to have resulted in incomplete responses; those writing the responses ignored factual data
supporting my comments,
5. Technica! data and analysis documents, the Traffic Technical Appendices, have not been
made available during the public comment period for the DEIR.
The Traffic Technical Appendices to the Draft Environmental Impact Report were not attached to the
DEIR and were not available from the City during the public comment period of the DEIR. '
~ From: Teresa Highsmith [mailto:THIGHSMI@a.alamedaca.us]
Send Thursday, May 3 I, 240712:23 PM
To: ethomson@ttealamedacom
CG Kurita, Debra; Smith, Cheryl; Woodbury, Cathy
Subjet~ f m' T hni I di 2 2
Dear Ms. Thomson,
The Planning Department has just received copies of the 2003 and 244b draft and final draft Tedmial Appendices for the Transportation and Parking Impacts for the
Proposed South Shore Shopping Center 6~ansion Project from the consultant, Omni-Means. Copies of these documents are available for your review in the City
Atxarne~s Cuff ce
I do not have the documents available in electronic format, and the length of the document makes electronic transmission through a converged PDF file prohibitive If
you would like to review the documents, please all the Cty Atgorne~s office X747-4750} between 8:34 am. and 5:00 p.m. to schedule an appointment, and we c~
arrange for you to have an area to sit at City Hall to review the documents.
Regards, Terri Highsmith
City Attorney
C:ITTEIProposals12b8I Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal.docx - I I - Last saved: 10121240$
7:40:00 AM
October I , 2008
My comment letter of October 2, 2006, requested the technical analyses identified as appendices and
referenced in the DEIR. This information was not provided during the public comment period of the
DEIR. The Cit}~s response to my request was that this information, customarily, is not provided. ~FEIR
response to Comment 23-8 and my comment 2 in ~rtober 2006 letter is provided in Attachment C.}
I made Public Records Art requests in order to get this information, and the Traffic Technical Appendices
were made available on May 3 I , 2007, seven months after the Public comment period ended. The Traffic
Technical Appendices for both the 2003 Mitigated Negative Declaration and for the 2006 DEIR were in
the consultant's offices, not at City Hall. How could the City ever review and approve them if they did
not have a copy These documents should have been sitting on a shelf in the City's offices.
A list of all emails and public record requests is provided in Attachment C. Ittook atime-consuming,
exhaustive effort, which most people would not pursue, to get the information. It appears the City of
Alameda's staff is committed to closed government ether underlying technical data were requested, as
shown in our meeting minutes copy of emails provided in Attachment D~.
How ran the FEIR be complete if the public was not allowed to review and comment on all the
underlying traffic technical data and analyses that formulated the results summarized and referenced in
the DEIR during the public comment period?
Other agencies make the technical information available, and the documents for other Alameda projects
-such as Northern Waterfront, Catullus Alameda Landings and others -provided the level of service
calculations. For the Northern Waterfront project, the level-of-service calculations were called the
Traffic Reporr! It is unusual not to provide such technical data and contrary to the standards of practice.
A discussion with Stu Flashman, a well known CEQA attorney, took place on July 9, 2008. Mr. Flashman
stated that the exclusion of the Traffic Technical Appendices not only is unusual, but unheard of in his
experience. He further stated that due the exclusion of traffic technical information, the DEIR
substantially relies on, makes the DEIR an incomplete document Judicial precedents have held that the
underlying technical information must be provided for public review and comment one case pertinent
to technical data is shown in the footnote below.'
6. The Traffic Analysis does not correlate wi#h existing conditions.
Many in our community, especially the residents along Otis Drive, are well aware that the intersection of
Park Street and Otis Drive is very heavily used, and traffic currently overflows out of the turn pockets
into the through lanes. The residents along Otis Drive have difficulty backing out of their driveways due
to the congestion on Otis Drive.
As a result of the major omission of the Traffic Technical Appendices, we were unable to comment on
~ See Protect the Histodc Waterways v. -4madar Water Agenc}- ~2004~ 116 Cal. App, 4~' 1099, 1106, An EIR m indude underlyi~nial data so readers can evaluate
the condusions; technical data may relegate to appendices. ~Guidefines Section 15147; San Franr~cans far Reasona6k Growth v, Gty and County o f San Frandsco [1987] 193,
App. 3d 1544.
C:ITTEIProposals12681 Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR ApPeallPacket to CitylA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal.dooc - 12 - Last saved: I QI?1~008
7:4:00 AM
October I , 2008
this traffic problem at the intersection of Otis Drive and Park Street or to ascertain how the consultant
assessed the short turning pockets and congestion.
The summary of the Feld delay survey below illustrates that the existing delays were higher than shown
in the DEIR. The survey was conducted on September2$th, 2006, when the shopping center was, not
fully occupied. At that time, its size was estimated at 300,000 brass square feet Complete survey data is
proviaea in Httacnment u and the graph below provides a comparison
m i n fFil M r DI Th I I DI
in h Z 2 T ffi i
h K !n r ' n
f i Driv P k r
k PM c
60,0
55.0
52,4
50.0
46.8 '
4b.3
45.0
m
'`-'
r 40.4 `'
;_-
~ 3G
8 ,,
` .
d 35
a
35.0 ~r
~,~.
c
30.5 4
~_
.
-
o
3o.a
,-, -- f
IA ' J.
.~ ,'~ 24.9
~ 25
0 ~,`
- .
_
D
2a.4 ~~.
,,:
-
~;
15.0 :.,
I o.4
- ~~ -
5.4 - - =
0.0
field measured "Existing Traffic "Baseline "Baseline plus "Yr 2025 "Yr 2025 "Existing Traffic "Baseline "Baseline plus "Yr 2020 "rr zo2a
Sept 06 Conditons " Conditions Project", 200b Cumulative Cumulative with Conditions", Conditions Project", 2003 Cumulative Cumulative with
2006 Traffic without Project", Traffic Study without Project", Project", 2006 2003 Traffic without Project", Traffic Study without Project" , Project', 2003
Study 2006 Traffic 2006 Traffic Traffic Study Study 2003 Traffic 2003 Traffic Traffic Study
Study Study Study 5wdy
C:ITTEIProposals12681 Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal.dooc - 13 - Last saved: 1012/2008
7:40:00 AM
October I , 204$
1. Limitations of the Highway Capacity Manual were not addressed by the consultant
Upon a review of the Traffic Technical Appendix, it is clear the consultant did not account for the
limitations of the Highway Capacity Manual HCM} methodology employed in the DEIR to calculate the
traffic impacts. That is likely the reason why the delays in the DEIR are lower than the existing field-
measured delay at this intersection.
The Steps for Adjustments is missing, considering the tight geometry and the downstream congestion at
Otis and Park. Most importantly, if Consultant had field verified his theoretical results at the time of the
analyses, he would have noticed that the utilization of the lanes is significantly restricted and less than he
assumed in the calculation.
The basic underlying assumption in the HCM is that intersections have reasonable roadway geometries.
Therefore, the HCM clearly points out the limitation in their methodology as follows:
LlM1TATloNS To THE METHODOLOGY
`the methodology does not take into account the potential impact o f downstream congestion
on intersection operation. Nor does the methodology detect and adjust for impacts a f turn
pocket over f rows on through tragic and intersection operation.
Page I ~- I ,Chapter I ~ -Signalized Intersections Introduction, Highway Capacity Manual 2444,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Copy of page included in Attachment E.}
The consultant made no adjustments to the HCM methodology for the short turn pockets and the
downstream congestion at Otis and Park; hence the Traffic Study does not address the operational traffic
effects of the project on the streets. For example, the method does not recognize the reduction in
capacity for the two eastbound lanes through on Otis Drive as a result of the immediate two to one lane
drop on the other side of Park Street ~i.e. towards Bay Farm Bridge}, overflows of left turn pockets, nor
were effects of the bicyclists considered and the high activity of pedestrian actuations. And the method
does not recognize the one westbound lane on Otis Drive approaching Park Street often blocks access
to the additional three lanes at the stop bar ~i.e. The left turn pocket; to the second through lane and the
right turn lane}.
Conversely, one can say because the consultant did not adjust his analysis for the short turn pockets and
downstream congestion in his technical analyses, he assumed those limitations would not exist in the
future. That is, the consultant's base geometry for Otis Drive would have included two through lanes for
both eastbound and westbound on Otis Drive continuous to Broadway from Park and that there would
be a much longer westbound left-turn lane on Otis Drive. The analysis also appears to have assumed no
transit, few if any pedestrians and no activity tolfrom the residential driveways between Park Street and
Broadway. .
Having said this, the Traffic Study is a theoretical study with the assumed fictional geometry above and
other fictional assumptions. Since these do not exist, the Traffic Study is not reality-based.
Furthermore, our field check simply illustrated the overflows, etc., and the Technical Appendices were
not provided to the public in order for citizens to understand the underlying technical assumptions.
C:ITTEIProposals12681 Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR ApPeallPacket to CitylA ltr to CC for ATC Appeal.docx - 14 - Last saved:101?12008
7:40:00 AM
October 1, 2008
It is for this reason we believe it is possible the intersection of Otis and Park would have an unavoidable
significant traffic impact for both the l 12,000 square feet that was approved in 2003 and the current
proposals. We, the public, were not informed of this likely impact, nor were we allowed to comment on
it It is possible the mitigation assumed in 2003 for the intersection that was the right-turn lane and
signal-phasing changes did improve the operations, but it appears not to perform to the level anticipated
in the 2003 MND.
The other intersections in the Traffic Study likely followed similar theoretical procedures without realistic
checks against existing geometry. Hence, the overall study is suspect and we, the public, would like to
comment and receive responses on the Traffic Technical Appendix as we have done above for the one
intersection at Park Street
S. The Traffic Analysis does not even attempt #o compare observed Alameda dip rates to the
nafional rates published by ITE.
In Master Response 15, the FEIR concludes that comparing
the traffic counts to the total proposed trips for Towne
Center is akin comparing apples and oranges. It is further
stated driveway intersection counts always differ from the
theoretical trip generation calculations and the traffic counts
include the traffic associated with the residences, post office
and buses.
My comment 8 to the DEIR was made as a reality check of
the theoretical calculation that employed a national trip
generation rate from the Institute of Transportation
Engineers for Shopping Centers handbook to estimate total
traffic to the existing shopping center and to see if Alameda's
local conditions can vary from the national trip generation
rates.
Our letter stated we "derived" the existing volume data,
that is, we discounted the counts for other traffic such as
residences, post office and buses. See label on the graph in
my letter of October and letter attachment A; a complete
copy is provided in Attachment C, where we provided a
table that showed the reductions for other uses. So, it was
not comparing apples and oranges. The estimate of the
other traffic was an educated guess, and these could be
higher, however, even if so, the large difference would still
illustrate the local trip generation trip rates are significantly higher than the national rates from ITE.
The consultant did not do a reality check of the theoretical assumption in the applicability of the national
rate. In our opinion, a professional should check critical theoretical assumptions. The ITE rates are
known to differ for specif is uses and local characteristics. For example, national rates cannot be used for
C:1TT~IProposals126$ I Alameda TargetlFEIR1FEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal.dooc - 15 - Last saved:10121200$
7:40:00 AM
October I , 2008
a Trader Joe store, primarily because its operation per square foot is extremely high and differs from
large grocery stores included in the national ITE trip generation rate survey database.
Comment is simply that -even though the Traffic Study itself, via the counts, shows higher trips tolfrom
the shopping center -the study theorizes that, by using a national rate, the future traffic tolfrom the
shopping center will significantly drop, even though the shopping center traffic will increase by up to 30%.
That does NAT make sense.
The City of Alameda should verify the trip generation rates when possible before using the national rates.
The Alameda Towne Center could generate more single trips to the malls because of its proximity to
neighborhoods compared to other regional malls in the national data base. Also the tremendous amount
of variation in the national data for trip rates fora 700,000 type of mall is reason alone that statistically
the data requires field validation.
Also, an orchard Supply Hardware is not likely to have significant passer-by or linked trips such as
expected in standard shopping centers in the national ITE data base. The typical customer goes to a
hardware store when doing projects, not when they are going on a general shopping trip. And many of
the trips tolfrom Towne Center are single trips such as to Trader Joe, Grocery Stores, Office Maxx etc.
It is possible this local characteristic is why the local traffic trips tolfrom Towne Center are higher than
the national ITE trip rate which includes malls of ail sizes, from studies back in the 19b0's etc.
In essence, I received no response to my comment that the DEIR should have considered and
determined a local trip generation rate for Towne Center if local field counts show otherwise. The
responder ignored the significance of the comparison of existing counts to theoretical estimates.
9. My comment regarding comparing occupancylsales tax revenues #o fraf~c counts was
ignored.
I commented that during both 2002 and 2005, when the counts were made, the sales tax revenues for
Towne Center were significantly down from past years. See comment 4. Master Response 18 states the
2002 counts were used because these were higher at the driveways along Otis Drive.
I received no response to this comment. That is, in 2002, sales were down. Where is the occupancy
check of the buildings or use of the overall sales tax revenue data from the City to assess what the full
occupancylactivity would have been in 2402? These counts are now also six years old; a back check
should be done for through traffic increases, if any. The traffic impact assessment is based on existing
traffic counts that were obtained at a time when the shopping center's sales were low.
Factual Data: The Traffic Study states that 2002 existing traffic counts were used for four intersections,'
three of which are on Otis Drive and one on Park Street. For the remaining nine intersections selected
for the study, traffic counts were taken during 2005. In 2002, the shopping center was not fully occu led
P
~ The 200 traffic volumes used in d1e study encompassed the following four intersections: Qtisl4ff'ice Max driveway, 4tislTrader Joe's driveway, Oas DrivelPark
Street, Park Streetlnorthern project driveway,
C:ITT81Proposalsl2681 Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal.docx - I b - Last saved; 10/212008
7:40;00 AM
October I , 2008
due to the anticipated renovation. In 2005, the center was under construction and only partial)
. Y
occupied. City of Alameda sales tax data ~Ilustrates clearly that the shopping center's sales were 22% and
3 I % lower in 2002 and 2005 than during the center's peak periods. For example, no gas station was
onsite in 2005. See the table below, which uses City of Alameda data to compare sales tax receipts for
South Shore Center over aten-year period.}
SOUTH SHORE CENTER
HIGHEST SALES TAX COMPARISON
BY ECONOMIC 5E6MENT5/SALES TAXESNEAR
EPARTMENT STORES Highest Year
$300,562
996
235,371
~ ~~
~-
-$65,185 -
223,614
~ ~r
~ ..
-$75
948 .
FOOD MARKETS $204,915 20D5 $168,830 -$36,085 $204,915 ,
$0
MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL $197,266 2000 $182,331 -$14,929 $146,576 -$50
690
RESTAURANTS $139,570 2003 $123,838 -$15,132 $121,516 ,
-$18
054
APPAREL STORES $159,923 1996 $109,317 -$50,546 $96,243 ,
-$63
680
DRUG STORES $61,065 2005 $57,222 -$3,843 $61,065 ,
$0
OFFICE EQUIPMENT $59,168 2005 $54,953 -$4,215 $59,16$ $0
RECREATION PRODUCTS $27,142 1405 $22,618 -$4,464 $27,142 $0
FURNITUREIAPPLIANCE $12,256 2DD5 $8,172 -$3,484 $12,256 $0
LIQUOR STORES $5,577 2005 $5,025 -$552 $5,577 $0
BUSINESS SERVICES $19,044 1998 $2,033 -$17,011 $2,3D3 -$16
741
AUTO PARTSIREPAIR $950 2002 $950 $0 $719 ,
-$231
FLORISTINURSERY $1,635 999T $684 -$951 $570 -$1
065
MISCELLANEOUS OTHER $57 FOOD $42 -$15 $35 ,
-$22
BLDG.MATLS-WHSLE $1,010 1996 $0 -$1,010 $0 -$1
010
LIGHT INDUSTRY $l04 7991 $0 -$704 $0 ,
_$704
MISC. VEHICLE SALES $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SERVICE STATIONS $69,954
T.:O T A.'L S.- .. $~~,Z6~~798~:.
Source: City of Alameda Sales Taxes (1 D year comparison) 1996
. ~ $56,428
~~$~1Q2$~54fi~ -$13,526 dill
~~-=$2;3~252`:~22:5$%~ $0
- :$9fi~f.,fi99 -$69,954 dill
~$Z9~,4~9~ ti31.~4%
Did the Final Environmental impact Report FEIR} respond to this DEIR comment
Answer: No the FEIR did not respond to this comment. See the response from the FEIR and discussion.
~Vlas~er Response IS
Baseline Tra~fzc Counts
A number of commenters guertioned the use of 2002 tra~zc count data in the tra~ic analy~ir for this EIR instead of the 2005
counts During the transportation analysis for the current 2005 project proposal, it u~ar ob.reroed that some of the eari.rting
Alameda Toivne Center's retail buildings were vacant or under construction. Nezv intersection turning movement counts
conducted for the current project j~roposal were conducted during the 2005 analysis, but for certain locations, the 2005 counts
were lower than the 2002 counts for the same location. It ~va.r determined that the decrease in tra~ac avas the result of certain
areas of the center being closed for construction. It wa r then determined that previous tra~ic counts for drive2vayr and intersections
located along Otis Drive and Park Street would therefore provide a more con.reruative and accurate estimate of the tra~ic volumes
from the existing shopping center once the current construction activities mere concluded. The tra~/zc counts conducted for the
C:ITTEIProposals12681 Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal.docx -17 - Last saved: 1412/2008
7:40:00 AM
October I ,1008
current project proposal ~vere not as high at .~ecific intersections. In those cases, the ptev~ous (mote consetvat~Ye)
counts were used at these ~ntersect~ons. ~'herefare, the E~'A provides the most conservative possible estimation of the
proposed ampacts of the pr jest.
The response in the FEIR is false; neither year would be a conservative existing base because in both ears
y
the sales were down significantly. It appears, the Consultant did not verify the occupancy of the sho in
PP g
centre and hence did not consider the additional traffic associated with the vacancies or for improved normal
business performance to correctly assess the existing conditions upon which all the impact assessments are
based. .
1 ~. The City's response that a Professional Engineer was in responsible charge is not su orbed
pp
by the record.
My comment 16 received an incorrect response. This comment stated that a Professional Engineer did
not prepare the Traffic Study. The FElR response was that George Nickelson was the engineer in
responsible charge and the co-author to the Traffic Study, and Mr. Galloway was the transportation
Planner.
Berponre to Comment 23-22 (comment 76):
George W. Nickelson, P.E. is a licensed civil and traffic engineer with 4mnl-Means and has over 35 years
experience in transportation engineering. His Cali forma State Board o f Registration number for Civil Engineering is
#13 t 4 ! and for Tra~rc Engineering is #900. George would be characterized as the co-author and pnnci !e
reviewer o f the tra~rc report and the report was prepared under his responsible charge. Also with ~mnr'-Nleans,
Peter f .Galloway, is a practiung trans~ortatlon ~~anner with 13 years ex~errence in tie traffic engrneerrngl~lannin
g
f eld. Ne is the coauthor o f the traffic report and works closely with George Nickelson on all tra~r~ related
projects.
We disagree for the following reasons:
No professional engineer signed the Traffic Study of the DEIR. The city files show no engineer was
involved in preparation of the Traffic Study. All correspondence and communication is with Peter
Galloway, a Transportation Planner.
The City's policies in the Traffic Study guidelines require that a Professional Engineer must be in
responsible charge, and the State Business and Professions Code requires a Civil Engineer for any work
involving changes of fixed work within infrastructure, such as recommendation to roadway modifications.
See my comment I b for the State Business and Professions Code sections.
