Loading...
2009-02-17 Packetr~ ~~ ~ 1 1 o iyl ~ ~ ~~ ~.~#~- ~ CITY ~F ALANIEDA • A ~~ ~..,.~. ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ L I F~ R N I A ~~ .5.._:_~: ~ n +'i~ ~ ~~ ~Ca 4+ ~ ~1~~'~yr~u ire n ~5/q~'1 l,~l ~'y l~f~, ~'~fY SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 17, 2009 - - - 6:00 P.M. Time; Tuesday, February 17, 2009 6;00 p.m. Place: Cit Council Chambers Conference Roam, City Hall, corner of Santa Clara Avenue and Oak Street. Ar~Pnr~a 1. Roll Call - City Council 2. Public Comment on Agenda Items Only Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items only, may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per item 3. Adjournment to Closed Session to consider; 3-A. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Title: City Manager 3-B, CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision ~c} of Section 54956.9 Number of cases; One 3-C. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS X54956.8} Property; 1$55 N. Loop Road and 1 Clubhouse Memorial Drive Negotiating parties; Village VI and Golf Course ~Mif Albright} Under negotiation: Price and terms 4. Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any 5. Adjournment -~ City Council B erly on Mayor ~~ ~ ~, 1 ~1 ~~: l ~ ~ : ~ h n a ~ ~~ n17 ~' A ~' ~ 1~%lF'fliRnA ~y ~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------FEBRUARY I7, 2009----7:30P.M. [Note: Regular Council Meeting convenes at 7:30 pm, City Hall, ~~~,~-~~,~ C~iaer~, 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} l0. Adjournment Public Participation Anyone wishing to address the Council on agenda items or business introduced by Councilmembers may speak for a maximum of 3 minutes per agenda item when the subject is before Council. Please file a speaker's slip with the Deputy City Clerk if you wish to address the City Council SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CONFERENCE ROOM Separate Agenda Closed Session} PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. ROLL CALL - City Council 2. AGENDA CHANGES 3. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 3--A. Proclamation declaring February 17, 2009, as Alameda Chamber Day. 3-B. Proclamation declaring March 1 through April 11, 2009 as the period for the second annual "Across the Pages: an Alameda Community Reads" Program. Library} 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 February 3, 2009. City Clerk} 4-B. Bills for ratification. Finance} 4-C. Recommendation to authorize the execution of a Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Grant Agreement with Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program. Development Services} 4-D. Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Amended Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and to Execute All Necessary Documents to Implement the Project. Public Works} 4-E. Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map 9757 X1531-1533 Morton Street}. Public Works} 5. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Communications from City Manager} 6. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS 6-A. Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's denial of a request to remove 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Alameda Historical Building Study List and denial of a certificate of approval to allow demolition of the structure; and adoption of related resolution. Planning and Building} ~-B. Public Hearing to consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XX to Chapter XIII Building and Housing} and Amending Subsection 30-7.12 Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities} of Section 30-7 Off-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations? of Chapter XXX Development Regulations}, By Adding Subsectian 30-7.12~c} to Allow for Reduction in Parking Requirements for Seismic Retrofit. Planning and Building} 6-C. Discussion of alternative uses for the Mif Albright Golf Course and provide direction. Golf} 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 S. COUNCIL REFERRALS Matters placed on the agenda by a Councilmember may be acted upon or scheduled as a future agenda item 8-A. Follow up discussion and direction on Internal Service Fund repayment plan. Mayor Johnson} 8-B. Discussion and direction on the 90-day working capital fund balance for operating reserves in Special Revenue Funds. Mayor Johnson} 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, during normal business hours • Sign language interpreters will be available on request. Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4$00 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 747-4$00 or TDD number 522-7538 either prior to, or at, the Council Meeting • Accessible seating for persons with disabilities, including those using wheelchairs, is available • Minutes of the meeting available in enlarged print • Audio Tapes of the meeting are available upon request • Please contact the City Clerk at 747-4$00 or TDD number 522-753$ 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 - r 1n' ~G:rrr r S : ~.:~... .~~ f P Il 1 71 +:~: ~~~: ~ ~~J yn , 1 'l .}y „i.. ~~?;,`.'.gin `~~, ^, r~ S fJ ~ J'd,r.%';~1~ u4~YS a Proc(cmation W~E~R~,4S, WiE~R~+4S, W~f~R~,4S. W~E~R~,45, w~[~R~,as, the Alameda Chamber of Commerce was established in 1929 to represent the interests of the local business community, and to advance the civic, economic, industrial, professional, and cultural lif e of Aiamed:a; and this • ~ year ~ .marks. a ,r80 ari~u~ rs ., . ~ ~'. : ~ve ~a ~~ of the charter of the ,: .:: ,;.. ;., ....~ .~:.: ,,ti:.., . ~: . . :Alamed~~ .C~~aib~r~vf ~:Co• .m~nerce, ~ari . ~~ - 5 ~ - .1 ~'~~r. 1 ' •r ,the • ~:Ghaber~~;~ ~a1d~~ :its.- me~e~rs~ ~ r~ovide, . residents with a ,,.,.- - .,, P~: , . ~~stron ~ :-~busxnes~s; ~:~enwxronmenf~~ th~at~~`~xncreases ~~~em toVment, the '~ r ~' ~• ..I'''.•' - - - retail'~ ~ ~r.trade~ ~ ~•~and~'~ commerce: •~~`~~~~ao-`~ ,',.,make, Alameda a ~be~tter ~ace~ to Ive and ..~ - .. -, :~:, :fie.: Chamber acts as a constructive ad~oca~e _on~ • ublic issues and P. . •~orks with alb Zevels of overnmei~t toy . build and maintain a ... g ~ ~; . osltive~bus~ness ~c~~rnate, and = p. . ; the chamber ~ en~oura es the ~row~l: Hof:. existin com anies, g g g p services; .and ` co~i~imercial firms; and encaura es new firms and g individuals to .locate in A~amed~a; and ~~ ~11~~~~'~l$, the Ci wishes to salute all members of the Alameda Chamber of Commerce for their continued support in building a healthy economy and improving the quality of life in Alameda. 1U01~11, 7~f~R~~OR~, ~~ IT R~SOLVf~, that I, Beverly J. Johnson, Mayor of the City of Alameda, do hereby proclaim February 17, 2009 as ,4laaneda~Charnlm.~^ 1~ay and call on alI residents to join with me in recognizing and commending the Alameda Chamber of Commerce for providing ongoing services to the businesses in our community. ~..ti ve 1 j. j son Mayor City Council Agenda Item #3-A o~-~ 7-og ^ t ^ Proclamation NOW, T~f~R~~OIZ~ !3~ IT 2~SOLV-E17, that I, Beverly j. Johnson, do hereby proclaim March 1 to Apri111, 2009, as the launch of the second ,4CROSS Tfif£ ~,4G£S: ,4N ~4L,4M~D,4 COMMUNIri READS ~'ROGR+4M and urge all Alameda residents to join me in helping to make this program a citywide success. ~..1 ve J. J son Mayor City Council Agenda Item #3-B 02-11-49 ^ ^ ^ UNAPPRQVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 3, 2009 - - - 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: X09- } Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City iYidiidy e r . X09- } Conference with Labor Negotiator X54957.6}; Agency Negotiator: Council Subcommittee to be determined; Name: City Manager Employment Agreement. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee, Council gave direction to the Council Subcommittee of the Mayor and Vice Mayor; no other action was taken; regarding Labor, Council continued the item; no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:45 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 February 3, 2009 UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -FEBRUARY 3, 2009- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:06 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES X09- } Mayor Johnson announced that the resolution of appointment [paragraph no. 09- ~ would be heard after the presentation [paragraph no. 09- 1. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS X09- } Presentation by East Bay Regional Park District on Measure WW. Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Siden for all the work done on behalf of the City; stated that 710 of Alameda residents who voted in favor of the Measure indicates confidence with the District. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM X09- } Resolution No. 1429$, "Appointing Donna Talbot as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board Building Design seat}." Adopted. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Clerk administered the oath and presented a certificate of appointment to Ms. Talbot. Ms. Talbot thanked the Council for the appointment; stated that she looks forward to serving the community. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 February 3, 2ao9 Annual Progress Report [paragraph no. 09- ] would be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ~*09- } Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on January 20, 2009. Approved. [Note: Mayor Johnson abstained from voting on the Minutes.] ~*09- } Ratified bills in the amount of $4,595,610.60. X09- } Recommendation to accept the Annual Progress Report on implementing the Local Action Plan for climate protection. The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation. Speakers: Susan Welch, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda CASA}; David Burton, CASA; Stefani Leto, CASA; David Teeters, CASA; Herb Behrstock, CASA. Following Mr. Burton's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the process for setting new emission standards would be through Alameda Municipal Power CAMP}. The AMP General Manager responded the green house reduction plan will happen later, not in February; stated CASA would be more involved in AMP's energy efficiency program; everyone shares the common goal of being successful. Following Ms. Leto's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired how much space would be needed for the requested garden area. Ms. Leto responded a four foot by four foot square; stated the garden area could be on lawn or cement. Mayor Johnson stated a possible area could be the vacant lot across the street from City Hall; the front lawn of City Hall is used as a gathering place. Councilmember Tam stated that she has concerns regarding contamination on the vacant lot. Regular Meeting Alameda City Counczl 2 February 3, 2009 Councilmember Matarrese stated staff should proceed with the garden area. Councilmember deHaan stated the City is listening to the speaker's request; water usage would be a problem this year. Councilmember Matarrese stated staff should be given direction to: 1} involve CASA, 27 schedule an annual meeting separate from a Council Meeting, and 3} provide a proclamation in advance of Earth Day and Earth Week; stated the items should come back to Council for action. Councilmember deHaan stated activity measurements should be included. Councilmember Matarrese stated measuring progress to goals should be done on a discipline basis. The City Manager stated staff could provide a proclamation; other items could be included in the green team work plan. Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote w 5. ~*09- } Resolution No. 14299, "Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2." Adopted. ~*09- } Resolution No. 14300, "Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for City of Alameda Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 Marina Cove } . " Adopted . CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS X09- } Presentation by Ca1PERS Representatives, Alan Milligan, Actuarial Unit Supervisor on the City of Alameda Ca1PERS Actuarial. The City Manager introduced Mr. Milligan. Mayor Johnson stated the public does not have a clear understanding of who pays for PERS benefits . . Mr. Milligan stated CalPERS is a defined benefit system, not a defined contribution pension system; benefits are defined in writing in a defined benefit system; in a defined contribution Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 February 3, 2p09 system, contributions go into the system during a person's career; the City has a 2% at age 55 formula for miscellaneous employees and a 3% at age 50 formula for public safety employees . Councilmember Matarrese requested an explanation of the formulas. Mr. Milligan stated pensions are based on years of service multiplied by a certain percentage and final compensation; the percentage varies by age; the highest level of benefits is accrued at age 63; the number of years of service continues to increase after 63; public safety benefits cap at 90% of compensation. Mayor Johnson inquired whether a miscellaneous employee would get 400 of final compensation after working twenty years and reaching age 55, to which Mr. Milligan responded in the affirmative. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether benefits are calculated on the highest one year or three year compensation. Mr. Milligan responded one year; stated bonuses and overtime are not included. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City funds any investment income shortfall, to which Mr. Milligan responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Tam stated the 1985 investment return was 35.40; inquired whether Ca1PERS offsets when earnings are higher and cities contribute less. Mr. Milligan responded in the affirmative; stated CalPERS has always had a smoothing mechanism; Ca1PERS reevaluated the asset moving policy in 2001 and put in a strengthened asset moving policy; Ca1PERS has the highest level of smoothing used in defined benefit pension plans. Mayor Johnson inquired whether contributions are based on a percentage or dollar figure, to which Mr. Milligan stated contributions are a percentage of pay. Mayor Johnson inquired how much the City pays in contribution for this Fiscal Year, to which Mr. Milligan responded 13.180 of pay. Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the dollar amount. Mr. Milligan responded the estimate is $4,366,592 for miscellaneous employees; stated public safety is at 30.034%, which is approximately $7,241,000; 2009-2010 public safety figures are Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 February 3, 2009 30.827Q, which equals $7,524,000; miscellaneous employee figures are 12.8620, which equals $4,449,000. Councilmember Tam inquired whether miscellaneous employee contributions went down. Mr. Milligan responded in the affirmative; stated the decrease was expected because the 2009-2010 contribution rate is based on the June 30, 2007 actuarial evaluation report; 2007 was a good investment year; 2010-2011 estimates are 30.40 for public safety and 12.7% for miscellaneous employees. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Milligan has dollar figures for 2010-2011, to which Mr. Milligan responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson inquired when real property investment losses are realized. Mr. Milligan responded there is usually a three month lag. Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the 2011-2012 percentage contribution if the 20% loss held. Mr. Milligan responded employer contribution rates are anticipated to increase between 20 and 50 of payroll; stated the range is dependent on assets; the miscellaneous employee plan has lower asset to payroll ratios; public safety plans tend to have higher asset to payroll ratios. Mayor Johnson requested an explanation of asset to payroll ratios. Mr. Milligan stated CalPERS has a fund of assets dedicated to providing pensions to the City's former and current employees; the contribution rate is adjusted because of losses or gains. Mayor Johnson inquired whether more assets are tied to public safety employees than miscellaneous employees. Mr. Milligan responded more assets are put aside for public safety than for miscellaneous employees; stated more money needs to accrue over a shorter period of time for public safety; public safety benefits are paid for a longer period of time. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ca1PERS relies more heavily on investment returns to cover the cost of public safety retirements. Mr. Milligan responded CalPERS does not have as much time to earn investment income for public safety; stated employer contributions Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 February 3, 2009 are relied upon more heavily. The Interim Finance Director stated the total Ca1PER5 earnings this year is $58.1 million; $33 million is for miscellaneous employees, and $25.1 is far public safety; a to increase for miscellaneous employees equals $330,000; a 1% increase for public safety equals $251,000. Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the full, future impact of the 3% at 50 and 20 at 55 formulas, to which Mr. Milligan responded that he would get information back to Council. Councilmember Gilmore stated currently, the City is paying $4.5 million for miscellaneous employees and $7.2 million for public safety; inquired whether the City is paying additional money for retirees. The Interim Finance Director responded retirees receive retirement checks from Ca1PERS; stated funds are coming from the City's Ca1PERS pot. The City Treasurer stated that he projects City contribution rates to go up approximately 20 for miscellaneous employees and 4% for public safety; approximately four years of elevated contribution rates are assumed; better investment returns would bring the rates down in the out years; the increase would be $1.7 million over four years. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Ca1PERS would adjust the smoothing model to make up for the fund payout; stated benefits have to be paid. Mr. Milligan responded that Ca1PERS is not anticipating any changes to the smoothing methodology; stated the City will be paying higher rates until the market turns around. Mayor Johnson inquired how long the City might be paying higher rates. Mr. Milligan responded the big impact would be in 2011-2012; stated rates would drift up a little if the market is still down; rates would come down once the market rebounds. Councilmember Matarrese inquired what return rate is needed to sustain the system. Mr. Milligan responded 7.20 over a long period of time; generally, Ca1PERS has exceeded 7.20 over the previous fifteen years. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council ~ February 3, 209 Vice Mayor deHaan stated today is an extraordinary period of time. Mr. Milligan stated that he has not seen anything like the current downturn of the broad-based market. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether previous portfolio safeguards are relevant today. Mr. Milligan responded diversification is the biggest safeguard but does not help during a broad-based market downturn; stated everyone has failed this time. Mayor Johnson inquired how much of Ca1PERS's portfolio is in mortgage backed securities. Pat Mock, Ca1PER5 Executive officer of Public Affairs, responded 19o is in fixed incomes; 66% is in equities; 10% is in real estate; and 5% is in inflation linked assets. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a breakdown for returns or losses for each class. Ms. Mock responded in the negative; stated the 20%-25% loss previously mentioned is not a realized loss, but paper loss; money would not be lost unless there is a sale; Ca1PERS takes in enough cash to meet benefit payroll. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the paper loss would require the City to pay more money in 2011-2012 if today was June 30, 2009, to which Ms. Mock responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated the paper loss is a real number; future numbers depend on performance. Vice Mayor deHaan stated Ca1PERS receives liquid cash from contributions; a percentage goes back out and is not invested. Mr. Milligan responded $12 billion is paid out; stated a little more is brought in. Mayor Johnson inquired when the employee contribution cap was established. Mr. Milligan responded the cap is State law and has been in place for a long time. Ms. Mock stated employees always pay in good and bad years; returns Regular Meeting Alameda City Council ~ February 3, 2009 1 pay the lion share of costs in good years; employer contributions rise in bad years. Councilmember Matarrese stated the presentation is enlightening; that he hopes Ca1PERS will be available to the City and Fiscal Sustainability Committee. Mr. Milligan stated Ca1PERS will be very happy to work the Finance Department and City Treasurer. Councilmember Gilmore stated tonight's presentation is very unusual and has not been done before ; thanked Cal PERS and staf f for the presentation. Councilmember Tam stated the report is enlightening; that she is comforted in understanding the modulating and tempering affect with smoothing; the City does not have to incur the entire amount because of the methodology built into the Ca1PERS calculation. Councilmember Gilmore stated the City will need to increase the contribution amount in the short run and come up with more money, while taking a hit on sales and property taxes; expenses have increased and revenues have decreased. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS X09- 7 Resolution No. 14301, "Authorizing Application of Grant Funds from the East Bay Regional Park District Under Measure WW Park Bond Act Extension." Adopted. The Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese stated all projects are needed; that he hopes the proposed upgrades are not temporary, modular buildings. Mayor Johnson inquired how the money would be distributed. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the program is a reimbursable program. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the timeframe is restricted. The Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative; stated everything needs to be done by 2018. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council $ February 3, 2009 Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether some of the projects are in the future budget cycle. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the projects are identified but not funded. Councilmember Tam stated the City would front the money and then seek up to $3.4 million in reimbursements from the Park District; inquired whether the City has enough funding wlthln the cycle to front the money. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the City would not front the entire amount at once. . Councilmember Matarrese stated the construction environment is very favorable now; some projects could be funded out of reserves; the City would be reimbursed; the City should take advantage of favorable conditions. Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff is confident that the City would have funds for the Alameda Point gym project, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore stated each project would come back to Council; Council would be in a position to authorize the use of Measure WW funds; Council would address fronting more money out of the General Fund based upon the Interim Finance Director's recommendations. Councilmember Matarrese stated the City does not own the Alameda Point gym building which is not part of the reuse plan; Council should take a look at what the City owns first. Mayor Johnson stated that she agrees with Councilmember Matarrese; however, the Alameda Point gym is an important asset; inquired whether there is any possibility of working with the federal government to carve out conveying the building to the City. The Assistant City Manager responded the gym would be the first property conveyed from the Navy once certified as clean. Councilmember Matarrese stated Council would then decide whether to keep the building or not. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Coast Guard housing would come to the City also. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 February 3, 2009 The Assistant City Manager stated part of the Coast Guard housing would come to the City. Vice Mayor Tam inquired what is the thinking behind the Thompson Field renovation. The Recreation and Parks Director responded the funding source has some hurdles; stated a Joint Use Agreement would need to be in place demostrating that the City would have at least a twenty-five year lease. Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is curious why Thompson Field was not listed but the Collins property acquisition was. The Recreation and Parks Director stated the City would own the Collins property outright and have total control. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote -- 5 . (n9- 7 Public Hearing to consider Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 24-1Q Cost Recovery for Recurring Calls for Service to Respond to and/or Perform Abatement on Properties Due to Owner Neglect? to Chapter xxIV (Public Healthy . The Fire Marshall gave a brief presentation and provided a handout. Mayor Johnson stated leaving out the owner neglect language would be better; the tenant and landlord might have a contract that puts maintenance responsibility on the tenant; the City does not want to get in the middle; inquired whether the tenant and landlord could have joint liability. The City Attorney responded the City wants to make sure that someone is responsible for payment; stated the property owner is responsible most of the time; the ordinance has a provision for the City's ability to do a special assessment against the property owner in the event of non-payment, which cannot be done with a tenant; suggested keeping the responsibility with the owner; stated the owner could take the matter up with the tenant if the owner has an internal contract with the tenant. Mayor Johnson inquired why a free pass would be given every six months; stated a fix it ticket should be issued; perhaps the matter should be transferred to the Building Department. Councilmember Matarrese stated the responsibility should be on the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 0 February 3, 2009 property owner because the City has the leverage of a lien. The City Attorney stated the ordinance could be done two ways; one way would be to characterize billable responses; the standard would be property negligence; another way would be to have a list of reoccurring events. Mayor Johnson stated the simplest way is to have a list of billable situations. Mayor Johnson stated most people are offended that people call the Fire Department for maintenance problems; community training should be done. Speakers: Bill Klump, Alameda Firefighters Local 689; Deborah James, Urban Habitat; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association; Jeff DelBono, Alameda Firefighter; Jon Spangler, Alameda. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the six month period could be extended to one year; inquired whether listing billable events could be done. The Fire Marshall responded a detailed list becomes limiting; stated that he would prefer a list that is not hard and fast. Mayor Johnson stated "property due to owner neglect" should be taken out and the list could be open ended. The City Attorney stated more certainty would be created if specific events trigger a charge; a catch all category could be created; a standard is needed. Councilmember Matarrese stated there could be a list and conditions due to property owner negligence; a six month period is too short; that he would prefer one year. Mayor Johnson inquired about having a trigger for a building inspection. The Fire Marshall responded the issue is part of the process. Mayor Johnson stated having a trigger point should be part of the ordinance; the Building Department should be required to follow up on the matter. The Fire Marshall stated Fire Inspectors would refer building code violations to the proper department. The City Manager stated a modified ordinance would be brought back Regular Meeting Alameda City Council l 1 February 3, ~QO9 to Council. X09- 7 Resolution No. 14302, "Endorsing the Street Rehabilitation Projects for the Federal Economic Stimulus Program and Authorizing the City Manager to Approve Plans and Specifications and Call for Bids for the Annual Resurfacing Project, No. 82-01-29." Adopted. The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Tam stated the City was way ahead in preparation of a list of potential projects; Council has received emails regarding the need to prioritize bus shelter installations; inquired how the matter would fit into Measure B funds. The Public Works Director responded each department was requested to provide a wish list; the Public Works Department looked at items on the unfunded list; staff has not been able to receive funding for bus shelters; the first round of economic stimulus funds is for road rehabilitation only. Speaker: Michael John Torrey, Alameda. Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The City Manager stated that the Fiscal Sustainability Committee provided a memo regarding the stimulus program for soft story retrofit buildings; funding sources will be reviewed in the future. X09- 7 Resolution No. 14303, "Allocating $100,000 in Measure B Funds as the Local Match to Prepare the Estuary Crossing Project Study Report for a Total Cost of $1 Million, and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents." Adopted. The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation. Mayor Johnson inquired what the $1 million would cover. The Public Works Director responded the Project Study Report ~PSR~ for the estuary crossing. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the PSR would be a joint report with the City of Oakland. The Public Works Department responded the City of Oakland sits on the Policy Advisory Committee. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 2 February 3, X009 Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Oakland proposes to pay half of the $1 million, to which the Public Works Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would love to have an estuary crossing because riding through the Tube is terrible; stated there is a lot of ship traffic; the price tag is upwards of $50 million; inquired whether the Coast Guard and Port of Oakland agree that a bridge would be allowed; to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the bridge would belong to Alameda and whether Alameda would be responsible for maintenance and operation. The Public Works Director responded the issues would need to be reviewed in the PSR. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a possibility that the $1 million would be spent and there would not be a project, to which the Public Works Director responded possibly. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City would be obligated to go forward with the project if $100,000 is allocated and the two grants are not received. The Public Works Director responded the City would be obligated if only one grant were received, but the City would not move forward with the PSR unless both grants were received. Mayor Johnson inquired whether any funding has been identified for the project. The Public Works Director responded the bicycle/pedestrian bridge estimate is $4S million; stated a completed PSR would make the City more competitive for additional State, federal, and regional funds, Mayor Johnson inquired what is the likelihood of receiving $50 million for a bicycle/pedestrian bridge in the near future. The Public Works Director responded a lot of changes are being made in the federal government; stated the project is long term; the project would be broken down into pieces. Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff looked at a multi-purpose bridge, such as a combined transit and pedestrian/bicycle bridge. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 3 February 3, 2009 The Public works Director responded a multi-purpose bridge is included as an option in the feasibility study; stated AC Transit indicated a drawbridge would not be a viable option; the bridge would be built to a lifeline standard. Councilmember Gilmore stated the price tag includes maintenance for a thirty-year period; inquired how much it would cost to build the bridge, to which the Public Works Director responded $48 million. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the proposed project is an engineering feat . The Public Works Director stated the consultant team determined that construction would be schematically feasible. Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the grant source for the $48 million, to which the Public Works Director responded federal and State grants. Mayor Johnson inquired whether Oakland is proposing to make the estuary crossing project a priority. The Public Works Director responded that Oakland contributed to the feasibility study. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Alameda and Oakland would each receive funding if both applied. The Public Works Director responded one grant would be co- sponsored. Mayor Johnson stated a joint use bridge should be considered; including transit makes the project more credible. The Public Works Director stated the joint use could be added to the scope. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not see any advisory group or endorsers putting money on the table to move forward; that he is concerned about maintenance costs. Speakers: Nancy Johnson Horton, Alameda; John Strehlow, Alameda; John McKeon, Bike Alameda; Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Evan Lovett-Harris, Cycles of Change; Ricardo Pedevilla, Alameda. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how many bicycles and pedestrian use the City's bridges. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 4 February 3, 2009 The Public Works Director responded the feasibility study shows 521 combined bicycle and pedestrian trips for the Park Street Bridge; no statistics are available for the High Street or Fruitvale bridges; the demand would increase to 2,000 to 3,000 trips per day for the proposed bridge; future development at Alameda Point and Alameda Landing would increase bridge usage to approximately 4,000 trips per day. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the west side of the Tube has a walkway; inquired whether staff has reviewed use of the walkwaky. The Public Works Director responded that CalTrans would not support relocating the pipes [blocking the walkway]; the air circulation area [between the tubes] was rejected also. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the study could include a transit option. The Public Works Director responded the transit option could be added to the resolution; stated staff discussed the possibility of limiting the number of crossings for AC Transit. Mayor Johnson stated AC Transit deals with trains in Oakland. Councilmember Gilmore stated running shuttle buses to the 12~h Street station in Oakland has been discussed; the shuttle buses could use the proposed bridge. Councilmember Matarrese stated the proposed bridge needs to be more than a bicycle/pedestrian bridge; the City would be encumbered with maintenance and operating costs if the bridge was only an Alameda bridge; obtaining geological information is good; that he does not want to be committed if maintenance and operation conditions are not met or the bridge is not feasible. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the study would include the multi- module option. The Public Works Director responded the option could be added to the resolution; stated staff could talk with the granting agency. Mayor Johnson stated the City does not have the tax base to operate and maintain a bridge; people do not want a toll bridge in Alameda; a condition should be added to require that the bridge would be a County bridge. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of allocating $100,000 to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 5 February 3, 2009 perform the study noting that Council's preference is to do a multi-modal bridge. Councilmember Gilmore stated the study should be done regardless of whether granting agencies are not in favor of a transit bridge because the geological and technical information would be useful in the future. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the bicycle/pedestrian bridge study would need to be redone to include transit. The Public Works Director responded some information would need to be redone, but some of the geotechnical information could be used. Councilmember Tam seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to make sure that the motion includes the attempt to make the bridge lifeline and multi-modal, Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated oakland should help pay if the bridge is determined to be feasible; Alameda would be willing to take the first step but would not be willing to continue down the path on its own. Mayor Johnson stated oakland indicates that the proposed project is a priority; inquired whether there has been any discussion regarding contributing to the $4S million, to which the Public Works Director responded that he does not think so. The Public Works Director stated that Council direction is to move approval of adopting the resolution with the following changes: 1} the preference is that transit be included on the bridge; however, if the granting agencies will not award funds with a transit component, the PSR should move ahead for bicycles and pedestrians because the information received will be valuable moving forward with a transit bridge in the future; 2} ensuring a bridge is truly feasible and is lifeline; 3} find out who would operate and maintain the bridge; and 4} approaching other jurisdictions regarding contributing to the local match. Mayor Johnson stated the City needs to be clear that it does not intend to operate or maintain the bridge. Councilmember Matarrese stated the bridge should not be built if no one is willing to handle operation or maintenance; inquired whether the City would get any money back if something comes up midway through the study that shows that the proposed bridge is Regular Meeting Aiameda City Council 1 6 February 3, 2009 infeasible. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the feasibility study could be phased. The Public Works Director stated that grants typically are pro- rated. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (09- } Recommendation to accept the Financial Report for the Second Fiscal Quarter - October, November and December 2008. The City Manager suggested that the item be continued to Saturday's budget workshop. The Interim Finance Director stated the item would come back to Council since the workshop does not have action items. Councilmember Matarrese requested that the workshop have action items; stated the he is very concerned about negative cash fund balances and accumulated cash deficits; that he would like to act on the issues. X09- } Recommendation to accept transmittal of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report ~CAFR} for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, zoos. The City Auditor stated the former AP&T telecom sale was not a run of the mill type item; staf f received guidance on how to reflect the transaction; thanked Maze and Associates and City staff for all efforts made; the report is clean and numbers are fairly stated. The City Manager stated the Public Utilities Board reviewed the report and is happy that all information is available and transparent. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates the new format and text; the narratives are easy for the public to read. The City Auditor thanked the Interim Finance Director for all her help. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the designated amount for workers compensation is part of the $10 million unreserved cash. The Interim Finance Director Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 3, 209 responded the workers compensation 1~ potential worse case scenario is in the Workers Compensation Fund which is in the Internal Services Fund. Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Internal Services Fund is not recovering costs completely, The Interim Finance Director responded the City's potential outside claim risk is an unfunded liability, but is not the same as the fund running a cash negative; the City would need to write a check for $6.6 million if every claim settled for the highest amount and all came due at the same time; the City needs to start budgeting for a claim liability reserve; at some point the City will~be writing checks for the claims. Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation, Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -~ 5. *** X09- ~ Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of continuing the meeting past midnight. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** X09- 7 Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Treasury Report for the period ending December 31, 2008. The City Treasurer provided handout and gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Tam inquired whether California Municipal obligations are 4.40 of the City's portfolio and whether the City's mortgage backed security is 2.6% of the portfolio; stated the majority of the City's portfolio is federally backed securities which caused the 7.6% rate of return in 2008. The City Treasurer responded the City owns U.S. Treasury obligations, bonds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, individual issues from some financial institutions, and a taxable State of California bond; City investments are restricted. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 S February 3, 2009 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (09- 7 Domenick Weaver, Alameda Firefighters, discussed brownouts; stated thirteen calls have been impacted with delayed responses; the rescue boat was placed out of service in May 2008 because of mechanical issues; the fire boat was placed out of service in November 2008; direction has been given to leave the boats in the water, which creates a deception that the Fire Department is not being picked on and that the boats are still in service; service levels are being reduced in the community. (09- 7 Bill Klump, Alameda Firefighters Local 589, discussed overtime costs versus costs for full time Fire Department staff. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (09-~ ~ Mayor Johnson stated that she attended the Conference of Mayors mid January; the economic stimulus package and energy have become very popular topics; that she hopes solar energy will become an option for Alameda. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 12:10 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council l 9 February 3, zoos CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To; Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From; Ann Marie Gallant Interim Finance Director Date: February 12, 2009 Re: List of UVarrants for Ratification This is to certify that the claims listed on the attached check register and shown below have been approved by the proper officials and, in my opinion, represent fair and dust charges against the City in accordance with their respective amounts as indicated thereon. Check Numbers 216999 - 217434 V18292 - V18435 EFT 645 EFT 646 EFT 647 EFT 548 Void Checks: 215897 215619 215661 216791 216614 215792 215676 215702 GRAND TOTAL Respectfully submitted, Interim Fina irector Council Warrants 02/17/09 A $1,646,571.75 $101,98D.16 $37,991.27 $14,253.85 $7,993.50 $57,849.07 x$1,214.33} ~$30D.D0} x$6,238.88} x$2,394.90} ~$479.6D} x$2,537.80} x$225.46} x$795.00} $1,852,353.fi3 BILLS #4.g 2/17/2009 CITY ~F ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From; Debra Kurita City Manager Date: February 1l, 2009 Re: Authorize the Execution of a Lead-Based Paint ~LBP} Hazard Reduction Grant Agreement with Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program BACKGRGUND The City is a member of the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program ACLPPP}. The ACLPPP has received a Housing and Urban Development THUD}grant for lead-based paint hazard reduction in residential units and has developed a program to pass those funds through to ACLPPP cities. DISCUSSIGN The Lead Hazard Reduction Grant Funds augment existing Community Development Block Grant financing for Housing and Rental Rehabilitation projects with lead-based paint hazards. All unifis must meet income eligibility according to the HGME Investment Partnerships Act ~HGME} requirements. In addition, owner-occupied units assisted with grant funds must meet the requirements by having children under age six living or spending a significant amount of time visiting the property. Rental property owners must give rental priority to families with children under age six for at least three years in units rehabilitated by the funds. The proposed agreement, which is on file with the City Clerk, is similar to previous agreements between the City and the ACLPPP. It has been approved by the County Counsel and is scheduled to go before the Coun#y Board of Supervisors for approval on March 10, 2009. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact on the General Fund. The agreement provides an initial $125,000 grant for direct lead hazard control. This funding will be sufficient to rehabilitate approximately 25 units at an average cost of $5,000 per unit. An additional $24,172 is included in the grant for risk assessmentslpaint ins ections and clearance p inspections for City-contracted evaluation services. Project staffing compensation of 2D percent of direct lead hazards costs to a maximum of $25,D00 will be reimbursed for engineering or architectural support and project development, site visits, and monitoring Gity Council Agenda Item #4-C 02-'l 1-09 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council February 1l, 2009 Page 2 of 2 related to lead hazard control activities. This provides a total of $174,712 in lead hazard reduction funds available from the partnership grant. Based on the performance of other communities, additional grant funds may be offered to the City after December 31, 2010. RECGMMENDATIGN Authorize the execution of the proposed Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Agreement with the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program and authorize execution of grant amendments with substantially similar terms for additional funds, which may become available in the future. Respec II submitte Leslie A. Little Development Services Director Approved as to funds and account, Ann M r Gallant Interim finance Director By: Dorene E. Sot Manager, Business Development Division Y~ Miriam Delagrange Development Manager DKILALIDESIMD:rv cc: Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program DITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: February 1l, 2009 Re: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Amended Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and to Execute all Necessa Documents BACI~GRaUND Cn April 15, 2008, the City Council approved the City's paratransit program for fiscal year 200812009 and allocated $159,500 in Measure B paratransit funds. Public Works staff proposes to amend the paratransit program to include funds for the Alameda Meals on Wheels program. DISCUSSION Currently, the cities of Emeryville, Fremont, Hayward, and Newark allocate a portion of their Measure B paratransit monies to subsidize meal delivery programs in their areas. Meal delivery programs provide meals to seniors and homebound individuals with disabilities. Alameda Meals on Wheels, anon-profit organization, delivers healthy and diet-specific meals to seniors or homebound individuals in Alameda seven days per week. Since it is more cost effective to bring food directly to individuals than to have these individuals use other paratransit services to obtain food at grocery stores or congregate meal sites, Public Works staff proposes to use $49,000 of the City's Measure 8 paratransit undesignated fund balance to subsidize the Alameda Meals on Wheels program. The Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority ~ACTIA}, which administers the funds, supports this proposal and requires the City Council to adopt a resolution to amend the City's paratransit program. FINANCIAL IMPACT The funds for the paratransit program are budgeted in the Senior Citizen's Transportation Fund Fund 620} with Measure B paratransit funds. Currently, $159,500 is allocated for the program, and there is an undesignated reserve of $115,023. Amending the paratransit program to include the Meals on Wheels program will increase the total program budget to $208,500 and reduce the undesignated reserves to $126,023. The amendment to the City's paratransit program does not affect the General Fund. City Council Report Re: Ager~dJ~ 1te~ #4-~ OZ-'17.09 Honorable Mayor and February ~l, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 oft MUNICIPAL CGDEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CRGSS REFERENCE This action does not affect the Alameda Municipal Code. The City's Paratransit Program is consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element. RECaMMENDATIGN Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit an amended application for Measure B paratransit funding for fiscal year 2008-2009 and execute all necessa rY documents. Respectfully submitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director Approved as to funds and account, Ann Mari allant Interim F ance Director C~~ ~~~Q' y: Gail Payne ~. q~ Transportation Coordinator MTN:GP:gc cc: Watchdog Committee Alameda Meals on Wheels CITY GF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NG. AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER Ta SUBMIT AN AMENDED APPLICATIGN FOR MEASURE B PARATRANSIT FUNDING FGR L ~ FISCAL YEAR 2008/2009 AND TG EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY ~° ` DaCUMENTS T~ IMPLEMENTTHE PROJECT ~ v ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ vIIHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act ADA re uires that ~ } q o ~ equivalent paratransit service be provided within three quarters of a mile, and a during the re ular operatin hours of fixed route transit services for those who are ~ g 9 ~ R determined to be eligible for such services; and 11vHEREAS, Alameda residents who are seniors or who have disabilities have transportation needs that may nat always be met by the existing fixed route transit services; and vvHEREAS, the City of Alameda receives an allocation from Measure B sales tax revenue, administered by the Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority ~ACTIA}, to provide paratransit services for seniors and people with disabilities to supplement ADA-mandated services; and U1~HEREAS, on April 15, 2008, the City Council of the Gity of Alameda approved a budget of Measure B Paratransit funds f9r Fiscal Year 200$12009 estimated to be $159, 500; and vVHEREAS, the City of Alameda plans to submit an amended grant application to ACTIA for $49,000 in additional funds from the Measure B Paratransitfunding forthefoliowing project: Alameda Meals on Wheels, anon-profit organization, that delivers healthy and diet-specific meals to seniors or homebound individuals seven days per week. NGW, THEREFGRE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Alameda City Council that the City Manager is authorized to submit an amended application for Measure B Paratransit budget for Fiscal Year 2008/2009 in the amount of $208,500; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is authorized to execute all necessary documents to implement the project. ****** Resolu#ion #4-D CC a2-~1-09 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 ~ 7t" day of February, 2009, by the followin 9 vote to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSENTI~NS: IN WIIITNESS, 1111HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 1St"day of February 2409. Lara Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda C iTY o F ALAM E DA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: February 17, 2009 Re: Adopt a Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 9151 X1531-1533 Morton Street BACKGROUND 4n January 6, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No.14291and approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 9157, a one lot subdivision creating two condominium units. The property is located at 1531-1533 Morton Street, between Santa Clara Avenue and Lincoln Avenue. DISCUSSIGN The final parcel map has been reviewed and determined to be technically correct, and in substantial conformance with the approved tentative parcel map and conditions of approval. The site is fully developed with two residential units, and each unit has its own off- street parking and landscaping. The condominiums are subject to covenants, conditions, and restrictions that provide foringress, egress, parking, and utilities overcommon areas, maintenance, and repair of common areas. The applicant has deposited sufficient funds to cover charges for the review and a mylar copy of the recorded Parcel Map. A copy of the final parcel map is on file in the City Clerk's office. FINANCIAL IMPACT Approval of the parcel map and resolution does nvt affect the General Fund. ENVIRQNMENTAL REVIEW In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA}, this project is Categorically Exempt under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15315, Minor Land Divisions. City Council Report Re: Agenda Item #4-E D2-17-09 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council REC~MMENDATI~N February 17, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Adopt a resolution approving parcel map no. 9757 X1531-1533 Morton Street}. Respec f y sub fitted, Matthew T. Naclerio Public Works Director ~ ~~l~l,~ ~~~e1lQ~ By: Robert Claire ~ ~ Associate Civil ngineer MTN:RC:gc CITY ~F ALAMEDA RESOLUTIQN NG. E 0 of a~ 0 ~. APPROVING PARCEL MAP N0. 9757 (1531-1533 Morton Street) a o V1IHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 9757 was approved by the ~ City Council per Resolution No. 14297, on January 6, 2009; and .