Based on the contracts and all the invoices during the work for the DEIR, Omni Means billed the Ci a
ry
total of $G9,b40.44 from 3/1/2005 to 311107 for DEIR contract For the DEIR contract, a Consultant no
name provided charged 7 hours; Mr. Peter Galloway, Traffic Engineer 3, char ed 491 hours, and a
Technician charged 3 hours . See Attachment H for all invoices and Cityl~mni Means contract and
amendments.
C:1TTE1Proposals12b81 Alameda TargetlFEIR1FEIR Ap~eallPacket to City1A Itr to CC far ATC Appeal,dooc - I S - Last saved:141212048
1:44:00 AM
October I , 2448
Mr. Nickelson is not shown on any of the invoices.. It is possible he was the consultant who charged a
total seven hours in 2445 which the invoice state was for a meeting in one invoice for the two hours
charged, however no task description was provided for the consultant's 5 hours in December of 2445 in
the second invoice. The too few hours cannot be someone who co-authored the report nor for
someone who was the engineer in responsible charge who then would sign the Traffic Study, Mr.
Nickelson did not sign the Traffic Study in the DEIR; in fact, no Professional Engineer did.
In addition, Mr. Galloway's qualifications were not available at City Hall. No title was shown in his
correspondence. The DEIR in the list of preparers it states he is the only preparer and the title of
Engineer is shown after his name. We asked Public Works if they had his qualifications, however, they
did not have these. V. Patel, of Public Works, who was the primary reviewer, understood he was a
Traffic Engineer. In public testimony on many occasions, Doug Garrison has referred to Mr. Galloway
as a Traffic Engineer. We now know from the response in the FEIR that Mr. Galloway is transportation
planner not a Traffic Engineer as other claimed he was, not a Traffic Engineer as billed the City and not
the Engineer as shown in the list of preparers of the DEIR. See list of preparers in the DEIR
As past Board Member of the Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, where I had the title
position, it is my opinion that the use of the title in invoices and then not using titles in correspondence is
a violation of the Board Rules. Also, the contract with the City identif ed a staff engineer who would be
doing the work. The public should have been provided the correct qualifications of the preparers of the
documents, and the City s incorrect in stating they followed City policy in that a professional engineer co-
authored the Traffic Study. That is not true. The invoices and contracts are provided in Attachment H.
In addition, there was no consultant selection process for this contract Omni Means was suggested by
Harsch. The consultant contract is well above the sole source limit We believe it is currently close to
$154,000 for Omni Means. Attachment H includes the invoices we received from the City Finance
Department Also Mr. George Nickelson of Omni Means worked directly for Harsch on the Walgreen
construction plans in between the two environmental documents hence obtained services as a result of
the certification of the environmental studies he was involved in.
C:ITTEIProposals12b8I Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to CitylA Itr to CC for ATC Appeal,dooc - 19 - Last saved: ! 411!200$
7:40:00 AM
October I, 2008
ATTACHMENTA
Site Plan with occupancy data as of September 2008
ATTACHMENT B
City of Alameda Guidelines for Preparation of Traffic Studies and Report August 200 I
Amended November 28, 2005}
ATTACHMENT C-
Copy of Thomson comment letter to the DEIR, October 2, 200
ATTACHMENT D-
Copy of ail emails to obtain supporting DEIR documents
ATTACHMENT E-
Intersection Delay Survey for Park Stand Otis Drive September 28, 2006
ATTACHMENT F
Excerpts from the Highway Capacity Manual 2x00
ATTACHMENT G-
Excerptsfrom the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Handbook Second Edition, June
2004
ATTACHMENT H-
~mnilcity of Alameda InvoiceslContrac~s
ATTACHMENTI
Dowling Peer Review memo and Existing Traffic Data, DEIR Forecast Data
C:ITTEIProposals1268I Alameda TargetlFEIRIFEIR AppeallPacket to City1A Itr to CC for ATC Appeal.docx - 20 - Last saved:1012120~8
7:q~:OD AM
The attachments to this document are on file in the
Office of the City Clerk.
APPELLANT`S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
October 2, 2008
Mayor Beverly Johnson
Vice Mayor Tam
Councilmember deHaan
Councilmember Gilmore
Councilmember Matarrese
~~~~~
ocr - 2 Zoos
CITY O~ ALAME~A
CITY CLERK'S OFFI['F
RE: Appeal of Environmental Impact Report for Alameda Towne Centre
Appeal of Planned Development Amendment PDA 05-0004
- Business Hours and Deliveries: Items 9 and Io
rt Outdoor Activities: Item 8d. Maintenance
I urge the City Council to uphold the appeal of the Planning Board's approval of the EIR and
Hours of Operation for Alameda Towne Centre.
The EIR approved by the Planning Board on August ~ 1, X008 indicates that further expansion of
Alameda Towne Centre will not have any significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
The Planning Board also approved items in the PDA which extend business hours from 6 a.m. to
1Z:D0 a.m, and allow ~4 hour deliveries and maintenance activities. Based on input from Doug
Garrison and Harsch, the Planning Board felt these conditions were reasonable and would have
no negative impact on the neighborhood.
However, residents of Alameda strongly disagree. when asked how their quality of life, health
and sleep have been affected by Alameda Towne Centre, here is what residents said:
"Constantly being woken up due to vendors not observing reasonable hours or noise levels in
deliveries and services. This is a real quality of life issue for me."
Tom Fogarty, Otis Drive
"Wake up often with the noise in the middle of the night"
"The shopping center seems to get whatever they want ... they control city government,"
Norbert and Cynthia Matthews, Dtis Drive
"There is already enough traffic an Otis Drive created by the shopping center. We do not need
more truck noise day and night ... increased diesel emissions have a bad effect on our
health and asthma condition." E. Crobath, Otis Drive
"impact studies need to be done prior to decision making."
"Why do business hours need to be extended? Residents are entitled to quiet
enjoyment, Is this violation of an individual's right being considered?"
"The homeowners deserve to be protected from City Planning's ridiculous proposal."
N. Palmer, Otis Drive
"Often awakened by late night, early morning trucks, cleanup and construction"
Steve Matthews, Otis Drive
"Noise and vibrations from delivery trucks shake the apartment frequently." Re. Agenda Item #6-B
Trina Oberlander, Otis Drive ~ O-Ol-D$
Page 1 of 4
APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
"My wife is awakened most mornings by trucks." Fred Reid, Broadway
"Trucks come by and the house shakes like an earthquake"
"Can't open windows because of dust from trucks, Can't get out of driveway"
"24 Hour truck deliveries and maintenance is outrageous."
"City officials don't return phone calls" Emily and Joe Shea, Otis Drive
"More traffic on Broadway will mean more noise, more dust and more danger to our children,"
Michael Chen, Broadway
"If Alameda is no longer a quiet, clean, green, and safe island, residents will be scared away."
Jane Chen, Broadway
"There has been a significant increase in noise and air pollution."
"I'm angry that city representatives represent investors' interests."
Jack L, Roosevelt Dr
"Alameda resident since 1976 ... Never had breathing problems before."
"Dv not allow longer hours and more traffic to ruin our quality of life."
John Cashman, Roosevelt Dr
"Every time a truck goes by, it feels like an earthquake. We have four children and worry about
asthma and fumes."
Matt and Andrea Ruport, Otis Dr
"I have a family of five. Traffc conditions on Otis have made it challenging to keep them safe
and healthy. We get a lot of dust and pollution."
Chris and Phyllis Call, Otis Dr
"The noise and traffic from South Shore has dramatically increased over the past several years.
"There is a noticeable increase in dirt and dust in the house."
"I cannot sleep with a bedroom window open because I hear the traffic and trucks at night and
in the early morning."
"I hear car radios thumping and people swearing and shouting at each other as they struggle
down Otis,"
"How much more can we take? is it appropriate to have a regional mall that is only accessible via
residential streets?"
Brenda Benner, Park Ave
"Speeding traffic is my main concern. The City needs to take steps to stop increased traffc."
Mike Henneberry, Qtis Drive
"Noise Pollution" Danielle and Laurent Demerle, Broadway
"I can't sleep well at night and need to wear ear plugs,"
"Can't keep my windows open due to noise." Xuan Quach, San Jose Ave
"We love our island city, but the traffic has been horrible over the last few years."
"Broadway has become a freeway for trucks." Mary Stagnaro, Broadway
"Homeowner on Broadway for the past twenty years"
"Constant sleep interruption due to traffic and vibrations. I have slept with the use of ear plugs."
"My house shakes every time a truck goes by. Dust, soot and noise are a constant."
"Why sacrifice the quality of life in Alameda just for a shopping mall!"
Marlow Villalpando, Broadway
Page 2 of 4
APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
"Woken up at night, hard to get back to sleep." Mandy and David Chiang, Broadway
"Existing truck trafFc has caused a lot of noise and air pollution in our neighborhoods. Why do we
need to allow more traffic, noise and air pollution?"Thomas and Tina dim
"I have lived on Broadway for 15 years, The truck traffic has reached its limit for our island."
"It is not the truck drivers who are responsible for our houses and windows shaking, it is City
management."
Mike Fontana, Broadway
"How will the City deal with the increased traffic? will the City pay to install double-paned
windows in our homes? will the City pay to reinforce our foundations to endure the shaking from
the increased truck traffic? we urge you to be responsible."
Michael and Dolores Radding, Otis Drive
Attached you will find additional details and contact information for those residents quoted
above, As you can see, the noise, traffic and nuisances created by Alameda Towne Centre
have already significantly diminished our quality of life and property values. If the shopping
center expands further, it could be unbearable. The majority of our homes do not have
insulation and soundproofing. Is Harsch willing to pay to have soundproofing done so our
homes remain livable?
In order to lesson the impact on our neighborhoods, there must be restrictions on business
hours, as well as delivery and maintenance hours. The PDA approved by the Planning Board on
August 1 t, 2008 is even less restrictive than the PDA currently in effect,
The existing PDA, approved in 2003, states the following
Hours of Dperation: The Center shall not be apes to the public nor shall truck loading be
conducted, before 7.•~n a. m. or after ~Q.~gO p. m. except that Use Permits ar PaA s may request
additional hours for specified uses.
Despite these restrictions, businesses without special use permits have been receiving deliveries
at all hours. The designated truck routes are being ignored. The City of Alameda and Harsch
are not enforcing compliance. Trucks leave their diesel engines idling when unloading, in
violation of California's 5 minute idle rule. These activities are creating unwanted noise,
intrusive vibrations and harmful emissions for nearby residents.
The PDA approved on August 1t, 2008 allows deliveries 24 hours a day, unless a business is
located within 200 ft of a residential zone. Since all businesses, except for OSH, are located just
ever 200 ft. from any residential zone, this condition imposes absolutely na restrictions. This is
unacceptable.
Please restrict delivery hours, except for those businesses with 24 hour use permits Safeway
and Walgreens} to after 7 a.m. and before 10 p.m. Harsch must be held responsible for making
sure tenants use the designated truck routes and enter and exit from the Park Street side of the
shopping center, We also ask that Harsch police their tenants to ensure that diesel truck drivers
comply with the California five minute idle rule and turn off their engines while unloading.
Please do not allow businesses to open at 6 a.m. and remain open until midnight. This wilt only
create more unwanted noise and nuisances in our neighborhoods. We urge you to keep the
Page 3 of 4
APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
existing hours ~7 a.m. to 1D p,m.} in effect. If businesses want to operate outside of these
hours, they can apply for a special use permit.
The shopping center conducts nightly maintenance activities which includes the use of a power
washer, street sweeper and leaf blower beginning at 4 a,m. The willows H~A and Laguna Vista
H~A have made complaints to Harsch and tried to negotiate with them on these issues. while
we understand the importance of keeping the shopping center clean, noise generating activities
should be limited to after 7 a,m. and before 14 p.m. This is not unreasonable, given that mast
stares don't open until 9 a.m.
Y respectfully ask the City Council to uphold the appeal of the EIR and deny any further
expansion of the shopping center until traffic, noise and air quality analysis are performed to
determine the true impact on our neighborhoods. Please deny the approval of the PDA and
require Alameda Towne Centre to restrict the business hours, delivery hours, and maintenance
hours at the shopping center. Please keep the existing hours of operation ~7 a.m. to 10 p.rn.}
and hold Harsch responsible for making sure its tenants are in compliance.
~ urge you to act responsibly to protect the quality of life of the residents of Alameda.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
c I~ru~~
Christine Healey, Appellant
ZZ09 Otis Drive Unit J
Alameda, CA 94501
~ ro - ~~7 ~ ~~~ ~
I hereby incorporate by reference ail of the comments, both oral and written, made by me, other individuals and agenaes who
comment on the matters raised in this appeal, including those made to the Planning Board and those made direcby to manning
staff.
Page4of4
Alameda Truck Routes
Page 1 of 1
Alameda Truck Routes
From: Christine Healey ~cmhealey@earthlink,net~
To: michaelc@harsch.com
Cc: barbarad@harsch,com
Subject: Alameda Truck Routes
Date: Jul 29, 200811:11 AM
Mr, Corbitt,
As you may recall, T am an Otis Drive resident and member of the Laguna Vista Homeowners
Association. T have made several complaints to Harsch Investment, City Code Enforcement,
and retailers at Alameda Towne Centre regarding after hours truck deliveries and
nuisances related to these deliveries.
Are you aware of the designated truck routes here in Alameda? Tf not, T am happy
to share this information, which T obtained from Public Works, with you. What are.
you doing to ensure that your tenants at Alameda Towne Centre are using the designated
truck routes? Tf businesses don't have the permits required to receive deliveries
after hours, what have you done to enforce these restrictions? I am aware that you
have 24 hour security at the shopping center so are able to monitor these activities.
You have a duty to do so.
Again, we ask that Harsch be a good neighbor and respect our right to the quiet
enjoyment of our property. Tf you continue to ignore these issues, we intend to
take more dramatic action.
Christine Healey
ht~p:llwebmail.earthlink,netlwamlprintable.jsp?msg~d=483&x858000887 9/19/2048
srER ~
pA
l
~RLY Ai
~uwo
PARK
STREET
~RIpGE
MILLER-
SwEEN~r
BRIDGE
NIGs~
TREE
RIpG
TRUCK ROUTE: 24 HOURS
SHOPPING CENTER: -
APPROVED ~Y: ~ Q ~~ ~~ ~
r~
~~~
r
CHIEF OF POLICE CITY ENGINEER ~~ ~
S
a
G~lpubworkslLl'\TRANSPGRTAT[aN\1'ruck RoutelCityr~apl4_Phil.dwg -Mon, Z~ .Jan X007 - 1343 TE: ~ ~ ""' Z~ - ~~
Fw;Status of Case #070535 - Noise issues at Alameda Towne Centre Page ~ of Z
Fw: Status of Case #X070535 -Noise Issues at Alameda Towne
Centre
From: Christine Healey ~cmhealey@earthlink.net~
To: dgarrison@ci.alameda.ca.us
Cc: bjohnson@ci.alameda.ca.us, Itam@ci.alameda.ca.us, mgilmore@ci.alameda.ca.us,
ddehaan@ci.alameda.ca.us, fmatarrese@ci.alameda.ca.us
Subject: Fw: Status of Case #X070535 -Noise Issues at Alameda Towne Centre
Da#e: Mar 3, 2008 5:15 PM
Mr. Garrison,
Is there a public hearing scheduled for the Alameda Towne Centre use permit? I am
concerned because I have not received any notification from your office regarding
this.
I am still awakened nightly by the loud diesel trucks coming into and out of the
shopping center. The excessive noise and vibrations caused by these trucks have
created serious health problems for me. It was my understanding that I would have
the opportunity to speak before the planning board to ask for restrictions on delivery
haurs. Can businesses conduct operations 24 hours a day without the necessary use
permits? What do I need to do to get this resolved?
Thank you for your assistance.
Christine Healey
510-865-9491
-----Forwarded Message-----
>From: Christine Healey <cmhealey@earthlink.net>
>Sent: Jan 4, 2008 6:53 PM
>To: dgarrison@ci.alameda.ca.us
>Cc: bjohnson@ci.alameda.ca.us, ltam~ci.alameda.ca.us, mgilmore@ci.alameda.ca.us,
ddehaan@ci.alameda.ca.us, fmatarrese@ci.alameda.ca.us
>Subject: Fw: Status of Case #X070535 - Noise Issues at Alameda Towne Centre
>Mr. Garrison,
>This is to follow up on my email sent on December 28, 2007. Would you kindly
respond or forward to the appropriate person and copy me?
>T would like to know the status of my complaint #X070535 and what actions have
been taken by code enforcement to abate these public nuisances.
>Thank you.
>Christine Healey
>510-865-9491
hrip:llwebmail.ear~hlink.netlwamlprintable.jsp?msgid~40b&x~19358b0127 9/19/2008
Fw: Status of Case #X070535 ~ Noise Issues at Alameda Towne Centre Page 2 of 2
>-----_Forwarded Message------_
»From: Christine Healey <cmhealey@earthlink.net>
»Sent: Dec 28, 2007 3:50 PM
»To: mtorres@ci.alameda.ca.us, thigares@ci.alameda.ca.us, dgarrison@ci.alameda.ca.us
»Cc: fmatarrese@ci.alameda.ca.us, bjohnson@ci.alameda.ca.us
»Subject: Status of Case X070535 -- Noise Issues at Alameda Towne Centre
»On November 19, 2007, I filed a noise complaint with the City of Alameda.
»My complaint was regarding the daily 4 a.m. parking lot sweeper and 2 a.m.
to 5 a.m, truck deliveries at Alameda Towne Centre. As a nearby resident, the parking
lot sweeper and diesel trucks create excessive noise and intrusive vibrations into
my condominium.
»I have made several attempts to work with Barbara Dixon and Michael Corbitt
of Harsch Investments to resolve this but have not been successful. I understand
that there have also been complaints to Michael Corbitt from residents of the Willows.
»Doesn't the Alameda City Noise Ordinance prohibit this kind of activity
after 10 p.m. and before 7 a.m.? Also, aren't there special use permits needed
to operate outside of normal business hours?
»Please check the status of this complaint and respond.
»Thank you for your assistance.
»Christine Healey
»510.865.9491
http:Ilwebmail.earthlink.netlwamlprintable.jsp?msgid=406&x=1935860127 9/19/2008
Re: Alameda Trader Joes Deliveries
Page 1 of 2
Re: Alameda Trader Joes Deliveries
From; Christine Healey ~cmhealey@earthlink.net~
To: dfrancisco@traderjoes.com
Cc: Barbara Dixon ~barbarad@harsch.com?, dyokomizo@traderjoes.com, cpilliter@traderjoes.com
Subject: Re: Alameda Trader goes Deliveries
Date: Mar 26, 2Q~8 4:12 PM
Hi Danny,
Did you receive my email below? I haven't received a response from you and I
haven't noticed any changes to the delivery schedule. I am still awakened each
night at 4:30 a.m. by your delivery trucks at Alameda Towne Centre.
Just an FYI ... At 4:30 am this morning, a delivery truck was parked in front of
your Alameda store for over 30 minutes with the engine idling. The driver appeared
to be waiting for someone to arrive. He finally left and returned about 30 minutes
later.
This is in violation of California's five minute idling rule. Since TJ's
is environmentally conscious, here is a brochure you might want to share with your
distribution teams.
htt ://www.arb.ca. ov/ca / am filets/limitsondieselfueledidlin df
Yaur response is appreciated.
Christine Healey
510--865--9491
---~-~---Original Message--____
>From: Christine Healey <cmhealey@earthlink.net>
>Sent: Mar 11, X008 8:10 PM
>To: dfrancisco@traderjoes.com
>Cc: Barbara Dixon <barbarad@harsch.com>
>Subject: Alameda Trader Joes Deliveries
>Danny,
>This is a fallow up to our phone conversation today. It is my understanding
that a special use permit is needed from the City of Alameda to conduct operations
outside normal business hours.
>Deliveries are being made nightly at about 4 am. The intrusive vibrations from
the diesel trucks and noise from unloading aloud voices lifts going up and down,
beeping noises} are waking me up. I have discussed this with other owners in my
HOA and they share my complaints. One owner even changed his work schedule so he
http:Ilwebmail.earthlink.netlwamlprintable.jsp?msgid=420&x=2002 ~ 88882 9/19/200
Re: Alameda Trader does Deliveries Page 2 of 2
leaves for work at 4 am. Another couple goes to bed at $ a.m. to get in a full 8
hours of sleep. I am wearing earplugs, running a white noise machine and taking
a sleep medication.
>As we discussed, please let me know if the Alameda Trader Joes has obtained
the necessary permit. If yes, please provide me a copy of that permit. If not,
Z ask that you modify your delivery schedule to the appropriate hours rafter 7 am.}
You may also want to consider entering and exiting the shopping center from the
Park Street side near Safeway} where there are no residential units.
>Thank you for your cooperation. I have always loved Trader Joes and want you
to continue to receive your wonderful products, just not at 4 am.!
>Warmly, Christine Healey
>510-865-991
http:Ilwebmail.earthlink.netlwamlprintable.jsp?msgid=424&x=2002188882 9/19/2008
Request for Feedback
1, How long have you been an otis Drive resident?
~ g-1 year o 1-2 years
D 2-4 ears ~~, Over 4 years
Y
2. Do you rent or own your apartment? ^ Rent '~ Own
3. Is your apartment located right on the street (Otis Drive)? Yes ^ No
4. Are you aware of any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes o Na Increase in traffic and congestion . .
Yes o No Noise yr vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance activities: Par ing
i_ot Sweeper, Power vlrasher and Garbage Removal
Yes o No Odor and Emissions from Restaurants Burger King, Applebees}
s Station to be constructed at 2234 Otis Drive
Yes D No 24 hour Ga
5. Has our slee or health ever been affected by any of the above?
Y p
Yes D No
If es, lease describe ~ '
~ ~S~
~~ ~S ~C:c~~~j~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~e ~1 ~~
.Have ou made an c m la~nts to the Alameda Police, Alameda Towne Centre,
fi y Y p
or the roe mana ement at your complex regarding any of the above?
p p ~Y 9
Yes o No
If yes, please describe ,/~ ~ - r
'Y ~i~r~ < <~ r~~,-~ ~ ~j~r-~ ~Q ~~ ~ r' ~C1 l~`~ ~l GAP : C'r'~~~3 ~.~ ~ ~ ~'
General Comments:
;..
I.~. Issue ~ ~~~ .
Name ~-
Address ' ~ ~
~1~L~-~~9 y )~ j
Phone ~ilj ~- ~ 3-~'d L ~
Date ~ O Signature
r~ciic~e
s1z4~zaas
Request for Feedback
1. How long have you been an otis Drive resident?
0 0-1 year D 1-2 yea rs
0 2-4 years 1~ over 4 yea rs
~. Do ou rent or own your apartment? , o Rent ~ Own
Y
3. Is our a artment located right on the street ~~tis Drive}? 0 Yes ~ No
Y p
4. Are ou aware of any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
y
~ Yes o No Increase in trafl+ic and congestion
.Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks .
Yes D No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance activities: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Dasher and Garbage Removal
Yes o No odor and Emissions from Restaurants Burger King, Applebees}
s Station to be constructed at 2234 Otis Drive
~ Yes ~ No 24 hour Ga
5. Has our slee or health ever been affected by any of the above?
Y p
Yes o No
If yes please describ . ~ ~ ~
• } ~~
6. Have ou made an com faints to the Alameda Police, Alameda Towne Centre,
y y p
or the roe mans ement at your complex regarding any of the above?
p p ill 9
C Yes ~ No
If yes, please describe ? r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
w
~ ~ ~ r
. - ~,, . ~
General omments: ., ~ ~ ~ ,~
` ~ ~~. ~ ~
~ . fr ~ ~ ,L' ~ n ~
~ r f ~„ l
Z
Name ~
Address ~?~.~ ~ % ~ ~ ~~
~-,~~ .
~ i~ = .~~
Phone ~ ~
~~ f..~.-~G '.
~ ~• ~ ~ ~~~
~-~.~~ ~ Si nature - .'"~~~~ ~:~
Date 9 ~, _-
f ;~
5J24/2008
Request for Feedback
1. How long have you been an Otis Drive resident?
o year ~ 1-2 years
-4 years o ove r 4 yea rs
2. Do you rent or own your apartment? 'Rent ^ Own
3. Is your apartment located right on the street (Otis Drive)? 'Yes o No
4. Are you aware of any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
es D No Increase in traffic and congestion
es o No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Deiivery Trucks
es o No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance activities: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer and Garbage Removal
~ Yes No odor and Emissions from Restaurants Burger King, Applebees}
o Yes ~ No 24 hour Gas Station to be constructed at 2234 otis Drive
5. Has your sleep or health ever been affected by any of the above?
C~Yes ^ No
If ye~ase describe _
.~ ~. , ,~111~.w~.~ ~I a ~~,$ ,D/~.A~, /Zt.A/'cu~~r ~~
6. Have you made any complaints to the Alameda Police, Alameda Towne Centre;
or the property anagement at your complex regarding any of the above?
o Yes o
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name
Address 2J ~ ~, i ~ ~~~.3
Phone - 3 8- ~3S
Date ~'~~~ Signatur° " ~,
5/24/Z00$
Request for Feedback
1. How long have you been an Otis Drive resident?
0-1 year ~ 1-2 years
D 2-4 years o Over 4 yea rs
2. Do you rent or own your apartment? ~ Rent 7 Own
3. Is your apartment located right on the street (Otis Drive)? ~ Yes ^ No
4. Are you aware of any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
,~ Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
ti
I Yes o No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
a
~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance activities: Parking
~ Yes
Lat Sweeper, Power washer and Garbage Removal
~ Yes o No Odor and Emissions from Restaurants (Burger King, Applebees)
r s Station to be constructed at X234 Otis Drive
D Yes( No 24 hou Ga
5. Has your sleep or health ever been affected by any of the above?
~ Yes o No "
I yes, plea e de tribe
1~c~-~/~v~l~'~-~~~ ~-~^~w~ c~2[i v"~.~ -~i~~.i~ s~ ~ ar.~r-~~~.t.r~~~ ~v'~~~~1
' lameda Police Alameda Towne Centre,
fi. Have you made any complaints to the A ,
roe mans ementat our complex regarding any of the above?
or the p p rty g y
~ Yes ~ No
If yes, please describe
General Comments
` r ' , " ~ ~ r
N~~e
~.
Address ~ ~ " ~ '~
~~~`~
~-~ ~ ~:~y~~ a
Phone
' ~' ~ r ~ ~~~ ~' V' ~f~~
~ ~ ~ 0 re
Date ~ S~gnatu
„„
5J24/2008
Request for Feedback
1. How long have you been an Otis Drive resident?
D 0-1 year 0 1-2 years
^ 2-4 years ~ Over 4 years
2. Do you rent or own your apartment? ~ Rent ^ Own
3. Is your apartment located right on the street (Otis Drive)? Yes ^ No
followin related to Alameda Towne Centre?
4. Are you aware of any of the g
Yes o No increase ire trafnc and congestion
Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
Yes o No
t
' from routine maintenance activities: Parking
Yes o No Nose or v~brat~ons
e er Power vllasher and Garbage Removal
Lot Swe p ,
Yes 0 No Odor and Emissions from Restaurants (Burger King, Applebees)
~1 Yes o No 24 hour Gas Station to be constructed at 2234 Otis Drive
5. Has your sleep or health ever been affected by any of the above?
Yes ^ No ~ /
f yes, please describe ~ o ~1 ~ , ~ /~,,~~~~:~
// v ~'
6. Have you made any complaints to the Alameda Police, Alameda Towne Centre,
or the grope management at your complex regarding any of the above?
^ Yes ~No
If yes, please describe ~ ~ ~~~;~
~ ~C~'
General Comments
r
~~-"
Phone ~-
Date ~ ~ ~ Signature
5/24/2008
c
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
-, ) f ~ ~~
~ ~ .~
Name ~ ~ ~
Address '~ r'" ~ ~,
~ a
Request for Feedback
1. How long have you been an Otis Drive resident?
0 0-1 year o 1-2 years
C~2-4 years o Over 4 years
~, Do you rent or own your apartment? ~f Rent ~ Own
3. Is your apartment located right on the street (Otis Drive)? 'R~Yes ^ No
4. Have you experienced or are you aware of any of the following related to
Alameda Towne Centre?
~ Yes o No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Deliver Trucks
Y
Yes o No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parkin
g
dot Sweeper, Power washer and Garbage Removal
®~~Yes D No Odor and Emissions from Restaurants Bur er Kin A lebees
~ 9 9- pp }
a'~~Yes o No 24 hour Gas Station to be constructed at 2234 Otis Drive .
5. Has your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
~ Yes ~~~ No
~f yes, please describe
G. Have you made any complaints to the Alameda Politer Alameda Towne Centrer
or the property management at your complex regarding any of the above?
o Yes ~ No
~f yes, please describe
General Comments;
.4
Name ~ - ~ „~ ~ ~;~ ~~~
~ ~
Address ~~ .~ t~ ~ I S _ ~ ~ ~~ ~
.~r1 ~ U~r~
Phone ~"~~~) f =~ ~ ~'~S"~ ~~ ..~~
l ; ~~ ~~~ ~ -~ Jr/ ~ ~~
f 1 i
f ~ ~
Date ~ S~ nature :r. ~~..~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~- -
9
5/3/2008
Request far Feedback
1. How long have you been an Otis Drive resident?
D -1 year o 1~2 years
2-4 years D Over 4 years '~
~. Do you rent or own your apartment? Rent o Own
3. Is your apartment located right on the street ~otis Drive}? o Yes o No
4. Have you experienced or are you aware of any of the following related to
Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
o Yes No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer and Garbage Removal
o Ye No odor and Emissions from Restaurants Burger King, Applebees}
es ~ No 24 hour Gas Station to be constructed at 2234 Otis Drive
5. Has your steep ealth or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
o Yes No
If yes, please describe
fi. Have you made a y complaints to the Alameda Police, Alameda Towne Centre,
or the prope management at your complex regarding~any of the above?
o Yes ~ No ~ ~ ..
If yes, please escribe
[;eneral Comments:
~, , r ~ , ~ v Y ~ ~ ... _ -~ r v- ~ ~ w V..~ ~. ~ • r . ~o~. Q-wc.. C~ -I~,, ~, v -~ i• v ~,(~ ~ L
Name ~ ~ ~ lr` a ~ ri ` e ~~ ~ ~ c.~s
~ ~ 1~
Address ~ ~ u ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
Phone n ~~ .~• ~ ~- d~ ~
~ ~ `~ 1
Date a Signatu --~_
5/3/2008
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Otis Drive resident?
0 0-1 year o 1- ars
^ 2-4 years Over 4 years --~ V-~~p~Zt~~
2. Do you rent or own? o Rent Own
3. Is your residence located right on the street ~otis Drive}? o Yes D No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes o No increase in traffic and congestion
es o No Noise- or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
o Yes ~.~' IVO Noise or vibrations fr m r i m ' '
0 outne a~ntenance. Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power 1Nasher, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
'Yes o No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5. Ha o.ur sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes o No
Tf ~ps_ nlPa~P riP~rrihp _
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Tawne Centre Management
or City officials arding any of the above?
D Yes o
if yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name ~/~~/C~~~
Address T
Phone ~ ~ ~~J '
Email ~n~~d rv~ _ Chi.
G
Date Signature
9/1fi/2008
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How fong have you been an otis Drive resident?
^ 0-1 year o 1-2 years
0 2-4 years ~ Over 4 years ~~~~~ ~-d, 4 ti ~ ~
~. Do you rent or own? o Rent ®Own
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? ~ Yes ^ No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
® Yes D No increase in traffic and congestion
~ Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
~ Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
~ Yes D No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5. Has your sleep health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
® Yes ~ No
If yes, please describe
' ~ n
i''G~ ~ ~ C.: ~ J '~,Cv l...G:."~ .i111 ~ "~...~"J~7..~ r ~ ~.:' ~"Y~'1'1.~~
~, ~ ~-- i
~. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City officials regarding any of the above?
® Yes o No
~f yes, please describe _
General Comments:
'.~ /lz-L'~,'/t ~.~~. C~f4~~~J~l.~ ~~J~ ~.~ j ~ ~ J.~-~f_- ~~~~ ~r~~.'1~~~~i'.1~' 1~i.~~l ~~!-r~+tllfl~.~ ~_f~Y~
r
Name
Address
Phone
Email
~~ _
~ / ~- j
~. , - - _. .
~~~~
r
i
i' /J
f~ rf ~ '~ f
,~ r tf f J.
Date, ~L ~_ .. ~ Signatu~
~ ~ ~~
91~6~zoos
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Otis Drive resident?
0 0-1 year ^ 1-2 years
0 2-4 years 1~ Over 4 years
2. Do you rent or own? ^ Rent ~, Own
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? D Yes ~ No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
~ Yes D No -N-oise or vibrations-~frorn Diese! Delivery Trucks
o Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
~ Yes o No Harmfui Emissions or odors
5. Has your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes o No
If yes, please describe ~ ~ ~ I
- y.r,..r~,.. • v, v
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City officials regarding any of the above?
o Yes ~. No
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name ~ ~ ~
Address ~ ~ v-
.~ 4~ o I
Phone ~ °' - (LI
Email 1~'~~ ~ e- e~ • ~e'~`
Date ~ ~~ r Signature
91161zoos
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an otis Drive resident?
0 0-1 year D 1-2 years
~ 2~4 years Over 4 years
~. Do you rent or awn? o Rent ~ own
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? ^ Yes ~No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes o No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
~ Yes No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
` Yes o No Harmful Emissions or odors
5. Has your sleepy health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes ~ o No
If yes, piease describe ~
~ ~ ~,
~~
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City officio Is regarding any of the above?
D Yes ~ No
~f yes, please describe
General Commen~.s ~'~'°~'
J
Name ~~~ e ~'~'~'r1,
Address 1.4 / ~ ~ o u ~w
/~~~~c l ~~f~ ~'~ D I
Phone _,( 5'~ 10 _) ~ 3 ~ -'~ /l ~
Email vit W ~~cczp~.. c=~~re. w ~~i~wp : C~ ~"-'1
Date q l o Si nature ~~_~_
9
9~~6~zoo$
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Gtis Drive resident?
0 0-1 year ~ 1-2 years
D 2-4 years Gver 4 years
2. Do you rent or own? 0 Rent ~ Dwn
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? ^ Yes No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
- ~ Yes ~ No - Noise~~~or- vibrations from Di-esel Delivery Trucks
~ Yes o No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance; Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
Yes D No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5. Has your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes o No
If yes please describe
/~ ~ ' K
fi. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City Offcials regarding any of the above?
D Yes ~ No
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name
Address
Phone
Email
~~ ~~~~
~ ~ ~ -~ ~
4r 1 .~ _'~ ~I.-~
f~ ;-~ -~,
U , _ 1 .. ~~
a
~ ., ..
Date ~~ ~ ~ ` Si nature ~~~ ~. r~-+ ~ ~ ~ ~~
9
~~~.
9/16/2008
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an otis Drive resident?
;!~ ~~ ~
0 01 yea r D 12 yea rs r: ~ , s
~ 1
~ 2-4 ears C~ ver 4 ears ~~ ~~~~~~ ~
y y
2. Do you rent or own? ^ Rent awn
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? ^ Yes ~Vo
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes o No increase in traffic and congestion
,~-~~~
_ ~~ ,
Q~ ~
des D No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks ~ ~S
Yes o No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot S eeper, Power Washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
`~ ~ ..
r ~ ~ ~ I~ ~
es ~ No Harmful Emissions or Gdars ~ ~~ ~
~~ ~ ~
5. Has. your sleep health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
es o No
Tf yes, please describe ,_ ,,~ ,, ~ ~ ~ J
~f
JJ~} ~ V V ~~~ A
I
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City officials regarding any of the above?
D Yes No
If yes, please describe
Gener Comments
- ~ -
M1 G~`~-~
:rte i ~ ~~'~ lc., C
Y L S
Name _ ~
Address ~ ` ~~' ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ :. ~ ~~'~ ~~~~ ~~~~~.
~f ~I~, }
~ G~ I ~ ~( ,Ln) [r ~ ~(~vV! 4 L ~ij I /•'/~ ._ ~~ I' ~ /,r rf ~ ~/~ ~ ~ ~~ ~y ~ ~I
Phone ~~ ~. ~~ ~~,~ ~ ~~ ; ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~
Email _. ~~~.c~ ~~~~~ ~.~ ~~~ ~., , ~ ~'
~.~
~/ F• r
Date ~ ~ ~ Si nature ~. F v~f' ~
9 ~.
~ ~ Aa
~~/~ llrr_ `~~ _:~ l
~~ ~ ~ G~ v ~- ~ 9 16 200B
1~ ~ ~
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Gtis Drive resident?
0 0-1 year ^ 1-2 years
2-4 years ^ Over 4 years
2. Do you rent or own? ^ Rent ~ Own
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? jz3;Yes ^ No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes ^ No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
Yes o No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lat Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Biowers, Garbage Trucks
Yes 0 No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5. Has your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
~ Yes ^ No
If yes, please describe
F,v~4~ivhe ~ -~'uo~ aoe8 ~ ~t ~pe~s /, kP a~ Faa-~ c~a..E~ . I ~E
~~
-hvu~ ~.+'~ yen _~c~ ~ wo rn~ ~~c~-' as~~c a a.n~ ~ .
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City Officials regarding any of the above?
^ Yes ~ No
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name (VI A~~ } ~_2_a _ ~~~'~-
Address 2`1 1 1 i ve '
~.m~a , LA 9~So1
Phone Sl 0 = 213 ~`~I b~
Email O,ndr~cr ~.tt,r-Ka ~.~.hx~ •c~n~
Date ~ ~ Signature
Qa a r
9/1b/2D08
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Otis Drive resident?
D 0-1 year 0 1-2 years
^ 2-4 years Over 4 years
2. Do you rent or own? ^ Rent C~ Own
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? ekes D No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
o'Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Deliver Trucks
Y
C~Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power vVasher, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
es o No Harmful Emissions or odors
5. H s your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes D No
If yes, please describe
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City official regarding any of the above?
0 Yes No
If yes, please describe
General Comments
r ~+
~- •
Name ~
Address ~ w ~ ~ ~~~
~,~~ _.~.
Phone - ,~/
Email
Date Op /6 -- b~ Signature ~,~, ~~--~
9/16/2008
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Otis Drive resident?
0 0-1 year o 1-2 years
^ 2-4 years ~ Over 4 years
2. Do you rent or own? ^ Rent gT(Own
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? ^ Yes r~ No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
~ Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from Diesel-Delivery Trucks
~ Yes D No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
~I Yes o No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5. Has your sleepy health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
o Yes ~ D No
If yes, please describe
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City Gff cials regarding any of the above?
D Yes No
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name .~ ~~~ ~ ~
Address ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~
Phone ~ l a -.~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
Emai! ~G~ ~ f
f
Date ~ -- ~~ ~-~ ~ Signature ~ ~ _ ~~-~.---~
9/1bJ2008
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Otis Drive resident?