~ WHEREAS, Parcel Map 9757 was found to be Categorically Exempt from the review under the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315 Minor Land Divisions}; and UVHEREAS, the Public Vllorks Department has reviewed Parcel Map 9757 and has proposed a number of Conditions which have been incorporated as Conditions in City Council Resolution No. 14297. NQ1N, THEREFGRE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda pursuant to Section 30-81.8 of the Alameda MunicipaE Code, hereto accepted and conditionally approved by the Planning Board and the City Council, is hereby approved and permission given to the subdivider to record same, based upon the findings and subject to the conditions set forth in City of Alameda Council Resolution No. 14297. *~**** 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 17th day of February, 2009, by the followin g vote to wit: AYES: NQES: ABSENT: ABSENTI4NS: IN ~lllITNESS, IIVHEREQF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 18th day of February, 2009. Lora Weisiger, City Clerk City of Alameda Resolution #4-E CC 42-11-D9 CITY OF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: February 1l, 2049 Re: Hold a Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's Denial of a Request to Remove 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Alameda Historical Building Study List and Denial of a Certificate of Approval to, Allow Demolition ,of the Structure .,. .,, BACKGROUND The property at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue is part of amulti-parcel project proposed at the northeast corner of Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue that also encompasses 1100,1748, and 1116 Park Street. The proposal includes partial demolition of structures on Park Street, construction of a new commercial building, and demolition of the building on Buena Vista for redevelopment as a parking lot. Entitlements requested for this project include Major Design Review approval, a request to remove 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Historical Building Study List, and a Certificate of Approval to demolish the single-family dwelling at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue. DISCUSSIGN The Historical Advisory Board ~HAB} considered a request to remove 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Historical Building Study List at its meetings on November 20, 2008, and December 4, 2008. The Certificate of Approval to allow demolition of the structure was considered on February 5, 2009. Initially the Applicant was advised that only a request to remove the site from the Historical Building Study List was required for plans to demolish the structure at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue. A subsequent opinion from the City A##orney clarified the need for a Certificate of Approval to allow demolition. For that reason, these two applications were considered separately and on different dates. At the HAB's November 20, 2008, meeting, several members of the public gave testimony on the request to delete the site from the Historical Building Study List. tine member of the public gave a slide presentation showing the restoration of a building in a condition similar to the subject building. tither members stated that the building was important to the context of the neighborhood and noted that retention of the structure would help keep the character of the neighborhood intact. City Council Public Hearing Agenda dtem #6-A OZ-1 T-09 Honorable Mayor and February 17, 2009 Members ofthe City Council Page 2 of 6 Qther speakers expressed their desire to see this older building kept on the Historical Building Study List and questioned the criteria used to support removal of the site from the study list. One person commented on the North of Lincoln Plan and stated that removal of the building would allow the proposed project to move forward, which was vital for the revitalization of the area. Another questioned how many parking spaces would be needed for the new project and if removal of the house was being driven by the parking requirements of the code. Following public comment, the Board members began their deliberations. They noted that the lack of a prominent architect, designer, builder or inhabitant was not sufficient reason to approve removal of the site from the study list. Comments were also made concerning the condition of the house and that it displayed signs of neglect. However, they pointed out that the building still had architectural features and woodwork that were worthy of retention. The Board members also had questions concerning the criteria by which the applicant's historic preservation consultant had evaluated the property, and about efforts to make it available far relocatian. A motion to continue consideration of the request for a period of 90 days to allow time for the property owner to make the house available for relocation failed for lack of a second. Other questions centered on how this site fits in with the overall plan for the larger project. The Applicant's representative responded to the public's and Board members' comments, noting that the structure had been evaluated for restoration in hopes of integrating it into the new project, but it was not economically feasible. She noted too that the owner would be willing to give the house away for relocation ar make parts of the house available for use in the restoration of other houses. At the end of their deliberations, the Board members requested an opinion from the City Attorney on whether a Certificate of Approval would be required to demolish the building even if the site were removed from the Historical Building Study List, given that it was constructed prior to ~ 942. The item was continued to the next meeting in order to obtain an opinion from the City Attorney. At the December 4, 200H HAB meeting, staff reported the City Attorney had advised a Certificate of Approval would be required to demolish the building because it was constructed prior to ~ 942. At this meeting, Board members acknowledged that there may be economic reasons to support removal of the structure from the study list, but these reasons were beyond the Historical Advisory Board's scope. The Board members agreed that the structure retained its original style and this, coupled with the age of the building, supported retention of the site on the study list. At the conclusion of this discussion, the Board voted unanimously ~3-0} to deny the request based on the following f noing: The Board finds that 24~ 3 Buena Vista Avenue shall remain on the City of Alameda's Historical Building Study list because this building embodies a distinctive architectural resource as an example of the Queen Anne cottage style. The building retains the majority of its distinguishing characteristics Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council February 1l, 2009 Page3of6 including form, drop siding, fish scale shingles, ornamental wood trim and double hung wood windows. It is not a requirement of the study list or of the National Register that a building be either a rare example or an outstanding example of a particular style. Furthermore, the building shall remain on the study list because it is a part of a group of structures of particular historic significance to the City. This group includes the row of buildings on the same side of this block of Buena Vista Avenue and the row of buildings directly across the street. Although this setting has been compromised by the removal of the adjacent building and its replacement with a parking lot the group of remaining buildings continues to exemplify the early Victorian residential development of the City. Subsequent to this action, the property owner's representative filed an application fior a Certificate of Approval for demolition. The Board considered this at its meeting of February 5, 2009. The majority of the Board noted that the reason to deny this request was the same as that used to deny deletion of the site from the Historical Building Study List. Following their discussion, the Board voted 4-1 to deny the Certificate of Approval. That decision has been appealed, and the City Council is considering that appeal along with the appeal to deny removal of the site from the Historical Building Study List. See attachments 1 and 2.