0 0-1 year D .-2 years
0 2-4 years .over 4 yea rs
2. Do you rent or own? o Rent down
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? 'Yes ^ No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
~` Yes o No increase in traffic and congestion
Yes D No --Noise or vibrations fr-orn--Diesel Delivery Trucks
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
Yes ^ No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5. H s your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes o No
If yes, please describe
~-~ ~ ; ~~~~ ~J~l
4 ~~
fi. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City official !regarding any of the above?
o Yes ~ No
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name C.I~.~' lS ~ I~~j ~I,~S
Address 1, (~ n'J~~ ~2
Phone 8 3 5
Email ~,j c.a~ Q. ~{ r~t.a ~ • c~r'~
J
Date ~ ~~ ~~ Signature
~ ~ ~~
~~ ~fC C~ S ~'r'~'~- Olz,~l'l~--,r
9/1b/2008
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Otis Drive resident?
0 0-1 year o 1-2 years
0 2-4 years l~ Over 4 years
2. Do you rent or own? ^ Rent ~ Own
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? ^ Yes ~ No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
~4,Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
l~Yes ^ No -Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
~ Yes o No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parkin
9
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
~J Yes o No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5. Has your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes ~ o No
Y~ s inn r-~n~r~n r~nnnri4-~-
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City Officials regarding any of the above?
~ Yes ^ No
If yes, please describe /
General Comments:
?~" - JZav~-c 4 ~ ~ ~SUi~, Sl~~
-CJ~~ ~~I
Name
Address ~~~/ a,~~- -~
Phone ... ---~~~ v ~z ~ ~~ 2~~~ ,_~
Email ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~-~ ~~~ r`.vrn
Date ~ ~ Signature ~.
91~61zoos
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an otis Drive resident?
0 0-1 year ~ 1-2 years
0 2-4 years o Over 4 years
2. Do you rent or own? D Rent ~f Own
3. Is your residence located right on the street (Otis Drive)? "Yes ^ No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
9~Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes D No Noise or vibrations from Diesei Delivery Trucks
o Yes ~` No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power washer, Leaf Biowers, Garbage Trucks
~ Yes o No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5. Has your sleep health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes o No
If yes, please describe
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City officials regarding any of the above?
o Yes ~ No
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
~~
Name ~-~-~
Address s ~ r ~ ` S . J
Phone
Email
Date ~~ ~'`%~ ~.. ~ ~~
-~
- ~~,
• ~
Signature ~ ~-
g~16~zoo8
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Alameda resident?
0 0-1 year o 1-2 years
0 2-4 years C~Over 4 years
2. Do you rent or own? o Rent C~Own
3. Is our residence located ri ht on otis or Broadwa ? I~Yes D N
Y 9 Y o
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
L~Yes 0 No Increase in traffic and con estion
9
Yes o No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Deliver Trucks
Y
o Yes No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
~ Yes No Harmful Emissions or odors
5. Hai your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
[Yes D No
If yes, please describe
-~.~~ r~~
~~~~ ~
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City officials regarding any of the above?
o Yes ~No
If yes, please describe
General Com a ts:
Name
Address
Phone
Email
z
i/
Date ~ - ~ /b~
Signature 6
:.~~, a
.,
912.4~~oos
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Alameda resident?
0 0-1 year o 1-2 years
0 2-4 years ~ Over 4 years
2. Do you rent or own? ~ Rent ^ Own
3. Is your residence located right on Otis or Broadway? Yes o No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes D No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Deiivery Trucks
`Yes o No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power dasher, Leaf dowers, Garbage Trucks
~1Yes 0 No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5. Has your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes 0 No
If yes, please describe
~~~ s~"
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City Officials regarding any of the above?
~ Yes ~~ No
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name ~oi~~ ~ ~~ ~-D_
Address 1 ~~ ~~~ ~ ~
Phone ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~
r
,r~ ~
Date ! ~G~ `" o~ Si nature
9
9~z4~2oo8
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Alameda resident?
0 0-1 year o 1-2 years
2-4 years o over 4 years
2. Do you rent or own? ^ Rent ~ Own
3. Is our residence located right on Otis or Broadway? Yes o No
y
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes o No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes D No ~ Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
~ Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
r ,. ~ ~~
. ~
o Yes o No Harmful Emissions or odors ~n ~
5, Has your sleep health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
'des o N o
If yes, please describe ~~ ,
_ ._ _.
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City officia s regarding any of the above?
D Yes No
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name ~o..~~~ e.l1e. ~~ C~c~~e,V,-~ ~~.~Me.~ ~e
Address l S i I ~~ ~-w~ ~
Phone ~C~~l ~ ~Z7 S
Email da ~1 i ~~ a: ~~ ~
d ~~ ~ /
Date 9 , Z ~ 0 Signature ~ : = ~ ~ -~~~
- - ~ `~
9/24/2008
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Alameda resident?
D 0-1 year o 1-2 years
2-4 years o over 4 yea rs
2. Do you rent or own? 0 Rent `own
3. Is your residence located right on otis or Broadway? ~ Yes o No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes D No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes ~ No -Noise or vibratio-ns-~from Diesel Delivery Trucks
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf BEowers, Garbage Trucks
~ Yes No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5, HaS your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes o No
f y s, please describe
,~
,~ c i
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management'~~~~
or City officials regarding any of the above?
o Yes No
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name
Address ?- ~ ~ ~~ _ ~~~-~- , ~ ,~ ~--~. .~~_
Phone 1 ~ , ~' ~. ,~ ~ ~" ~ S~ ~
Email ~ ~~
~.~~ ~ ,'
Date ". ~ ~ ~ Signature ~ y~ , ...
.~
9/24/2008
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Alameda resident?
D 0-1 year 0 1-2 years
0 2-4 years C~ Over 4 years C~{5 ~~5~
2. Do you rent or own? 0 Rent ~-own
3. Is your residence located right on otis or Broadway? Yes D No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from Diesel Deliver Trucks
Y
Yes o No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
Yes ^ No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5. Has your sleepy health or quality of fife been affected by any of the above?
~ Yes D No
If yes, please describe
~. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
ar City officials regarding any of the above?
~ Yes ~ No
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
Phone ~~~ [ ~ ~ ~'~
Email i ~ ~+`~,~~ ~ ~, ,~~--rm
~-.
Date ~ ~ ~~ + ~~ Si nature. :~ ~~
9
~ ~ ~
g~z4~zoos
Name ~ t - ~ ~~
Address ~ [
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Alameda resident?
D 0-1 year D 1-2 years
D 2-4 years Gve r 4 yea rs
2. Do you rent or own? o Rent ~ Own
3. Is your residence located right on Otis or Broadway? Yes o No
4. Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes o No Increase in traffic and congestion
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from -Diesel Delivery Trucks
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance: Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
Yes ~ No Harmful Emissions or Odors
5. Has your sleep health or quality of fife been affected by any of the above?
Yes o Na
If yes, please describe
_-t- r 1~
6. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City officials regarding any of the above?
es ~ o No
I yes, please describe ~ ~{
~ ~ ~
General Comments:
Name ~ , ~~-~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~r .-~~ ~. ~~~.~ ~~
Address ~ ~~~ ~'~. ~y~~~,~-~~~.,_r~.
~:~ i
Phone ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~
Email t , r A ~ :~ ~ - ~~' ~'n~-;~~~~~~~
~, T~
i ! i
_ ~ ~;~ ~; 1 ,I ~
Date r~ ~~~~ Signature ~ ~
91z4~~oo$
Feedback for Alameda City Council
1. How long have you been an Alameda resident?
0 0-1 year o 1-2 years
0 2-4 years ~ Over 4 years
~. Do you rent or own? ~ Rent awn
3. Is your residence located right on Otis or Broadway? Yes ^ No
4, Have you experienced any of the following related to Alameda Towne Centre?
Yes ^ No Increase in traffic and congestion
~I Yes ^ No --Noise or vibrations from Diesel Delivery Trucks
Yes ~ No Noise or vibrations from routine maintenance; Parking
Lot Sweeper, Power Washer, Leaf Blowers, Garbage Trucks
Yes o No Harmful Emissions or odors
5. H s your sleep, health or quality of life been affected by any of the above?
Yes 0 No
If yes, piease describe ,
~ r
G. Have you ever made any complaints to the Alameda Towne Centre Management
or City ~ffici s regarding any of the above?
o Yes No
If yes, please describe
General Comments:
Name ~ ~~v~-
Address act
Phone Zz~a
Email .
Date ~ Signature
9~~4~zoos
~Gcy,u.nf ~o~ Sao S
0
To ~ Pal .~.~;~~. D ~ ~ .~, Q.Qc~~, c~ ~,-+ ~
L~t~.D~ :~ per; .o-r„ J~a_c~~' ~uv ~, `7'Le-~ne.acmm.e~ ,~;~. o~. c~.~
~g„v.,~ ~o `~ ~rr~k,~~`C ~a~ ~.e~-P_ua~tr;~, -~.u.v ,4,
'~-~-"g- ~~ ~.~~nnm.~ ~xa»,J~ oh n.c.Rv a-~rrt¢nc~ ~ ,Q~
~c,4eliane~ imy vio~>~a. ,~, ~'nane0i~ r9 b 6 Qmd ,c:~ ~aa ,c~
~ta_c~ 7Uz~(~7~G, /u-e~~ ~Q<~z~ /fha_GLw ~z~ ~~iai
/~-~e~mc¢~ c~2eue~ o-nJ /~a ~ahm ~l-t DahP.w~, ~ ,a.»d
,~LVZXG- .,ta,;.~ .~ev2~.aa~,~v~-capm A~~o.,C=io-~ .vZ ~?aA,~
~eC~Prnz/ ~/ iyuy~i_t:.rnccn~/. ~ 2~Lq iLI'bk- ~~-~ )Zt+-u' KCCa~e-,. .
~h~.d .cc.,.~~ -C~-cc,aaa~~ ,C~~ ~ i0.m c( ~.~2, ~ ~-Ct,a_a,_Q_
~c+~2.2a, Q~-~ia, Ctm 1EUZ'~6~ C~-~c~JEa- . 3"/.~.2~p~cn~ne.+zy~ ~4 !ZO<Uz~
(i
~iz.cc.~Pe ~-~Se.~. .G.,,-~ cC 7nai ~Cn~ccn.te~ /-~ ~ 2Rs a-«A.-
O
Cu~ne~~V~.w,~ ~n at ,C~ ,a P~,-c.~«~L
j
~~~sC~~~ ~~~-as.s~
~f. lcam~s-c~- /9 C~ea/wLM~- vy.JGQetirry.
,d~~ ~o, Zoos'
i!-Qa.~,-e-d a 1 ptiv-x~ Ceu~e
f
I~Uc, ~ ar 4,6 n~ 6~Uwv,~v, l i vi ,vq c~.u,~a~F -~av dy ~e.~/L`
an D~tio D a~iAe.~ U~a~ ~ r,~ea,~ a~ ~e k~-i i~
a~ ,d-e a.u~e~ T ao~.~ 2te ~,~G,~ ,
re~a.P-sue ~- ~ ~.c-n..~ 2e,ot1L ot~c~ ~ j-ti,w~6-
y,~,~,,,.,~~ i
c~ccQ ~- ~ , l~ e-&~ cLe r
~e c~-dC .-~ wr ~ ~.~d-ku<-4
~ ~~..~.r~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
`I ~i„o ~,1~_ can- ~ ~-ew~- ~t ~,`oFi~,a~~~e-3, u. ~t i~ a~
~;~~~ ~ ~~
~(~ Cd pbo~ I a lu.-~~' C&-o (moo-~-C~
PW- 56o rz~ 5045
C~.~~.Kw ~ ~~
~.~ ~,~
wwe o1~°~~s.raecf.
~~ ~~
a~
t~ .
4~
~~
'V
r
~~~
(~- ~'~- ,
~u~„~ „~~,,,,~ riu~u~i ~ ~, Suva ~-G ~v~- uu3i~~es5 expdn5~c~n x~ameaa ~ o~vne Len~e ~ rage i o~ 1
public hearing August 11, 2008 re 30# business expansion
Alameda Towne Centre
From: normajean washingtonpalmer ~normajeanpalmer~gmail.com~
To: cmhealey@earthlink.net
Subject: ~ public hearing August 11,~2QQB re 30# business expansion Alameda Towne Centre
Date: Aug 11, 240611:56 AM ~ .
Christine, Hi
l am one of your Otis Drive neighbors. On the following items:
1. I do not believe a 30°/o expansion is needed, There are enough stores already and the old Safeway store to, be
redeveloped. l agree that impact studies need to be doneprior to~.decision making.
2. Why do business hours need #o be extended. They are at a comfortable positiion~where they are.~~ I agree that
nearyby residents are entitled ta~"quiet enjoyment". This is one of the real estate rules - to the right of "quiet
enjoyment". is this violation of an individual's right being considered.
3. Why must trucks deliver 24~ hours a day? What is the designated truck route and why isn't~~it being ~ used? When
wE1l it be used? Otis drive seems to get all of the garbage. There are all types of delivery trucks roaming Otis Drive
night and day. Why is~ Otis Drive stuck with hits nonsense? I agree with the delivery timeframes.and also believe that
the deisgnated truck route should be used and not use Otis Drive because-it is~"convenient" tv Alameda Towne - -
Centre.
4. There is no earthly reason far those noise blowers to be working 24 hours.. What on earth are they doing. There is
very small business at the Centre 24 hours -Safeway and Walgreens being_the main scions ~ agree that this is a
neighborhood nuisance and unnecessary. Otis S#reet is not enjoying "quiet enjoyment of our homes" now and to
increase the noise nuisance is -ridiculous.
5. ~~ Property values are already decreasing slowly, ~We do not need this additional headache. Overall, l veto the
expansion.l am sure that none of the Planning Commission live on Otis Drive or the surrounding streets, -Roosevelt,
Park Street or Park Avenue, Shoreline; Walnut, vlf Ilow, Regent, etc. lxpansion does .not come cheaply. The ~ ~.
homeowners already pay a hefty tax in this city to help run the city: The homeowners deserve #o be protected from the
city planning ridiculous proposal. ~ .
6. It has been over one million dollars for. the theatre, Part Street Street improvement, now its the Towne Centre, and I
am sure many things that I am not aware of, what's next.? I vote for the petition and possibly suing the city if need be
if this is the only way we tax payers and home owners are going to get'our rights to "quiet enjoyment." Of course, you
know how it goes by protesting for our rights and the common sense of things, the city always finds a way to retaliate
against us.
Coil me if you wish additional help from me.... ,
Normajean Palmer
2437 Otis Drive
Alameda, CA 94501
51Q•523-1458
http:llv~ebmaij.e~rthlink.netlwarnlprintable.jsp?msgid=2993&x= ~7~5780960 Sll 112448
Fw: South Shore Centerl Traffic Problems Pollution
Page 1 of 1
FW: South Shore Center/ Traffic Problems Pollution
From: John Cashman ~thecashmanteam@comcast.net~
To: cmhealey@earthllnk.net
Subject: FW: South Shore Centerl Traffic Problems Pollution
Date: Sep 17, 2008 2:03 PM
Attachments: cashmanteamioao.ipa
Hi corrected email address. John
From; John Cashman [mailto;thecashmanteam@comcast.net~
Sent; Wednesday, September ~7, 2008 Z:01 PM
Ta; 'whse3~3~aol.com'; 'cmhealy@earthlink,net'
Cc: 'Runyan, Diane'
Subject: South Shore Center/ Traffic Problems Pollution
City Council Alameda and Neighbors i will not be in the Country on October 7th so I am sending this email as my
protest to the future traffic problems and pollution problems that have been increasing in the last several years
from the Center and planned expansion of the Center and 55o Park Street. I have never had any breathing
problems and have been in excellent health until they started remodeling and tearing down the old buildings from
the 50's at the Alameda Shopping Center now known as Town Center. I will not be hear to attend as I leave the
25th and do not return until 10!10!08. Please present this email as my three minute protest to more traffic and
pollution and we are not able to get out of Park Ave or Regent Street now do #o heavy traffic. I have spoken with
other neighbors Tina and others that have been taking medications for breating conditions that have come since
the last couple of years of remodeling. We can not open Windows or doors without heavy dirt and dust. Do not
allow longer hours and more traffic to ruin our quality of life., Sincerely John H.J. Cashman Owner 2417
Roosevelt Dr, Tax Payer and Voter.
C"Irr r~rur>R~'lr~n~~f...
~ ' t'^~.
~ .}
'!
*'• ~~~
r
Jahn H.J. Cashman, CRB, GRl
1288 Ninth St
Berkeley, CA 94710-1501
X510} 528-4538 Office
X510} 528-4501 Office Fax
X510} 521-5084 Home Fax
X510} 914-0658 Mobile
~~
http:Ilwebmail.earthlink.netlwamlprintable.~sp?msgid=3163&x=-1624297447 9/17/2008
From: marlow escamillo
To: cmhealey~earthlink,net
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 3: ~.0 PM
Subject: Fw: My personal note for the Planning Board
From; Villalpando, Marlow <MVillalpando@pacunion,com>
Subject:
To: mescamillo@yahoo.com
Date: Thursday, September 25, 20D8, 3:08 PM
I have been a homeowner on Broadway for the past twenty one years, the increase in traffic on
this and surrounding streets is at an all time high. I have slept with the use of ear plugs for the
past seven years and have lost count of the numerous cracks that have appeared in the ceiling
and walls due to the way my house shakes every time a truck goes by, dust, soot, and noise are
a constant,
Alameda has seven nursing facilities, two directly adjacent to Safeway, For years emergency
vehicles transporting critically ill residents to hospitals have done an excellent job safely despite
the traffic, however this may all change if the huge expansion is approved adding more traffic
and pedestrians at all hours. If this isn't bad enough imagine if you have to be transported to a
hospital out of town and the bridge is up. would you like your loved to pass away in the back of
an ambulance as the driver has to navigate through the crowds of shoppers hunting fora
bargain!
why sacrifice the quality of life in Alameda just for a shopping malli
Marlow Villalpando
From: Yauda Lim
To: cmhealey@earthlink.net
Sent: Friday, September 26, 20081:09 PM
Subject: Alameda Towne Centre Expansion Project
To UVhom it May Concern,
We are the residents at 1000 Broadway, Alameda, we would like to voice out our concerns
against towards the current Environmental Impact Report, extended hours of operation and
24hrs truck deliveries and maintenance.
1. Since we do not have enough land for new routes or roads to ease out the existing traffic, why
would the Planning Board consider another expansion of Alameda Towne Centre. we would
agree that the Towne Centre continue to renovate existing area but without adding too much of
space to bring in businesses which the neighborhoods can not absorb the congestion of traffic,
noise and air pollution. we would propose an expansion of 500,000 sq.ft max. with new
expansion of roads to ease the traffic, noise and pollution.
Alameda does not need a regional mall.
2. Existing truck traffic has caused a lot of noise and air pollution in our neighborhoods which we
are bothered so much by it already.lNhy do we need to allow more traffic, noise and air pollution
in the neighborhoods? we would like to propose a new time frame to limit current the truck
deliveries during week days such as between 8:DOam and B:OOpm.
No truck on weekends on Highway 66 ~atis drive and Broadway} in Alameda.
3. Against the 24 hr maintenance, Should also have a new time frame to limit the noise from the
operation of leaf blower and power washer. Also we would propose that the new time frame for
maintenance is between B:OOam and 8:OOpm during week days only.
Sorry, we can not attend the meeting but would like to thank you for your effort to bring the
neighborhoods together to fight for our quality of fife and property values.
Thank you very much.
Thomas & Tina Lim,
To: cmhealey~earthlink.net
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2:40 PM
Subject: Follow-up letter regarding shopping center
You asked at the neighborhood meeting that we send letters to you to collect regarding how the
shopping center expansion has affected and will affect us personally. Hope it's not too late to
include:
My name is Brenda Benner and I have owned and lived in my home at the corner of Park Ave.
and Roosevelt for more than 13 years, It was a pretty quiet street prior to the expansion of the
shopping center. Not sv much anymore,
While I am all for same improvement in South Share fit was pretty dreadful prior to the recent
improvements}, I believe the expansion has gone way too far, and been done in such a
piecemeal fashion that the overall magnitude of the expansion has been hidden from
residents. The way it has been done feels deceptive and corrupt. The thought of the traffic
doubling hand it most surely will} when the shopping center goes from what is currently less than
400,000 occupied square feet to well over 700,OOD is unimaginable.
I have noticed a remarkable increase in the amount of dust and dirk in my home that began
almost immediately following the first phase of construction. Our allergies have gotten worse.
Even the dog has had increased allergies. I have had to increase the hours our housecleaner
works at our house to allow extra time for thorough dusting. Even still, at the end of a week, I
can write my name in the dust on the coffee table. The housecleaner says my house is dustier
than just about every house she cleans on the island. This is what we are breathing, and it was
NOT like this in the first 10 years or so I have lived here,
I cannot sleep with a bedroom window open because I hear the traffic and trucks at night and in
the early morning.
I can no longer safely exit my street onto Otis drive. I can no longer even approach my street
from either direction on Otis without long waits at the light at Park St. and Otis, or between Park
Avenue and Broadway.
I can no longer safely walk across Otis on my way to the park on Park Avenue. Cars whiz by
without stopping even when I'm in the crosswalk. Or the drivers scream at me.
Weekends are especially bad as the long line of traffic backs upon Otis. I hear car radios
thumping and people swearing and shouting at each other as they struggle down Otis. Especially
bad is the road rage that happens on a regular basis as drivers fight to merge into one lane on
Otis immediately after crossing Park St.
I have a lot of traffic down my deadend street of Park Avenue~Roosevelt as people look for
shortcuts to the shopping center to avoid the backup or think Park Ave. is Park St. The drivers
get mad when they find themselves on a dead end and whip their cars around at a high rate of
speed. We get large semi trucks down our street, usually late at night, that are looking for the
shopping center and think it is on Park Ave. During the construction we even had a truck show
up at 0 a.m. and insist the site of my home was a demolition site. He was there to tear down the
old gas station and his map showed the site as being at Park Ave. and Otis. He argued with me
fat 6 a,m.l} when I told him he was in the wrong place. Only upon threat of calling the police did
he leave,
To: cmhealey@earthlink.net
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 2;40 PM
Subject: Follow-up letter regarding shopping center Continued
~ have many more cars parking in my neighborhood usually late at night, which wakes me up}
as a result of neighbors on Otis moving their cars to my street because the increased of traffic on
atis has caused many more parked cars to be hit, Residents of the homes on Otis that lost their
parking due to the move of the bus stop from in front of the shopping center to in front of homes
at the corner of Otis and Park St. now also park on my block,
And all this is with only about half the retail occupancy of what the latest proposals call for. How
much more can we take? Where is the mitigation of traffic? Where is the mitigation of the
pollution from all those idling cars? How will this be dealt with? ~s it appropriate to have a large
regional mall that is only accessible via residential streets?
Sincerely,
Brenda Benner
901 Park Ave,
trucks
Page 1 of 2
trucks
From: Mike Fontana ~mikeyfontana a~gmail,com~
To: cmheaiey@earthlink,net
Subjec#; trucks
Date: Oct 1, 2008 2:50 PM
Hello, I live on Broadway near Otis and I feel as you do; the truck
traffic has reached it's limit for our Island.
T have lived on Broadway for 15 years, and just the Safeway trucks
alone has increased by 600n since the new store opened. Now, since the
opening of the new stores at the Center dyes, let's spell it in
American English}, the traffic of LTL (less than truckload} trucks
has increased by 10000.
LTL trucks are the smaller shorter trucks operated by Walgreens,
Roadway, Yellow freight, ABF, etc. I have counted no less that 7
Roadway trucks passing by my house in a 3 hour period, when before
this expansion it was perhaps 2 at the most, all day.
I don't know if it is too late, but we need to impress on the city
that the old Safeway location is not a viable retail location. The
truck traffic has reached it's limit!
Wouldn't it be wonderful if the city tore down that building and
turned it into a large grassy area, where we could have an evening
concert or two during the summer months, and included a a dog park,
such as has been so successful on the west end?
We already have two hardware stores here; Pagono's, and Encinal
hardware, and in the rare occasion that T can't find what T need at
either place, the Home Depot is just a mile away.
We can't tolerate any more truck traffic! A hardware store has way
toa many sources of product that are trucked in by many different
trucking firms.
Fifteen or twenty Safeway trucks per day is small potatoes compared to
the supplies a large hardware store will generate. It is my estimate
that a large hardware store will generate 20-30 deliveries daily,
unless the citizens of Alameda boycott the stare.
We also have many trucks that use Broadway and Otis drive as a
shortcut from the North whose delivery points are Bay farm island. We
need to communicate with the city that these trucks should continue
south on 880 to Hegenburger and travel to and leave, Bay farm from
that approach, In my estimation, this is close to 3Do of our problem
with truck traffic on our city streets. This is truck traffic that can
be controlled! Simple signs can be posted that prohibit through truck
traffic to bay farm island, and once posted and enforced, that will
reduce the problem by 20-300
http:llwebmail.earth~ink.netlwamlprintable.jsp?msgid=3235&x=~ 735224844 141z12O~8
trucks
often I sit on my front porch and watch the trucks that go by, and I
know where they are going, and I watch them make the left turn on Otis
towards Bay farm. We can control this.
In case you wonder, I have been an Alameda resident living on Broadway
for 15 years, and I am also a trucker. I know these issues as well as
anyone.
Being a trucker, I have never been bothered with the trucks on my
street, I rather like to see them go by and wave to the drivers who
work hard and just do their job. Tt is not the drivers who are
responsible for your house or windows shaking, it is the City
management.
However, I have the firm opinion that the truck deliveries in Alameda
has reached it's limit.
Thank you,
Mike Fontana
1028 Broadway
85--7150
Page2of2
~,~~~..~~,..~1...,~,,,;1 o~,-fl~l;~,~r rptJrtr~minr~nf~a~lp ien~mecrir~~~~~5~x=17~57.7,4~44 ~~~1~2~~$
• ~
or an I er air 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIABQULEVARO,SUITE1x0 WALNUTCREEK
CALIFORNIA 94596-4544
A LAW CORPORATION e ~, ;-~, I"'° 4 ~ ;~ ~ ~ 915.931,3Gxx 915.943,11x6 FA1( WWW,mm6lew.can
~~ n ~~ ,..
-` ~.~
r ~~ ~~~ r
~~ PATRICIA E, CURTIN
. , i.. ~ (425) g79-3353
! '~ ~; t~t ; ;. , ~,__ ~~ ; ' `~ ~~:; ~.~ t~' ~ pcurtin~}a mmblaw,curn
~,
October 2, 2008
VIA FACSIMILE and U.S. MAIL
Beverly Johnson, Mayor
and City Council Members
City of Alameda
22b3 Santa Clara Avenue
Alameda, CA 94501
Re: City Council Meeting -Gctober 7, 2008
Alameda Towne Centre -Harsch Investment Corp.
Appeal of Portions of Planned Development Amendment
Our File No. 10303-001
Dear Honorable Johnson and City Council Members:
This firm represents Harsch Investment Corporation with respect to its plans to revitalize
the Alameda Towne Centre. At your meeting on Tuesday, October 7, you will be considerin
g
two actions relating to the proposed Planned Development Amendment ~PDA} for the renovation
of the shopping center, The two actions are ~l} certification of the Environmental Impact Re ort
P
HEIR}, and ~2} hours of operation and outdoor activities for the center. These two actions have
been appealed to you by a few residents. we respectfully request that the appeal be denied,
1. Cerfificatlon of the EIR
The EIR analyzed the potential significant environmental impacts that can occur if the
shopping center was developed with 706,50 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA}. In 2003,
when the City approved a planned development amendment for the shopping center, a miti ated
g
negative declaration ~MND} was certif ed that analyzed the potential environmental impacts of a
shopping center with up to X57,000 square feet of GLA. Thus, the EIR analyzed the otential
P
lmpacts that can occur with the addition of 49,650 square feet of retail space.
The Planning Board certified the EIR at its meeting on August 11, 2048. In certifyen the
g
EIR, the Planning Board found that the document adequately analyzed the potential
environmental impacts that can occur if the shopping center were to develop with 706,650 s ware
q
feet of GLA. Certification of the EIR does not grant approval for or allow Harsch to build
MMB;103x3-001:946728.I Re. Agenda I#em #6-B
10-47.08
Beverly Johnson
Gctober 2, 2oQS
Page 2
70d,d50 square feet of GLA, Certification simply serves as a statement that the EIR adequately
analyzed the potential of a shopping center with 7Qd,d5Q square feet of GLA. Approval of
additional square footage for the center would need to occur in a subsequent approval.
The appellant's main argument against the EIR is that it failed to adequately analyze
traffic Impacts. The EIR in fact adequately analyzed traffic impacts and the analysis was
confirmed by a peer reviewer. The original ttaff c analysis was prepared by Omni Means. In
response to concerns raised by the appellants, the City retained Dowling Associates to perform a
peer review of the traffic analysis. Dowling also prepared the City-wide traff c analysis for the
draft EIR on the draft General Plan Transportation Element. In its peer review, Dowling
concluded that the approach and methodologies used by Dmni Means complied with the
requirements of the City in analyzing traffic impacts. Dowling also noted that the study
assumptions were overly conservative which resulted in higher predicted traffic levels and
impacts and consequently, additional or overbroad mitigation measures, These studies together
provrde adequate and clear evidence that the traffic impacts were adequately analyzed in the
EIR,
~. Hours of Operation and Outdoor Activities
On August 11, the Planning Board approved a portion of the PDA hours of operation
and outdoor activities} and the remaining portions of the PDA are still before the Planning
Board. Appellants state in their appeal, without providing any facts or evidence, that this
approval was unreasonable and inconsistent with the City's code, To the contrary, and as set
forth in the staff report, the Planning Board's approval was reasonable and consistent with the
City's Code.
liver the Last several months, Harsch and some of the adjacent residents, including
residents of the willows, have met to discuss the concerns these residents had with respect to the
PDA. Harsch and these residents have reached an agreement and Harsch is now requesting that
the approvals relating to the hours of operation and outdoor activities be revised to reflect the
agreement. These additional considerations are identified in underline on the pages attached
relating to condition of approval number 8 ~Gutdoor Activities} and condition of approval
number 1 Q Hours of Gperation}, These pages are from the draft resolution that was included in
the Planning Board packet for its meeting on August 22, 200$, The Planning Board did not
consider these revisions at that meeting. Since these conditions were appealed to the Council it
is only appropriate that the Council consider and approve the revisions and not the Planning
Board. As a result, Harsch asks that the City Council approve not only those conditions that the
Planning Board approved relating to these items, but also the more restrictive changes shown on
the attached.
M~ a: ~ a~a3-~o ~ :94b7zs.1
Beverly Johnson
October 2, 2008
Page 3
we request that the City Council deny the appeal and in so doing, certify the EIR and
approve the hours of operation and outdoor activities that can occur at the Alameda Towne
Centre. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
GAN ILLER BLAIR
,,
1
PATRICIA E. CURTIN
ATTACHMENT
cc: Doug Garrison, Supervising Planner
Farimah Faiz, Deputy City Attorney
Randy Kyte, Harsch Investments
Michael P. Corbitt, Harsch Investments
MMB:10303-001:946728,
. ~UT1]~C~R A+~TiV~TIE~S: The tr~llowir~ out<I~r ect~~les ere pem~t thra h
#~~ pled deve6o~rnent entiderne~r~t and ~e nat ~
sub~eot to addi3ionsi ~m~~
apprmral:
a~ ~IHIN~: ~utdaor dini~ ~u~ p~ business hours
b? LEA: Qispley ~ memlr~dise fir sale nn pdvete sidevve~s and
~oc~rtyands ar~d other erase net indudir~ pslrkln~ ~~ ar the ~b~c ' ht of
way.
a~ ~~E~IAL EVE~TE; art fags, h~iday ~stivals and sim~ar event locate
on rite eau ards end s~ d
P ~- deweiks that da not ir~dude em~pd music
are permlt~d ~urlr~ ula~ li~ss hours, Evenfis that include ~nplrfied
rnusio are perm~t#e~ between hears of ~:~~er~ and ~;4apr~ sub ct ~
cam iianoe with ~
P ale ~ Ise monde and reaf~ns. The
~ #er~ts, ar similar ternporr structures,, ~u! events lied ~n arlci
areas ere sub~Ct ~ separ~e ravel the ~ P ~9
~y.
d~ MAiN'f ENaNCE: l~au~~ r~einterce sc#}~raitile~, the do ~alttde
outdoor ~nsbv~ion activi#ies, and #~at da no# in~ude the at
~eneratin~ per e~uipn~erlt ar+e permitted ~4 is per ~~~ The use ~
s#r sweepers, ~~~ ~, lawn mawe~ ~ $lrr~ar e~uipl~ner~t win
X44 feet afi a reslderrtt~ll dis~ict shall runt be pen~itted between the hours
of ~ ~:~~ Pm end ~`: slm. of street saves rs
s# of ~uildin 104 send 'I i ~ limited to the
hags of 4:00 am tc 1 ~ ,
e ~utdoar activiti i ec#ions a b $
' had be I"ohibited within 2 ~ t I ~andominiures.
Hours of ~pera~en
~ 0. DE~I~E~IE~: Eusines$Gs may receive deliveries twee dour harm a de su
to the follow ~ l ~ ' ~ ~ y b~~
i ~t~ns.
De~veries t~ busf~saes located whin 2~~ het of residential ~~s~ distri~
sh~li be Irr~ted to the
hours of 7:0~ em ~ ~4;4D ptn, Delitirer~s beyor~ these
~Y ~~ subject to use permit appravel. the haute
~ ~ X00 m e~ ~':0 ,..~~.,., ~f
udcrs shad ~ISe the ~ar~ r' to
~t~~ and exrt th$ shocoina oen#er. Kesel pied delir~ry trunks, with
vehicle wei~h~ in exce ~ ~ ~~ ounds shall cam i ~
~ ~~ C~~if ~ ~ p ~ with the ruinents
~rn~a ~r ~esaur~ass Ord ~~Ai~S~, whl~h currently ~mlt ~ ldlin
to a maximum of 5 minutes urr~r most air~m ~
starlces. Sho in c~ r
m ritten noti~cedan of the r i to ail
feats. Tenants h li ` ` s ~f these r i
h . fi s ri ersanrHel shall rrbon' r - these
uire~le~nts end r i n#er mane even .
MMB;14343-4D I :94b728, l
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION N0.
E
~~
v
a
c~
DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE AUGUST 11, 2048, PLANNING BOARD
DECISION TO CERTIFY THE ADEQUACY OF THE ALAMEDA TOWNE
CENTRE EXPANS[ON PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTPDA06-0404AND MAJOR
DESIGN REVIE~IIlDR0~5-OOl3
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study that identified potentially
significant environmental impacts associated with the Alameda Towne Centre
Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2006, the City Issued a Notice of Preparation
~"NOP"~ of a Environmental Impact Report ~EIR~; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted an extensive public input process to
identify potential environmental issues and concerns that should be addressed
in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR ~DEIR~ was
published on August 29, 2006 and the DEIR was circulated for public comment
between August 29, 2006, and October 12, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the City held public hearings to accept comments on the
DEIR, before the Planning Board on September 25, 2006, and before the
Transportation Commission on September 2l, 2006; and
WHEREAS, written responses were prepared addressing all signifcant
environmental issues raised by commenters during the public review period and
published in the Final EIR ~FE[R~; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR, consisting of the DEIR, responds to comments
and evaluation of project revisions, and was made available to the public for
review on June 24, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held public hearings on July 14, 2008,
and August 11, 2008, wherein the Board considered all pertinent information
and then certified the adequacy of the Final EIR on August 11, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2408, an appeal of the August 11, 2008,
Planning Board decision was filed with the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this appeal of the
Planning Board decision to certify the adequacy of the Final EIR on October 1,
2008, and examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony
and written comments received; and
Resolutions #6-B
14.01-D8
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings;
1. The Final EIR has been presented to and independently reviewed and
considered by the City Council,
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City
of Alameda, and
3. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, and all applicable state and local guidelines.
~. Project changes were made by the applicant that addressed some of the
comments received on the DEIR and specifically objections to the
proposal far a Target store in the Shopping Center Building 1000,
former Safeway store}; the project changes reduced andlor eliminated
some of the potentially significant impacts relating to noise, visual, light
and glare by reducing the amount of square footage originally requested
for the Shopping Center; the project changes do not increase the size of
Building 1000 substantially as was previously proposed and evaluated,
in 2003 to approximately 66,700 square feet, and to approximately
141,000 square feet in the original 2005 submittal; and
The project changes do not create new significant impacts and do not
increase the severity of an impact identified in the EIR; the Board further
determined that the EIR prepared for the project adequately addressed
all potentially significant environmental impacts as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act and no further environmental
evaluation is required.
WHEREAS, a DEIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2003042013, was
prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and was
circulated for public review between August 29, 2006 and October 12, 2006 and
no comments were received which identified new significant environmental
impacts which were not already analyzed in the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, a final environmental impact report (FEIR) was prepared
responding to the comments received on the DEIR (DEIR and FEIR are
collectively referred to as EIR); and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2008 the City Council found the EIR
complete and correct, and after considering public testimony and reviewing all
project documents, including the EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program,
Exhibit "A" of this resolution, found na significant environmental impacts from
the project as mitigated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE fT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda hereby certifies the EIR and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, for the Alameda Towne Centre
Expansion and Reconstruction Project.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) 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 certain
fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Cade Section 66620 ~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 furkher 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 66020, the applicant wii!
be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
*******
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS QF FACT REGARDING PQTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AND MITIGATIQN MEASURES FQR THE ALAMEDA TOwNE CENTRE
REDEVELQPMENT AND EXPANSIQN PRQJECT
PRQJECT DESCR1PTlQN:
The EIR evaluated the environmental effects of the expansion of the Alameda
Towne Centre by approximately 49,100 sq. ft, of gross leasable area ~GLA} over
what had previously been approved by the City. This proposed expansion would
result in a total shopping center GLA of 106,650 sq. ft. and physical re-
arrangement of uses including an approximately 145,000 sq. ft. GLA discount
department stare Target} replacing an existing smaller store. A Target Store is
no longer proposed as part of the redevelopment of the shopping center, After
preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the renovation plans for
the shopping center were revised and the immediate expansion plans far the
shopping center were reduced by 26,500 square feet to approximate#y 680,150
sq. ft. of GLA. The revised plans would have the same or reduced impacts in all
topic areas in the Environmental Impact Report.
The Project is defined as the redevelopment of Alameda Towne Centre which
includes an expansion ranging from 22,600 to 40, 650 square feet of additional
floor area resulting in full build-out of up to approximately 706,650 square feet of
GLA, construction of a new parking structure, and pedestrian, bicycle and transit
improvements, new signage and other minor site improvements ~"Project"}, A
detailed Project description is contained in the DEIR at pages 3-1 through 3-4
and FEIR at pages 15-2 and 15-3.
z. THE EIR: The Environmental Impact Report ~"EIR"} consists of the
Draft EIR, dated August 2046 ~"DEIR"}, and the Final ElR which includes
revisions to the DEIR, responses to comments and the mitigation monitoring
reporting program, dated June 2008 ~"FEIR"},
r~. THE RECQRD: The following information is incorporated by reference
and made part of the record ~"Record"} supporting these Findings:
a. The Project application and all studies submitted on the Project.
b. The EIR and its associated reports.
c. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence
submitted to or delivered to the City in connection with the EIR and
Project.
d. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of public
meetings and other documents relied upon or prepared by City staff or
consultants relating to the Project.
e. All matters of common knowledge to the City Council, including but not
limited to the City's policies, guide{Ines and regulations
f'. These Findings adopted in connection with the EIR and Project.
III. FINDINGS AND STATEMENTOF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS
The EIR for the Project, prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act ~"CEQA"}, evaluates the potentially significant and
significant adverse environmental impacts which could result from approval of the
Project. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations ~"CEQA Guidelines"}
Section 15091, the City is required to make f ndings with respect to the impacts.
These Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures ~"Findings"} list all identified potentially signifcant environmental
impacts of the Project, as well as mitigation measures for those impacts. All
mitigation measures are hereby adopted by the City Counci! and will be enforced
through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ~"MMRP"}, as incorporated
in the conditions of approval. All potentially signifcant impacts identified in the
EIR will be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the implementation of the
mitigation measures as enforced in the MMRP.
~~. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED OR
MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
1, AESTHETICS
a. Potential Impact re: Nighttime Glare (Impact 4-1 ). Project
implementation may involve installation of light standards and new signage at
various locations throughout the Project site.
b. Miti ation. Impact 4-1 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measure;
MM ~-,1.:.~LEghtin~ Plan. The Project applicant shall submit a
Lighting Plan for the Project site to the City's Planning and
Building Director. Lighting design shall employ fixtures that
would cast light in a downward direction.
c. Facts. As required by MM 4-1, a Lighting Plan will be
prepared for the Project. The Lighting Plan will be reviewed and approved by the
City's Planning and Building Director to ensure that light fixtures are used and
designed in a way to limit the amount of light and glare emanating by the Project.
Implementation of MM 4-1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
7
V
approval, will avoid or lessen the potential impact on nighttime glare from the
Project to a level of insignificance,
d. Findin s. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 4-~ will reduce the potential impact of nighttime glare from the Project to a
level of Ensignif canoe.
~. AIR QUALITY
a. Potential Impact re: Generation of Particulate Matter (Impact
5-~. Construction at the Project site could have short-term air quality effects,
primarily due to the generation of particulate matter (PM~o). PM,o is normally
generated by diesel construction vehicles and equipment, the disturbance of soils
through excavation and grading, construction vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces
and the tracking of soils onto paved roads.
b. Miti ation. Impact 5-~ will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measure:
MM 5-~: Dust Control Measures Construction activities must
comply with the "Basic Control Measures" and "Enhanced
Control Measures" for dust emissions as outlined in the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These requirements are listed
as follows:
~. Bask Control Measures
• dater ail active constructive areas at leasttwice daily,
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
debris or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply ~non-
toxic} soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking
areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily with water sweepers}~ all paved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction
sites.
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible
soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
2. Enhanced Control Measures
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply anon-toxic}
soil binders to exposed stockpiles dirt, sand, etc.}.
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to
prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
c. Facts. BAAQMD has identified a set of effective and
comprehensive control measures for particulate matter that can be generated
from construction activity, The applicable measures for the Project identified by
BAAQMD are required by MM 5-1, Implementation of MM 5-1, enforced through
the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the
potential impact that may be caused by Project construction as it relates to the
generation of particulate matters.
d. Fin, ding. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 5-1 will reduce the potential impact relating to the generation of particulate
matter from Project construction to a level of insignificance
3. HYDRaLGGY
a. Potential Impact re: Generation of Construction Related
Storm Water Pollutants (Impact 8-1 ). The Project could potentially generate
temporary increases in sediment loads and associated urban pollutants during its
construction period.
b. Miti ation, Impact 8-1 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measures:
MM 8-1 a: StormllVater Pollution Prevention Plan,
Compliance with the region's NPDES Permit, and Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan permitting requirements
would involve implementation of best management practices
far construction activities, precluding increases in sediment
and urban pollutant loading in storm drainage from the
Project site. Implementation of appropriate runoff control
measures shall be incorporated into Project design prior to
approval of final Project plans. The applicant shall file a
Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control
Board prior to commencement ofconstruction activities.
MM 8-1b: Operations and Maintenance, Plan. The Project
also must incor orate ermanent ost-construction
p p p
treatment controls for starmwater, through the use of source
controls, site design, treatment or flowlduration controls.
The Project must issue an Operations and Maintenance
~0&M} plan to assure that treatment measures are
maintained throughout the life of the Project.
c, Facts, As required by MM $-1 a and 8-1 b, construction of the
Project will comply with the region's NPDES Permit and the SvVPPP which
4
include measures and practices designed to reduce erosion and protect storm
water quality during construction and substantially limit the degradation of runoff
from all portions of the completed development. Compliance with these
measures will be ensured through regular inspections conducted by appropriate
City personnel. The Project is also required to incorporate permanent ost-
p,
construction treatment controls for storm water and an Q&P plan is required to
ensure the measures are maintained throughout the life of the Project.
Implementation of MN18-1 a and 8-1 b, enforced through the MMRP as a condition
of approval, will avoid ar substantially lessen the potential impact that ma be
y
caused through Project construction as it relates to storm water pollutants.
d. Findin s. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 8-1 a and 8-1 b will reduce the potential impact relating to the generation of
construction related storm water pollutants by the Project to a level of
insignificance.
4. NQISE
a. Potential Impact re: Construction Noise (Impact 9-1 ).
Development of the proposed Project would result in an increase of short term
noise levels due to construction activities. Construction noise could adversely
affect sensitive receptors near the Project site.
b, Miti ation, impact 9-1 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measures:
MM 9-1 a: Adherence to Noise Ordinance Restrictions. All
Project construction activities shall be conducted in
accordance with the City of Alameda Noise Qrdinance,
which imposes restrictions that protect nearby sensitive
receptors. Outdoor construction activities shall be limitedto
the hours of 1;00 a.m. to 1;00 p.m. an weekdays and 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. MM 9-1 b:
Construction and Demolition Schedule. In order to buffer
adjacent sensitive receptors to the greatest extent practical,
the Applicant or Applicant's Agent shall submit a
construction and demolition schedule, subject to approval by
the Planning and Building Director, The plan shall include
the following;
• Approximate dates and hours (duration) of demolition and
construction activities;
• A table listing the noisiest construction equipment and
activities and hours of operation ~e.g., jackhammer};
A provision to restrict the noisiest demolition and
construction activities to the hours between 9 AM and 5 PM.
The Planning and Building Director may modify these hours;
• A provision to notify all neighbors within 300 feet of the
construction area one week prior to initiating demolition and
construction activities (including establishing staging area).
Notification of neighbors shall also include construction and
demolition schedule and construction times.
MM 9-1 c: Phased Demolition. In order to buffer adjacent
sensitive receptors to the greatest extent practical,
demolition of the existing Safeway building shall proceed
from the front to the rear of the building. To the extent that
demolition can be phased without endangering public safety,
the rear portion of the building shall remain standing while
the remainder of the building is demolished in order to
provide a sound barrier between the demolition site and the
nearby elderly assisted care facility. Additionally, pile driving
shall be prohibited during demolition and construction of the
proposed Project.
c. Facts. As required by MM 9-1 a, The Project will comply with
the City's Noise ordinance which includes restrictions on the days and times of
construction activities. As required by MM 9-1 b, the Project is also required to
prepare and submit a construction and demolition schedule which must be
approved by the City's Planning and Building Director. This schedule will include
notification to the City and neighbors on the timing and duration of the nosiest
construction activities. Also, as required by MM 9-1 c, the Project will phase
certain demolition to allow sound barriers to remain to buffer construction noise.
Construction noise impacts are short-term. Implementation of MM 9-1 a, 9-1 b
and 9-1 c, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or
substantially lessen the potential impact on noise that will be caused by Project
construction.
d. Findin s. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 9-1 a, 9-1 b and 9-1 c will reduce the potential impact relating to construction
noise to a level of insignificance. Minor revisions to the mitigation measures
were made to clarify responsibility for and timing of mitigation implementation.
5. TRAFFIC ANDCIRCULATI~N
a. Potential Impact re: Park/Proiect Access-North Drivewav
(Impact 10-1 ). With baseline plus project traffic, the outbound (eastbound) left-
turn driveway movement would be operating at LOSE (36.8 seconds/vehicle)
during the weekend mid-day peak hour. This impact would be focused on-site.
b. Miti ation. Impact 10-1 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measure:
MM 1.0-1 ~ ParklProject Access-North arEVeway. A two-way-
left-turn lane ~TUVLTL} shall be installed on Park Street. The
TWLTL shall function as a refugelmerge lane far outbound
left-turn movements from V~~hitehall Raad north Park Street
entrance} and to accommodate inbound left-turn movements
far businesses on the east and west sides of Park Street.
This would allow the intersection to operate at LCS C. The
cost of installing the TINLTL shall be the responsibility of the
applicant and another recently approved project applicant
Safeway Gas station PDA05-4001 }. The applicant shall
contribute a proportions! share toward the installation of the
Tv11LTL based on increased trip data contained in the traffic
study prepared for this project. The applicant shall make
said contribution at the time of issuance of the first Phase 3
building permit; or, at an earlier date if the City determines
that installation of the TVIILTL is required to maintain
acceptable LAS standards for left turn movements from the
shopping center onto Park Street. Construction of the
T~IVLTL shall be completed prior to the issuance of final
certificate of occupancy forthe first building in Phase 3. If the
City determines that implementation is required during
Phase 2, construction shall be completed prior to the
issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3.
c. Facts. Atwo-way-left turn lane on Park Street as required by
MM 10-1 will be installed, The two-way-left-turn-lane will be installed at the
appropriate time has determined by the City} to ensure that traffic operates at an
acceptable level. This improvement will ensure that the traffic level at the
Parl~Project access north driveway will operate at an acceptable level of LaS C.
Implementation of MM 10-1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the potential impact on the
ParklProject access-north driveway,
d. Findin s. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 10-1 will reduce the potential impact on the Park/Project access-north
driveway to a level of insignificance. Minor revisions to the mitigation measures
were made to clarify responsibility for and timing of mitigation implementation.
The City Council further finds that the revision to the original mitigation measure
in the EIR does not change the analysis in the EIR and will not create any new
significant impact on the environment.
l
a. Potential Impact re: Otis/Project Access-Trader Joe's
Driveway (Impact 10-2). With year 2025 Cumulative plus Project traffic, the
Otis/Project Access-Trader Joe's Driveway outbound (northbound) left-turn
driveway movement would degrade further from LOSE (36.8 seconds/vehicle) to
LOSE (40.2 seconds/vehicle) during the PM peak hour and LOSE (38.4
seconds/vehicle) during the weekend mid-day peak hour, respectively. Per the
significance criteria, intersection volumes would increase by over 1% with
proposed Project traffic at this location.
b. Miti ation. Impact 10-2 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measure as revised in the FEIR;
MM 10-2 (revised): Otis/Project Access-Trader Joe's Driveway. ~-is
mn~iom } f nm i hi +h~ c nnninn on}or lA/.+h
~{~-~~vccrn ~~r~vrT~ba{~ti-rr~-~n~-~~v~rr~-6crlcci--rrnrr-~
~°-r~°^~~^~. The A licant shall contribute a ro ortional share toward the
installation of a traffic si nal at the intersection of Otis Drive and Trader
Joe's drivewa ~ based on data contained in the ro'ect traffic stud
re ared b Omni Means. The Public Works Director shall determine the
final ro-rata share. The cost of installing the traffic signal shall be the
responsibility of the applicant, another recently approved project applicant
Safeway Oas Station, File fro. PDA05-0001 }, and the City The _applicant
shall make said a ment to the Cit at the time of Buildin Permit
issuance for Phase 3 construction or at such time that the City
determines that this improvement is required to maintain acceptable LOS
standards for left turn movements from the shopping center onto Otis
Drive, The City shall ensure implementation of this mitigation measure as
soon as reasonably feasible, following receipt of the contribution from the
applicants.
c. Facts. As determined in the traffic study prepared on the
Project, the applicant is required by MM 10-2 to contribute its fair share toward a
traffic signal to be installed at the intersection of Otis Drive and Trader Joe's
driveway, The signal will be installed at the appropriate time has determined by
the City} to ensure that traffic operates at an acceptable level, The mitigation
measure was changed from that measure recommended in the DEIR to ensure
consistency with the requirements in the traffic study. The revised measure is
more effective than the measure originally recommended 'rn the DEIR and
consistent with the measures adapted far other projects. Implementation of MM
10-2, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or lessen
the potential impact on the OtislProject access-Trader Joe's driveway to a level
of insignificance.
S
d. Findin s. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 14-2 as revised will reduce the potential traffic impact on the OtislProject
access-Trader Joe's driveway to a level of insignificance. Minor revisions to the
mitigation measures were made to clarify responsibility for and timing of
mitigation implementation. The City Council further finds that the revised MM 10-
2 is equivalent to or more effective than the original mitigation measure identified
in the DEI R. The City Council further find that the revision to the original
measure in the DElR does not change the analysis in the EIR and will not create
any new significant impact on the environment.
a. Potential Impact re: Shoreline/Project Access-Post Office
(Impact 10-3). With cumulative year 2025 plus project traffic, the outbound
(southbound) left-turn driveway movement would be operating at LOSE (36.0
seconds/vehicle) during the weekend mid-day peak hour. This impact would be
focused on-site as all other turning movements at this intersection would operate
at LOS B or better.
b. Miti ation. impact 14-3 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measure:
MM 10-3: ShorelinelPro'ect Access-Post Office. The
applicant shall install either a T~IvLTL on Shoreline Drive or an all-
way-stop-control at the Shoreline DrivelProject Access-Post Office
intersection. Under either scenario, the southbound Project
Access-Post Office driveway shall be re-striped for separate left
and right-turn lanes. The applicant shall implement this mitigation
measure prior to the completion of construction of Phase 3; or, at
such time that the City determines that these improvements are
required to maintain acceptable LOS standards for left turn
movements from the shopping center onto Shore{ine Drive.
c. Facts. The traffic improvements identif ed in MM 10-3 will be
installed The traffic improvements will be installed at the appropriate time has
determined by the City to ensure that traff c operates at an acceptable level.
The type of improvement will be determined prior to the issuance of building
permits and will be based on the information in the traffic study and EIR, The
improvements required in this measure will ensure that traffic will operate at an
acceptable level at the Shoreline DrivelProject access-Post Office intersection.
Implementation of MM 14-3, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval, will avoid or lessen the potential impact on the ShorelinelProject
access-Post Office intersection to a level of insignificance,
d. Findings. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 10-3 will reduce the potential impact on the Shoreline/Project access-Post
Office intersection to a level of insignificance. Minor revisions to the mitigation
measures were made to clarify responsibility for and timing of mitigation
implementation. The City Council further finds that the revision to the original
9
mitigation measure in the EIR does not change the analysis in the EIR and will
not create any new significant impact on the environment.
B. ALTERNATIVES iN THE EIR
1. In#roduc#Ion. In accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act ~"CEQA"} Guideline Section 15'126.6, an EIR must describe a range
of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which
would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid
or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate
the comparative merits of the alternatives. If a project alternative will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project,
the decisian maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines
that specific economic, legal, social, technological ar other considerations make
the project alternative infeasible. See CEQA X21002, CEQA Guidelines
§15091 ~a}~3}},
2. Desc,rip~~on of ,rAl#~~iv,,,es. The EIR considered four
alternatives: ~1} "No project" alternative no deveio ment , 2 Reduced
~ p } ~}
Development Alternative No. 1, ~3} Reduced Development Alternative No. 2 and
~4} an alternative project site. These alternatives are analyzed in the DEIR at
pages 11-1 through 11-21. The DEIR concludes that the various alternatives
would have similarorgreater impactsthan the Project.
The purpose in considering alternatives in a DEIR is to allow decisian makers the
opportunity to consider if those alternatives may reduce unavoidable impacts that
would be caused by a proposed project. The Project will not result in any
impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Findings rejecting alternatives are required only if one or more significant
environmental effects will not be avoided or substantially lessened by mitigation
measures. The City Council is not required to make findings rejecting
alternatives described in the EIR since all of the Project's significant impacts will
be avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures adopted herein.
The City Council, as it has done in these Findings, is required to make findings
relating to each significant impact. If it makes a mitigation finding for each
significant impact, no further findings are required, including findings on
alternatives. See Pub Res C §21981 ~a}~1 }-~2}; 14 Cal Code Regs X15091 ~a}~1 }-
~2}~
to
3. Findin .The City Council finds that the Project will not result in
any environmental impact that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
As a result, findings rejecting the alternatives are not required. Nevertheless, the
City Counci! rejects the alternatives analyzed in the DE1R because ~ }the Tar et
9
Store was considered in some of the alternatives and that portion of the Project
has been eliminated, 2} the alternatives will not result in a project that has fewer
or les Empacts than the Praject, and 3} the alternatives fail to meet the objectives
of the Project as outline in the DEIR at page 3-2.
C. C~NCLUSI~N
The City Counci! finds that all potentially significant environments! im acts
p
identified in the EIR wilE be mitigated by the implementation of all the miti atian
g
measures identified in these Findings. Implementation of the mitigation measures
will be assured through enforcement of the MMRP. The City Council further finds
that the Project will not result in any significant unavoidable environments! im act
p
with the implementation of the mitigation measures.
?,TT aCH~IE~T I EXHIBIT "B"
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM1I
I~;TR~DL~CTIOti
-~ ~'
~~ ::1''.G' 1 '.li):i•.. i`~~,il::~.~i l,l~ ~', ~ ~~ • ~ ~~ .J .lr:+~ l.C~ 1,~ rr ,• i., l 1, r.
~. ~.~ :<«
,l~.i)D;a;li ~'. ~l !~~.:'y51;_:~;[; n~~,)[;li~..}C:i'.~ ri'Jj~':1;'.i -.~t',c':) :;Lli:~a'1~)[: ir:~a~'_li' :~ ~ ~ •;••~~,; rU .l','~;l~ J~
~Cu;:~~ il~,,f~il:.lf,C ~+;''"'.)1`l„C:;':ll ~'.:t''"~ f7' .1 ~r'irUacC~ ~);')1~`,.
,.. ~ ,
i,'1~ ~.t:,:~a.:r~ll ~l~)~::'~~C:['.~ ~'.'t)~::1.~::y ~l',~.,• :1`~~i,c:.l,!;c ;: '~'~ C:i':• c)i .~~' ~ ~l~~:c;t'S tC) ,i~~~'J:~
n I ~ L. ~l:l::`1~~~:1 '
'i'.C ~i~.i~;fi)%.~i 1~;:)~~L' T:;t' :l:[1~'.v:~~ 1 i:':~.lril)l~ ~~U1':iL]r:^~ i\V~!7.~:1:~ ~i{)'~";ll:~ :~ '`'•i :ll~;'L~i.2 'l0
~.i :~i 71~~1 ~;} .';~l'.:.~...:L ~S~t1tS ,li!i~ ii'?';'.i:~,l;',f a";;aC"S ~"',li .l~L ~!~~,.:i~4G !1i '~ ~~~ ~ T!
.`
l' ~~ ,1~~:ii ~ : i•
~ t.l:~~!;~~ . ~r iMif,~,,:~~:,4:lrL}[: ~~ ~`~~~~ [Y"1~:5:li~Ol'.:";'.C:l~~;.Cti
.,
.l.ry L4~1~~)~,~~Siil~'. LOC lii.~~C'l:•;C.. L.1C:V1.~
~ ~}':l;': ~" p:l~u~5 .~i~C1:~lJ,~ ~Ui C:":C)[11;GC'.1Z~ r~i~ lf.^.ple^;i~';iC:l'1(i:l Oi ChL [?"'.1:;~',l;ivfi
m :l5ures, a^d
• ~;~ac~ ~~~r z^tr: ,~r ~~m~~~ ion {:ire a~ mi~;~:lt:c;r ac:cur~.
,
r r
v \. ~.~~
C_.~.1J~~~S I ? VIII:C~f~~O1! ~rlo'\lir~lli`1Ci ~ilo~iC~~,~4
! },
,~
r-
F.~ ~~ EAR
I
I
i "'~
y
• ./
J
I
1+
i
M i
V ^
w v ',
~~I
~.
Z Z•
^ w
Fy I
f
Z~
,..'
~/
~ "'~ I
:.~ Z f
~ ~
rr y J
Z Z
r
~ 1 N
r
,'' yf ~ 1
~ ~ ~ _
.:
:, ~ ~ ~
,.
i~ V ~
- - -~--~
r. I'
?+ I ~~
I
w w ~ J ~ i
~ J ~ _ i
•~ -+ T
S • w n ~ :y r
f 4 ~ r n J
I+ ~ ~ ~ '~ i
I ~ r w ~ ~~ - .~ ~~ ~
.. ~ _. _ f
IM
rI rr r I .. y
•"~
~ ~ ~ ~, ~ r E
.. -- ~ ~" +
i ~' ,,,
r~ - I ~
, ~ ... ~ _l
w y
r
p ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~
~ r ~, r„
f r ' ~ 'J J e J ~
~ - +}i J
~ ~- ~ = ~J ~~ ~~
V ~~
A
N
q ,1•
.M y
r r
r ~
:~ ~
f1 ~ .. w
~w
i~ n `~ J
we
w w
M A ~ ••
w v ~ "`
n ....
.r ~r ...
w !) ~ ~
~i N
y 1~1
try
V I
~ ` ~
." I
^ 4
Z .,~ ? ,~
r ~
I
~
--~ J
~
n
J ~ ~ ~
~ •
~
'"' .r
~ I J,
` r.
f !,
n ~~ ~ I
`~
•
~
z
~ "" {
~ ~
~
..~ . ~
~ M ~ i
_ _ .~; y ~
~ ~ I
_
H ., r J w ~' ` r r
. ~ ~ `~ .1 r ,~ ~ r ~ J
I J
J ~ J J ~ ~r, v w w ~ r ^ r ..r -'
v+ ~ ~ r J
^ .., ~ / J J r.
r
w J _ _
~r M ~ y
~ ^ "" ~ r w ~ - J - J
t r ~ ~ 'r. .. _ -~.
A y ~ ~ L r ~ r ~ '' ~ ~
""
~
I ,.
r.
w ,
~ ^. v •. J ~ ~ ~,
r. •r. - •~
I
H
w ~
IIfI ~
..
~ ~ ~ I w .r .. r T, ~ .. ~ .r r ~ '~ ~ ~ ~- J
•• ~„ f i r ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ r
.. 4 r 'r• ^
I w ~ ~ J _
n
4.r
1
Z
Z
X
1
Z
r.+
!`~
V
~~
~ z
' ~
~ I
I ~~
J ~
,_~r .
T ~
.K ~
a
r
I r 1
f V
i
.~
' ` ~ .~
I ~ ~
f '~
w ~~
I r J} If
I r w 1
r Illrl
w w ~
V
. y ^ A
r r w
r n
I~ J
`M .'S/.
t ~
' I w
I1 ~
{ J
~ ,
~ I ~
M
W I ' ~
. .^ ~ w
V
r til j i ~
- /\ ~ ~ r
v i
~ rte. I I
~ h ~ ~
.a I~
r ^ ~
~ V
T ~ I
.. :J I ~ ~,
n i 'w ~~ 4
7 v r"
I r q
.~.. I '+ ~
~ •.r w .w
r ^ ~
~ ~ ~ ""
...
~ A
.\ I ~ V
y W ~ J ~
"] I~ A
.. L ~ J
A
i ~ .. w
r q w
y , w ~ r.l
7
y ~~
1 W
1
~ I y
N ~ ~
~ f
7 ;,,, i w
J
+ ~ 1 ~
~ ~~J~w.
~ JI
~ '~ I ~ I
` ~ ~ I
I r
h ~ '~
y N
,1 ~ r
F.1 I M
M •y
r ~ i ;-'
•.
vl
r~
f.
Z
I
:'~
i ~
Y
7
ti..~
Z
4
,.4
y~ L.!
r
I C
i
I
{I
V r.
A ~" :J
'j' :~
w a
y~ rw
`~ V
r.
./
~ r
J
:r ...
:.IC
_ M`
~., ~ ~ i
} i
r
!
'J
- I•~
~ r f
r
~ r
^ ~
~
r l
I w
-
~ r ~ J
..
~
_ r J r.
r -
J r i
..
_ ~ ~ r
+
i v y ~ I J r J ~
^ J I ~1 w r. -
.~
I r ~ .. I r 'r. ~
'n . ~ _ ^
- r ^
~J
_ r _ J
~/ ^^ r J
~ wl
r ~ = ~ ~ ~
'f ~ = r
r ~ ». .
w
r
~ ~ J
~
'!.
. _ ..
`'
~
~~ w ~ _ .,
J J /
~ ~ - ~~ F - 'r. w
r _ ~ r
J
~ J ~ ~~ ~ y ..
.r ~~ _ j~
w J ~ ~ _
` '~ _ .. r.
r r
J ~ ~ _ ..
w
~, ^.J. J ,r Y
~
r ~
v
~ _ .-: !,
--
~
'
~
~ •
- - ~~
A ..
J
II
~ /~ ` J r _ w..
_ r ..
` r / _ y r ~
~{ ` ~ ~r J
II y n w
r _
r r. ~ ^. ~ y
~ r y h
i K1 r
'~ J w ~'
A ~ J ~ ~ .J
J "r. 1
' ,~
' ,~ ` _ f• r. ~ ~ ~ ^ w
~ ..
• •• ~ .. ^ - ++ ~ J r w _ I ^ J r y .J r'' I \
~. •r
r
I
r.. ~ - ~ ~
r r ~
1~ .
Y ~ r, J 4
I IL. ~ ^ r ~ `i ^ w ~ ~ ~r . r J - A
~- ~
i v, ~r t
.~
4
Z
• J
_ -:
_ ~ t .. .~
_ ..
.r ~ ~ r
' r
~ ^ J J
v r ~"
I i ~ I ~~
i ~ ~I
I ~ ~
~ "~ i
r ~
~ I
A ra I
~ y I '
' ~ ~
I------~--.
I, ~
:~ •.
w ^~
~ w r
.~ n
4 ~` '
•w
V +'
= = M
M
~ ~ ',
f r r '~+ I
'~ A A
w r I++
i
V I ~
I M
I ~
,~ i
' r
' J
C # ~"
~ .~
.r ,, ± ~ ^ i
v vI ~ r
r
' • I /1 I ~ r~
~ ~ I ~
., r.. ~
y
..r ,~ ~
w ~ S+ '
~ ~ ~ i ~ ~
~ V '
Z ~, i
.y
~ ~ I ~
~ ~ r
f ^ 'r .y
~ ~ ~
A ~ ~ ~
W
w1 ~ A i
'.~ K N
:r .K ~ J ~ a
I+a rr ^r '
K A
I~ ^ ~ A
~ ~1 FI
w ~ V
I rl I
r Q f ~ ~
Z ~. ,
J ~ i
~ i
J
~ ~
I
:i
;1,
i
I
Z ~' J ` y J J-
~
*^~
~ I
°
e
n
I..I ~ I
,~G.yy I ` r w ~ w
r
Z ~ :~i
"'
r
M ~ ~ r
r '' ~ '!.
~ r
~
~ ~.
~
rL}.l ~ i
~ ~
~ '
~ ry
V V
w
I
~ ' ~
W ~ w I
I
1
I ~ r .J J ~ ~ J .
~1 -
y ..
~ r r - ...
'r 1
I ~I ~ _ r - _
A w .r J ~ - ~
r / ..
I
' i
I A
r ~
~ ~ ~
~
•r~ - r
w . •
~ ~, ~ 'r
..
~
~ ••
'~
,
J
f
.r
w
r
~y
V
r`i
r4 r
.f ~ r r •• J .n ` w -
... J ~ ~~ - J - W
J ^ r !~ w / 1
~ ~J J - J 'r. ~~ J .. 'f, f J ,r I .J
I ~ .I J - - • J - ~ r J 'A ~ ~ -
f ~ w r ~ .. 'J '.r ~ - ~ '- ~.. .. - .. - 'r.
~, • :r ,r j
~ 'r r. 1 ~ ~ .r ~ ~ ..
r 7 ~ _
r J ~ v - r -
.. L 'r. - ,. ~ ~. J - J w ~ .
.-. I ~!~1 ; f r
~`
V
~,
n
,~
~-r
Z
~,
Z
X
_.
y
Z
J
Z
n
ri
Q :!
~_ I_
~ J
ry
y
_~
y
0
I V ~ ~ /~ W
I rl I I ~ y
11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ^f
~ I ~ ~ i Z
w ~ n
~ I v ~ V
U ~ I I s
~ Z
I ~ r i
7', I ~ --' I - f J{
.+ j - _'~ ~
M r, yy +y J ~ ~ _
y _ ,.
I v ~ v ~ ~
' I r A ~ ~ ~ J
w N M Z
`` I r A ~ ^ r• ~I
r { w+ .r
r.. rn
• ~ i ~ 4I
v I ~
~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ I w
,~
A I J i R'~
I V ~ l
~ V r w I J ~
.. ~ .,, ~
~ ~ •f ~ {
I
,^ ~ - I
N • r J .. ~ .. ...
.. r r J
r ~ ~ I
~ w ~ ~ ~
~+ ' r ~ _ ~ i
~ ~ i w ~ .,.. . ~ i .. ..
.~ ~ J ^
J 1 ~
/ ~ II I4 I ~ 4
A ~ I I ~ ~
_ Z
7 I
1 ~ i I I I
~ ~ M I i I 1
~ w
w I A
^ I • w/ ~ i
7 v " wM i ~ f.l
... w I ~ A I .. ~~' ~~
I w w •~ .r 1
~ M f ~ r ^ ~ rl, ~ ,
u~l M w
~ A I i
.~ ^ w r " ~ .I ii
^^~~ ~ nn w I
.. L. ~ ~ r I ~ _.I
I ~
~ i • ~ ~I
Q .. N I 'I.
w w ~
w » I ~ ~ i I
T •v I I ~
Z; ~ I
y ~ I i II
1 N
~ ~ ~ ~ y = w i r,i f _.
~ ~ 'r 'l,
7 w I J ~ ~ 'r, ~~ I ~~ _I ~ _I w.,
f.i
i ~ ~ ~ ..i _~ _i ~'
L ~ ~ _~
~ ,..~ ~ w t ~ r, '., I
I ~^ _ _ I
.. v i ~ - ~ ~ ~I _ I
i r~ I
V {
r
~ - r
ti ~.. ` ,
+, ~ ~ r
I - - ~ ~ '!~
f ~ ~ _ •- --
~ ti I `/ f n1 ~ ~ ,
~ _ 'r,
i r. I ~ y .r ~ Y Y ., ~
~ r .. 'f n. f J ~ y ~
~ '+ ~
' ~ f '~ •' ~ ~ J ..
w ~ ..
f. ~ J.J. ~ 'f.
n I ~ .. r '~ w T .w ~ ~ r , ...I f w r. J .. r. "" I
' ~ .. '~ ~y ~ A J J ~ 1 w 'J' 1 ~ r ..... ~ r I ~ , j v r~ ` r J
i A 1 ~~ r ~ 'r ~ I A / r ' J r ~~ J w
w rI ~ J ',~ ^ ~ ~ ~ I r.l r ~ r ~ r,y ~ r tir
A w _ .. ~ "`' .fir.. ~ w . 'r ^ ~ ^ ~l ~ 1
Mme. W J / ~. ! I ~ .J. ~ w J ~ ~ ~' ~, .'
I, ~G r~ L... J J I r ~ ~~ r 1 ~ J T w .. ~!
. y I I ;~ y ~ ~+ J J w ~ ~ ~ iJ r ~ ~ .. w r
r I r"y ~ ~ ..r /, .. w ~ ~I y ~ .. ~ J J ~ ~ J
i ~ J ~ LJ
r.
~
j
- f
r
y ~ a~ ' as
o ~ a o
.~
__- k I
~
J
~ ~
~ s
#
~
r+
~ •V
^ A
~
~ I
~
~
i
~
rr
i Irl
i ~
M I
~
1
i
J M
M
i
y
,~
I
i
•N
w
I
i
I
~
v
"'" w ~
~ I
'•
~
~../
V i
1
/1
~..~
N
5
..n
Z
r-` N
ry i
A j
I-~ ~
rw j
V ~
Z'
~~
I
~
..1
~ i
w j
~
q ~ I
I
l
I
1 I
Z .1 I _
~ A 1
I V f.i
wi I
!
w ~
.1 wr ^
A ~ . •. i ~I
• w
N ~ K ~
, w
I ,ri ~
i
~ i
r ~ ~,
~ ]i
~
.s ~ ~
•• ~.
r .
w ,
'~ 4
, R r .~
^I l.~
z z,
rl f ~
~
W ,
~
Z
z
J
I ~"
_t; =~ _'
_; = ^~
~ ~ :C '• ~ ~ i ~I ~~ '+
r
..
~ ~"'
i
I.n
~ I `~~
I -.
V
ti ~"
1.n
r
J I
^
I i
~
'~'
~ = ~~ _ it ; ~
wi J .. -i
~
~
J Z
,., ;r ~ i ~, ~{ wry
J ^~ ,
r
`' ' r ~ ~I ,l,I r '
~^ =f =; ~; 11
. r
;~ ~ :r - ~~ rl ~t !.I .r~ -f 1 n r ^ ~ _I 1 ~ !
r ~ J , y
ii rl `
i .. w ~ '/. ~ JI `I =i ~ ~i ^~ i ~ ~ J ~ ,f •r i1
-~ -i
~ J r. yi ~~ rl , ~,
_
,..
l
I .r
~ [
` f ' ~ `
' ~ I ^ i
r - ~ r~ Y
r~ ~ I
r ~ ,/ /1 V
` - ~ N J ~ ~•~ r"
- ~
r I ~ .,r J . w -•' yi ri ~; ,~• ~ „ •~ w -+ rriT ~. - ~ ~ ~' - ri
__ ~w.--
ii.
J '
J
I
y
J }~
• ~ i
' 7 ~ ~ ~
~ i
w Z
r i
~~ ~ i j
~ 7 1I
J i .. f
C f ~ '
~ ~ ~ , ~
~+ - j ~+ ~+
y _ i v y
31 a y ~
0~'Oi0
~.~. ~ ~.f
.., I
~,
J i
V
J ~
t r w
A
AI i
~[ ~ ~ '
r ~~ s
.,
i
I }'
# "~ •"
,y A i I
~ ~A i
.w w w i
r
.~ pry w
v r '/
..y I ~ n
~~ M
'y I ~
i
~ ~ ~~
I
I
M
M
A
I ~ y
~ 'J
~+ '
G ° :~
,~
w ~ w
..
r 4+ `~
r
/\ . r
~ y rr
~ N r
n rr
..yr ~ I
I
~ " I
7~ ~ ~
L
~ ~ I K
^
.h N n
J., w v ~
` r1 ~r .~
L7 V ~"~
~ ~ !~
~ ~ ~
~ r ^
~1
~ ~+`1 ~
1~~1 r N
1 M ~
.i ^ i w r
n
~ A YI
z ~ ~-
'd Q n N
~ 1 pl ~
rl / R ~
7 `~
.~ ~
.. ,
j ~.
"' i J
;-~
~~ ~
7 '
"" ° L
3 z~ w
~ ^ ~ J
~ ~'' ~ ~!;
I ~
~ ~, ~
y ~ .r
v ~ A
K
ti K
N ~ li ~+
I` `
I ^
1
r '
~ ~
v ry
ry
i
,'
I
M
J
w
v
~ y
wL
i~
r
J,
_^ ~ v
:.~`
:~ t
v v
f,
w ~-
J v
J ; ~
J ~.
M
v -r Y
wJ
- - 3
Z
,~
f
Z
4
x
.~
Z
v'
z
e"+
L
Q
r
5~
L
t
n i ~ J ~ _ J J I
_ ~ n 1 ~ ,~^
/` r ~ J ~ w ~
r
^~ n
F ' ~ r ~
f ~ .~ ~~ ~ ^ , A ~ l w r J
j ~ 'r, r, ~ .. ~
r 'T r' +~ i ^. ~ J _
i v ~ ~r~ ~ .~. J J
.f. r ^ ~
J . ~ i !J ~ 'r '~' .. J
~ ^^ I err .« r-' ~ _~ ~ - ~ ~
r `j r /` i ~ ~ r 1 ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ w ~ j W~ ' ~
.r..~ I A ' J n ~ V
_, , .. ~ ~ ..e ~ ~ ... r. r .. r. ~ r.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly
and regularly adapted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a
regufarmeeting assembled on the lth dayofCctober, 2008, bythe following vote
to wlt:
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
IN ~IITNESS,1111HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this 8~~ day of October, 2008.
Lora 1Neisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
CITY 4F ALAMEDA RESGLUTIGN ND.
DENYING THE APPEAL ~F THE AUGUST 11, 2008, PLANNING
BGARD DECISIGN T4 APPROVE THE HOURS GF GPERATIGN AND
4UTD4GR USES FGR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT
PDA05-0004 AND MAJGR DESIGN REVIEW DR05-4073
L
~~
~..
® , ~ WHEREAS, applications were made in 2005 by Harsch Investment
~ ~ ~ Corporation and its affiliate Harsch investment Realty LLC Series C requesting
~ ;, Planned Development Amendment PDA 05-0004 and Major Design Review
~ ~ DR05-0073 to ermit the continued revitalization and ex ansio '
~ p p n of the existing
~, Alameda Towne Centre Shopping Center to 106,650 square feet of gross
~ leasable area; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated as Community
Commercial on the General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a C-2-PD, Central
Business District, Planned Development Combining Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on August 11,
2008, examined pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony and then
approved portions of the project including the sign program, hours of operation
and outdoor uses and then continued the hearing on the remaining components
of the project to a later date; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2008, an appeal of the Planning Board
decision to approve the hours of operation and outdoor uses was filed with the
City; and
WHEREAS, in order to address concerns raised by neighbors the
applicant has agreed to modifications to the hours of operation and outdoor
activities approval and these modifications have been incorporated into Exhibit
"B" of Attachment 1 of this resolution; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2008, the City Council held a publicly noticed
hearing, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony
and written comments received; and made the following findings relative to the
Planned Development Amendment:
FINDING 1, The development is a more effective use of the site than is
possible under the regulations for the district with which the PD
district is combined.
Evidence: PD zoning allows additional flexibility in site design and range of
uses to encourage creative site designs and synergistic
relationships between uses. This PD is a more effective use of
the site than is possible under the regulations for the C-2 zoning
district because the design provides consolidation of the proposed
uses and more creative design components such as: more
effective pedestrian orientation of the buildings and walkways,
grouping of building frontages to allow for a more visually pleasing
project, creative layout of open space improvements and a
comprehensive site design for building location, parking lot
design, and landscaping and internal circulation uses for the site.
The project includes outdoor dining and other uses that take
advantage of the extensive open space areas located throughout
the center, enhancing the quality of the shopping experience.
Reduced parking requirements are appropriate based on
observed demand and will result in smaller expanses of asphalt
parking lots. Additionally, the project includes transit stops
adjacent to major retailers in the center and a comprehensive
network of bicycle and pedestrian improvements, further reducing
the need for vehicle parking.
FINDING 2. The project will not have a significant adverse effect an adjacent
land uses in the City.
Evidence: The Planned Development incorporates design elements that
reduce potential adverse effects. Additionally, an EIR has been
prepared for the project. Feasible mitigation measures have been
identified that reduce all potentially significant impacts to a less
than significant level. Consequently, the project will not have a
significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses.
FINDING 3. The location of the proposed use is compatible with other land
uses in the general neighborhood area, and the project design
and size is architecturally, aesthetically, and operationally
harmonious with the community and surrounding development.
Evidence: The project consists of the redevelopment and increase in floor
area of an existing shopping center that was established in the
Iate1950's. The shopping center is located in a fully developed
urban area. The EIR includes an evaluation of aesthetic impacts.
Feasible mitigation measures have been identified that will reduce
all potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level.
The proposed changes to the shopping center are consistent with
previous direction provided by the Planning Board concerning the
design and use of the portion of the site that is adjacent to a public
recreational area. tither than the proposed changes to the
shoreline area, the location and scale of existing buildings will not
be changed substantially from existing conditions. Building ~ 000,
the old Safeway building} incorporates design changes that
promote a more harmonious transition between this commercial
building and nearby residential uses. The proposed parking
structure design incorporates design elements found throughout
the shopping center and is of similar scale to other nearby
buildings,
FINDING 4, The proposed use will be served by adequate transportation and
service facilities including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities,
Evidence: The site is served by AC Transit buses. The project includes new
bus stops within the shopping center and a comprehensive
network of bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The EIR
prepared for this project identified potentially significant traffic
impacts. Proposed mitigation measures reduce these impacts to
a less than significant level.
FINDING 5. The proposed use, if it complies with all conditions upon which
approval is made contingent, will not adversely affect other
property in the vicinity and will not have substantial deleterious
effects on existing business districts or the local economy.
Evidence: The Planned Development, because it incorporates all the
mitigation measures in the Environmental Impact Report, will not
have a significant adverse effect on adjacent land uses. The EIR
for this project included an urban blight analysis, as required
under CEQA. Based on the evaluation of economic data,
concerning retail leakage, the project will not have substantial
deleterious effects on existing business districts or the local
economy.
FINDING 6. The proposed use relates favorably to the General Plan.
Evidence: The proposed Planned Development Amendment is consistent
with the existing Genera! Plan designation of Community
Commercial. The Community Commercial designation is intended
for a wide range of commercial uses including large format retail.
The proposed expansion of retail, commercial and restaurant uses
and associated site and parking improvements is be consistent
with this designation, General Plan policies support the continued
operation of this facility as a regional shopping center.
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings relative to the Major
Design Review:
FINDING 1. The project will be compatible with the site and neighboring
buildings and surroundings and promotes harmonious transitions
in scale and character between different designated land uses.
Evidence: The project has been evaluated for consistency with the principles
and standards contained in the City Design Review Manual
~DRM}. The praject will be compatible and harmonize with the
design and use of the surrounding area because the buildings
would extend the materials, proportions and sizes of existing
buildings in the Shopping Center in a compatible and consistent
manner, Materials, surfaces, shapes and landscaping relate well
to nearby structures and provide an attractive streetscape as
viewed from adjacent streets and residential areas.
NGUV THEREFGRE BE IT RESGLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda denies the appeal of the August 11, 2008, Planning Baard decision
to approve the hours of operation and outdoor uses for Planned Development
Amendment PDA 05-004 and Major Design Review DR 05-0013, as described
and conditioned in the attached Minute Grder Exhibit "A"} and approve
modified conditions as described in the attached Minute Grder Exhibit "B"}.
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 certain
fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 ~d} ~1 },
these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such
fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and 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 66020, the applicant will
be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
~~~~~~~
ATTACHMENT 1
MINUTE QRDER
CITY QF ALAMEDA PLANNING BQARD AUGUST ~ ~, 2005
AGENDA ITEM 96: PLANNED DEVELQPMENTAMENDMENT, MAJQR DESIGN
REVIEIN~- PDA05-0044, DR05-0013 - 523 SOUTH SHORE CENTER
The Planning Board of the City of Alameda met in regular session on August 11, 2005
in the City Council Chambers. After receiving the staff report and accepting public
comments, the Planning Board made minor revisions to certain mitigation measures to
clarify responsibility for and timing of implementation of these measures and then
approved adoption of a resolution certifying the adequacy of the Alameda Towne Centre
Environmental impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Planning
Board then approved by two separate motions the following components of Agenda
Item 9B: ~ } The Sign Program, dated June 20, 2008; and 2} Permitted hours of
operation and outdoor uses, as detailed in Conditions 8, 9 and 10 of the draft resolution.
Conditions, as originally numbered in the draft resolution, that are applicable to the sign
program and permitted outdoor uses and business hours approvals are attached, as
Exhibit A, to this Minutes Qrder. The Planning Board then approved by motion
continuing the remaining components of the project to the regular Planning Board
meeting of September 22, 2008.
The decision of the Planning Board
Council, in writing and within ten X10} days
and Building Department a written notice
paying the required fees.
shaft be final unless appealed to the City
of the decision, by filing with the Planning
of appeal stating the basis of appeal and
Motion to Adopt a Resolution Certifying the Adequacy of the EIR and Approving
the Mitigation Monitoring Program
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: ~5} Kohlstrand, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcroft, Lynch, McNamara
NQES: ~0}
ABSENT: ~2} Autorino, Cook
Motion to Approve the Sign Program
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: ~5} Kohlstrand, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcroft, Lynch, McNamara
NOES: ~0}
ABSENT: ~2} Autorino, Cook
Motion to Approve Permitted Hours of Qperation and QutdoorActivities
The motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: ~5} Kohlstrand, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcroft, Lynch, McNamara
NQES: ~0}
ABSENT: ~2} Autorino, Cook
Motion to Continue the remaining Project Components to the September 22, 2008
Planning Board Meeting
The mo#ion passed by the following vote:
AYES: ~5} Kohlstrand, Cunningham, Ezzy Ashcroft, Lynch, McNamara
NOES: ~o}
ABSENT: ~~} Autorino, Cook
ATTEST:
Jon Biggs, Secretary
City of Alameda Planning Board
ExHIBIT s~A„
C~NDITI~NS
outdoor Activities
8. GUTD4GR ACTIVITIES: The following outdoor activities are permitted through
the planned development entitlement and are not subject to additional use permit
approval:
a}. DINING: Gutdoor dining during permitted business hours.
b} SALES: Display of merchandise for safe on private sidewalks and
courtyards and other areas not including parking lots or the public right of
way.
c} SPECIAL EVENTS: Art fairs, holiday festivals and similar events located
on private courtyards and sidewalks that do not include amplified music
are permitted during regular business hours. Events that include amplified
music are permitted between the hours of 9:OOam and 9:OOpm subject to
compliance with applicable City noise standards and regulations. The use
of tents, or similar temporary structures, and events located in parking
areas are subject to separate approval by the City.
d} [MAINTENANCE: Routine maintenance activities, that do not include
outdoor construction activities, and that do not include the use of noise
generating power equipment are permitted 24 hours per day. The use of
street sweepers, leaf blowers, lawn mowers and similar equipment within
200 feet of a residential district shall not be permitted between the hours
of ~ 0:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Business Hours
9. BUSINESSES HGURS. Businesses within the approved planned development
may remain open for business from 6:00 am to 12:D0 am, Businesses may
remain open beyond these hours subject to use permit approval. Businesses
operating under existing use permits, that allow extended hours of operation,
may continue to operate under the terms of those use permits. Routine
maintenance and other activities, no# open to the public, may be performed within
buildings twenty-four hours a day.
10. DELIVERIES: Businesses may receive deliveries twenty-four hours a day subject
to the following limitations:
Deliveries to businesses located within 200 feet of residential zoning districts
shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 am to ~ 0:00 pm. Deliveries beyond these
hours may be permitted subject to use permit approval. Diesel powered delivery
trucks, with gross vehicle weights in excess of 10,000 pounds, shall comply with
the requirements of the California Air Resources Board ~CARB}, which currently
limit engine idling to a maximum of 5 minutes under most circumstances.
Sign Program
11. SIGNS: The revised Sign Program dated, June 24, 2008, shall supercede all
previous Sign Programs. All new signs shall require sign permit approval, except
as exempted in Section 30-6.1 of the AMC which exempts signs within the
interior of any building, mall or arcade. Signs located within interior courtyard
and paseos are exempt from Design Review requirements. Exempt signs may
still require building permits and shall be reviewed by Planning and Building staff
for compliance with the adopted Sign Program and building code standards.
other Conditions
46. 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 their respective agents, officers or employees
to attack, set aside, 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, or proceeding.
EXHIBIT "B"
MODIFIED CONDITIONS
Outdoor Activities
8. OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES: The following outdoor activities are permitted through
the planned development entitlement and are not subject to additional use permit
approval:
a} DINING: Outdoor dining during permitted business hours.
b} SALES: Display of merchandise for sale on private sidewalks and
courtyards and other areas not including parking lots or the public right of
way.
c} SPECIAL EVENTS: Art fairs, holiday festivals and similar events located
on private courtyards and sidewalks that do not include amplified music
are permitted during regular business hours. Events that include amplified
music are permitted between the hours of 9:OOam and 9:OOpm subject to
compliance with applicable City noise standards and regulations. The use
of tents, or similar temporary structures, and events located in parking
areas are subject to separate approval by the City.
d} MAINTENANCE: Routine maintenance activities, that do not include
outdoor construction activities, and that do not include the use of noise
generating power equipment are permitted 24 hours per day. The use of
street sweepers, leaf blowers, lawn mowers and similar equipment within
200 feet of a residential district shall not be permitted between the hours
of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am, The use of street sweepers and power-
washers west of Buildin 100 and Buildin 700 shall be limited to the
hours of 6:00 am to_10;00 pm.
e} Outdoor activities, permitted under subsections a, _ b, and c of this
condition shall be rohibited within 200 feet of the Willows Condominiums.
Business Hours
9. BUSINESSES HOURS. Businesses within the approved planned development
may remain open for business from 6:00 am to 12;00 am. Businesses may
remain open beyond these hours subject to use permit approval. Between the
hours of 10: OO~pm and 1:00 am, all ,delivery trucks shall,,, use the ,Park Street
drivewa s to enter and exit the sho in center. Businesses o eratin under
existing use permits, that allow extended hours of o eration, ma continue to
p Y
operate under the terms of those use permits. Routine maintenance and other
activities, not open to the public, may be performed within buildings twenty-four
hours a day.
10. DELIVERIES: Businesses may receive deliveries twenty-four hours a day subject
to the following limitations:
Deliveries to businesses located within 200 feet of residential zoning districts
shall be limited to the hours of 1:00 am to 10:00 pm. Deliveries beyond these
hours may be permitted subject to use permit approval. Diesel powered delivery
trucks, with gross vehicle weights in excess of 10,000 pounds, shall comply with
the requirements of the California Air Resources Board ~CARB}, which currently
limit engine idling to a maximum of 5 minutes under most circumstances.
Shopping __center management shall provide written notification „of these
re uirements to all tenants. Tenants shall inform delive com anies of these
requirements. Shopping center security_pers,onnel shall monitor compliance with
these re uirements and re ort violations to sho in center mono ernent. ~~
Sign Program
11. SIGNS: The revised Sign Program dated, June 20, X008, shall supersede all
previous Sign Programs. All new signs shall require sign permit approval, except
as exempted in Section 30-6.1 of the AMC which exempts signs within the
interior of any building, mall or arcade. Signs located within interior courtyard
and paseos are exempt from Design Review requirements. Exempt signs may
still require building permits and shall be reviewed by Planning and Building staff
far compliance with the adopted Sign Program and building code standards.
other Conditions
46. 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, offcers, 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 or employees
to attack, set aside, 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, or proceeding.
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 lth day of October, 2008, by the following vote
to wit;
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIQNS:
1N vIJITNESS, UvHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said City this 8t~ day of Qctober, 2008.
Lara Vveisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda
COUNCIL REFERRAL FORM
(To be submitted to the City Clerk)
Name of Council member requesting Referral: Frank Matarrese
Date of submission to City Clerk must be submitted before 5:00 p.m. on the Monday
before the week of the Council meeting requested}: October 7 2008
Requested Council Meeting date to consider Council Referral: Se tember 29 2008
Brief description of the subject to be printed on the agenda, sufficient to inform the City
Council and public of the nature of the Council Referral:
ALAMEDA COUNTY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATiaN CAMPAIGN
This referral re uests Council consideration of a resolution su ortin the ALAMEDA
CQUNTY ACTIVE TRANSP4RTAT14N CAMPAIGN.
ACTIA has been working on getting Alameda County to participate in an Active
Transportation program that is being submitted to congress as a part of the upcoming
TEA reauthorization, If successful, Alameda County would be one of 40 counties to
receive $54 million dollars for bikelpedestrian oriented projects. ~Marin was one of 4
counties in the most recent TEA program to receive $25 million for a similar program}.
A sample resolution is attached.
Council Referral # B-A
~ 0-41-08
SAMPLE RESGLUTIGN ENDaRSING ALAMEDA CGUNTY ACTIVE
TRANSP~RTATI~N CAMPAIGN:
WHEREAS, Alameda County's Countywide Bicycle Plan and Countywide Strategic Pedestrian
Plan include the following goals that support active transportation:
• Increase the number and percentage of walking trips with the intention of reducing orator
vehicle use, preserving air quality, and improving public health.
• Improve pedestrian safety, especially for the young, elderly, and disabled.
• Ensure that essential pedestrian destinations throughout Alameda County -particularly
public transit -have direct, safe and convenient pedestrian access,
• Complete the San Francisco Bay Trail and paved inter jurisdictional East Bay Regional
Park District trail systems that serve populated areas in Alameda County.
• Maximize the amount of funding for pedestrian projects, programs and plans in Alameda
County, with an emphasis on implementation,
• Create and maintain an inter-county and infra-county bicycle network that is safe,
convenient and continuous.
• Increase the potential for bicycle transportation by closing gaps in existing bikeways.
• Encourage policies and actions that foster bicycling as a mode of travel, and;
WHEREAS, nearly half of all trips far personal transportation in the United States are three
miles or less in length, and thirty percent of all trips in the San Francisco Bay Area are one mile or less
making biking and walking a healthy alternative for a signifcant portion of daily trips.
and
WHEREAS, bicyclists and pedestrians represent 9% of all personal trips nationwide (14% in
Alameda County}, and 14% of all traffic fatalities in the United States hover 23% in Alameda
County}, yet receive less than 1 % of all federal road spending; and
WHEREAS, the above disparity indicates an opportunity to produce a substantial shift to these
healthy, non-motorized transportation modes; and
WHEREAS, federal legislation, SAFETEA-LU, in 2005 created the Non-motorized
Transportation Pilot Program for the construction of anetwork ofnon-motorized transportation
infrastructure facilities in four urban communities to demonstrate the extent to which bicycling
and walking can carry a significant part of the transportation load and play a major role in
transportation solutions; and
WHEREAS, the four communities were selected to each receive grants of $25 million over four
years to participate in the Non-matorized Transportation Pilot Program; and
WHEREAS, a national non-profit multi-modal transportation advocacy organization, the Rails-
to-Trails Conservancy, is leading a national campaign to expand this program in the next federal
transportation reauthorization to include at least 40 communities, with $50 million per
community over six years, to promote "active transportation" walking, biking and access to
transit} far mobility; and
WHEREAS, Alameda County joined this effort to expand the federal program, called the 2010
Campaign for Active Transportation, and seeks to be one of the communities to receive $50
million; and
WHEREAS, an Alameda County Active Transportation Plan was developed in 2008 with the
input of a Steering Committee, Community Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee
and Organizing Committee, representing all areas of the county; and
WHEREAS, this Active Transportation Plan, which will benef t the entire county, will create
active transportation opportunities for kids, commuters and community by investing in three
priority areas:
1. Advancing pedestrian and bicycle access to transit,
2. Connecting communities with urban greenways, and
3. Inspiring the community to walk and bike through education and promotion programs.
WHEREAS, the overarching goal of this Plan is to increase the number of people walking,
biking and us7ng public transit in Alameda County from 22% today, to 30% by 2014.
.:
..
.:.~ .. ~ ;
~fi:E, .A~ t x .: ,
~i s ,,Dint ~he.~ado tin :..C' - ~,.
~ -- ; p.::. p,:.: ~ty.or~.,~'ou~ or:a~ enc could.a d~sW~~~-
,,,
d~
....
.: ,~,
er~~r. al
,j ,. ,.~
~.:
~' .~S
....
~.
~..
,F .. , . ,
~r .»....
#.
.:.;.. , . . , :....~; . ,..: r ,.
.:: ;,~~
c~auses~~,drscussan .~iowth~re:}r ~ ~ ,{;..:.:.. , .., `,::::: :::::. ,,,,. .,..,..,. ,,
,.. .
. .. g s read ne~d.and,4great potential to ir~cr~ase rwalkzng
.... ,
k' ,
.< Fi"~'
' ,~ `T~
,..:
.: :. . ~~.,, :s...
bzc clan .pan their, artrcr~dur~ urtsdi~tion~',~;'Go
-xn : ~;.
SSu
'~ eS~tO a
:.
s` ~ ul
.,
.~
c u° e.
:.. .
,...~.
,.
... .:
_~
,. ,;.
,~ ,.
~,
..:.
then, ~o o a h of nt~a ~~
ea -~ p . ~':.::P Y~,:P; . ~ , :~- ~onr~ect~ons:to.-ma or;1~~ enerator ~ -l~k~, sch'o~ols sin
,.
:::
,..
;rr, :.:J.. pg...,. ~ , ess
...:..... .
;::; ..
,:,.:.
,, s
,~ a -..a t~.Ve' .,...
t.
ce~te~s sho ~n :d~str~cts~ ~ acc.e
,...
Q~ ns~ prio s : r~' ar~re
., ss~ . - k ed~-a~.l
pp ~ ~ r t~nent a-p a xor~al
.:~
,. ,,
,:
.:;...
..........
s~~of :::..:.
~s~tors s . ..
trail
s~~ .ste
ms that:
attract
nullxor~
~~:::.. Y ..:. , : Co'un ~ ~: an
c,
u . as : ay Trail; ty C~ goals for h
.,.,.
... .. .
..:...
,..., ~ ............. , . .w........
.......... ~~ ~ .................. ...:ea t ~:
.......:...... .....,.~~on e,~c ;.:..
reducng:.conges x' ., ~ ,:::.~:~:
WHEREAS, Alameda County showed its tremendous support for active transportation in 2000
when $1.5% of voters approved a $100 million investment in improving walking and biking as
part of the passage of a twenty year local sales tax measure Measure B}; and
WHEREAS, in 200b Alameda County adopted a Countywide Strategic Pedestrian Plan, a
Toolkit for Improving Walkability in Alameda County, and a Countywide Bicycle Plan; and
WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District Master Plan, as updated in 2007, encompasses
an extensive system of multi-use trails in Alameda County; and
WHEREAS, municipalities in Alameda County continue to plan and develop active
transportation Infrastructure to:
• Create safe transportation routes
• Promote healthy lifestyles
• Invigorate the sense of community
• Promote economic diversity and vitality
• Improve air quality
• Relieve motorized traffic congestion
• Improve the efficiency of transportation infrastructure
• Decrease dependency on carbon fuels
• Reduce the burden of infrastructure maintenance
` ,...
:.
,..
W T SALVED th ; .
HEREFURE BE YT RE .
ri ~unsdtctxon" .
,_ ~.
,, .. ; ,
T~:
strongly supports and endorses Alameda County's participation in the 2010 Campaign for Active
Transportation which has a goal of doubling federal funding for trails, walking and biking in the
next federal transportation reauthorization and attracting $50 million of this funding to Alameda
County to implement its Active Transportation Pian.
[SIGNATURES & SEAL HERE]