} The HistoricaE Building Study List is comprised of sites with structures that were determined to be signifcant enough for preservation. A survey of properties was started in 1918 and was conducted by City staff and volunteers who evaluated approximately 10,500 structures and sites. Criteria used in the evaluations were a combination of standards used for evaluating structures for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, State Historic Resources Inventory, and designation as an Alameda Historic Monument. Structures were evaluated for their architectural significance, historical significance, environmental significance or design integrity. Each structure deemed wor#hy of inclusion on the Historical Building Study List was assigned an alphabetical notation, which was keyed to a statement about the structure's historic significance. The property at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue has an `S' designation, which means: "A historic resource distinguished by its architectural, historical, or environmental signif cance, eligible for inclusion in the Stale Hisforic Resources lnventory, and of secondary priority for inclusion on the list of Alameda Historical Monuments. Many of these are also eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. ethers would be eligible if design integrity were restored." For some properties the evaluation and reason for including the site on the study list was documented by completion of a California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Inventory form. nne of these forms was not completed for the subject site, and it is not possible to determine the site's historical significance. Honorable Mayor and February 1?, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 6 In an effort to obtain as much information about the site and structure at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue as possible, the applicants enlisted the services of a historic preservation consultant, Page and Turnbull, who researched the history of the property and evaluated the structure for its overall historic integrity. A copy of the Page and Turnbull report is attached. In short, the evaluation by Page and Turnbull indicates the sitelstructure should not be listed on the Historical Building Study list for the following reasons: ^ The integrity of the structure's workmanship and materials has been compromised, due to neglect, deterioration, and changes to the interior and exterior. ^ The integrity of the site's setting has been compromised by changes in the neighborhood, such as replacement of the residential structure at the southern side of the site with a parking lot. ^ The site is not associated with a historic event or person significant to the history of California or Alameda. ^ The architect or designer of the structure is unknown. ^ The structure is not an outstanding or rare example of a Queen Anne cottage style building, The consultant gave the site a National Register of Historic Places Status Code Designation of 6Z, which indicates that the site is not eligible for inclusion on the State Historic Resources Inventory. The applicant also had the subject structure evaluated by an engineer who, in the course of inspecting the structure, identified a number of structural deficiencies including an outdated foundation, undersized floor and roof framing, and lack of shear walls. In his report, the engineer indicates that 10°/° -15% of the home could be retained if necessary upgrades to the home were undertaken. Staff evaluated the structure and found that there has been a lack of maintenance over the years, and exterior architectural elements and details have deteriorated because of this. In addition, some of the exterior details have been replaced or modified in a way that does not match the original. In a search through records available in the Planning and Building Department, no documentation was found that the site was identified with a historic event or person. Although an attempt can be made at rehabilitating this structure, the evaluation provided by the applicant's engineer indicates that less than half of the original structure would remain; thus, such an undertaking would result in the "defacto demolition" of the building. The result would be a replica of the original, but not the original structure itself, and would no longer be an historical resource. Therefore, staff recommended that the Historic Advisory Board remove 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Alameda Historical Building Study list. Honorable Mayor and February 1l, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 5 of 6 For the same reasons, staff also recommended that the Board grant the Certificate of Approval to allow demolition. In order to grant an appeal of the Historical Advisory Baard's denial of the Certificate of Approval for the demolition permit, the Municipal Code requires that the City Council make the following finding: Based on the evidence of qualifed sources, that the historical resource is incapable of earning an economic return on its value. In its appeal, the applicant has provided estimates of the cost to restore and relocate the building on-site along with projections that suggest that these investments will not provide an economic return on the value of the structure. FINANCIAL IMPACT The applicant paid the appeal fee of $100. The time and materials costs to process the appeal in excess of this amount are borne by the Planning and Building Department. PUBLIC NOTlFICATiON This agenda item was advertised in the Alameda Journal at least ten days prior to the meeting. Notices were mailed on February 6, 2009 to residents and property owners within 300' feet of the project location, the appellants, and interested parties who have requested to be notified of upcoming hearings for this project. MUNICIPAL CODEIPOLICY DOCUMENT CROSS REFERENCE Alameda Municipal Code Section 13-21.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ~CEQA} Guidelines, Section 15301- Permitting the removal of a structure from the Historical Building Study list and demolition of a single- family dwelling in an urbanized area based on information that the structure is not a significant historical resource. RECOMMENDATION Find that the demolition is Categorically Exempt from CEQA and grant the Applicant's appeals, thereby approving the removal of 2413 Buena Vista from the Alameda Historical Building Study List and approving the Certificate of Approval to allaw demolition of the structure. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Respectfully submitted, Cathy oodbury Planning & Building Director B`. Jon Biggs Planning Services Manager February 1l, 2049 Page 6 of 6 Approved as to funds and account, Ann Marie allant Interim Fi nce Director Attachments: 1. Appeal of Historical Advisory Board's December 4, 2008 Decision 2. Appeal of Historical Advisory Board's February 5, 2009 Decision 3. Page and Turnbull Report 4. Structural Evaluation by Hendrick Van De Pol, PE 5. November 20, 2008 Letter from Alameda Architectural Preservation Society 6. February 4, 2009 Letter from Alameda Architectural Preservation Society ?. Email from Edward Kearse cc: Barbara Price Hoi Liang Phua, Trustees ~~,~ p~nc.~,~,~o -~ PLt~~NfNG&BUILQf'~G PETITION FOR APPEAL OR CALL FOR REVIEW Th~~ p~~i~iar~ i~ h~r~f~yfi~~d a~ ~n ~pp~~l ~~fi~~ d~~~sial~ ~~ t~~; r~. ~~rhi~~ ~~a~~i~~ ~r~d ~uildin~ D~r~ct~r~P~~r~~~i~c~ ~~a~~d~~~t~ri~al Advi~~ry ~~~rdtA~pe~i~ C~c~~~d~ ~~~ ~pp~i~~ti~n ~n€~dlran~ed~~~~a~Ei~~~d Conc~~tiar~~~ c ~~ ~~~ ~~ t ~~~~.~~~ ~ i5~r ~c~~t~r,~ ~~~~ ~~•r,r~r~~ tt~,Ri ~ ~Y~~.. r~~ ~n~~~-r 1 ~.lr;~~ _ ~ ~, ~~ ~ppit~ation `~Y~e~ ~~~~t~ ~,E~~-~ ~Ap~~icati~~ Num#~er~ ~~ ~ ~,~ Yl r~ ~~jfeet Address) ~~p~~ify date ~~ A~tian} ~'~~ ~~~I~ ~f ~Me ~pp~~l is. t ~~- ~ S ,Q,~ ~~ 1 rn a 1~ ~i v~CtYr re na~~~l,+nnS ~ n.~ S h~ k e. r ~1 ~ ~ , 5~ rc~c,~rr~, Y '! R~ °~' I ~f~1 ~Jl~l.~~ a ~ '. ~~ ~'1~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ t~~+' G~, t S5 ~ r11~ f~' QG.~S ~~ ~- ~.V~d !1141 ~~t ~ ~G~1sn~~ ~ rS"I~f ~G ~ 1 ~c n~~. S~{ ~Y1~ W ~ ~ l ~`~~ Kh Vl r ~ ~ ~~~ l} ~] ~ ~ ~lCti i 1r+.. ~ j `" G. ~ G G~ ~~ rare space ~ r~e~d~d; ~f~asa mach adr~i~ia~al she~t~.~ ~ppG~~~~~, ~ ~ln ~tUIG uS• ~'C~,S~~c.t~ C~l~~aC~ P~~r~~, ~~ ~ ~a~3`~~~b ~~ ~~RP~i~~n~ ~a~e~ ~~ ~C~~~~. Address:~0 gait. I Ol+l+4~ , ~ G~C,~Ur~ ~1'y~c~ Il (Appellant Address) ~liar~eda f~€~n~cip~a! ~at~e ~~MC~ 3~-2~, ~p~~af s and C~ff~ f ~r Reif ~~, pravide~ tf~at ~ti~fiin ten ~~ ~} days a ~e~fsf~n of~he f~~~nn~ng f~Er~ct~r ar honing Adn~~ir~is~r~tar gay f~~ appealed to tf~e Pfan~in~ ~oard~ and d~cisier~~~ o~ the f~lanning gaard or ~fstaricaf advisory ~aar~ .gay he appealed to fh~ pity ~a~ncif. In addition tQ the appeal p~~ees~, ~eoistor~s of the Planr~ir~g ~irectar er ~c~nrng Adr~inisirator nay he ealfed far review Within den ~ ~ da s~ ~a ~ ~ Y the, Pla~r~ing Baal ~y ~h~ Pfarming ioard ar by tf~e ~i~y Goun~il and decisions of tl~e Pianr~ing ~a~~d ar tht f~{istorf~af 1~dvisary hoard may he calf~d for r~vi~~F~ ~y the City ~auncif ar a r~e~~er of the ~i ~aur~cifr tY ~ praG~ssir~~ fe.~ fit' ~~QQ.D~ ~~~s# accompany the Petition far appeal. ~a fe© is regtltred for a fall for ~e~iew~~ ~ ~~ ,,~ ~,~~ ~~d' ~ ~ { ~P~lfar~~t ~igna~ur~~s~~ ~~•~ : ~ ~° k~rA~~i*~Rl~1'il'Y1'wKkk~'K*Y.kK~Y#w$+kt~'irf ~~4tkYtYtlxkrkKk16ik1NYr*~rF$Yr~'i~k~Fi,llhkR!'Mxkk*vlxk~xg'.Y~Rw+Mrrxkkirrkit~*k*ir~k~•fi•g~~~ti{"k!'~~~r*+k+kk+kkl~'!.*itR'lrK,h'k~w~*+1lA•~ Rs~eiv~d ~y; Receipf fVo„ ~~oC ~f~~e ~Jse ~3nlY~ ante R~eaived ~t~a~~~ G.l~l.~,i'~1~ih~'~a1~(?~~'~S ~ ~lA~`1f~L}~'a~lC~,`~`~~F~l~~t1~Tw~ P~R'~i~T ~~~f~l.(~1~TIO~k F~~~~iS1l{Fi eA1. GR Cr~Li. f~G~ i~~1~i~'~ i~c~jM,Q(7G City Council Attachment 1 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #6-A 02.1 T-09 ~ ~ ~`~Tl~T~Q~ ~~~ ~~~'~~~ ~~ ~~L~ F~~ ~~~lEl ~~t~'i~~~ ~ BUS! Qi1~G This petificn i~ h~re~y ~ii~d ~~ ~n ~ppeai o~ tine ~eci~i~n of thy: _.., ,~ f~ l C.i~ (f'i~nf~tn~ ~ii~! ~Ui~C~lfi~ ~)€r~t:rOr~i~i~~nr~ln~ ~aa~,;flwis~ortc:;~f 11d~~i~~ory ~n~7r~lA~~i~+~~i~ f~~~ircf~ . --~-~.£~~``~~ r for a ~ Il~~t~ioF~ rl e,"r.r~ 1~ry fi~rr'^ ~~fyr~rr~:~.-.' i;~iSVf;'{ f',~ f~i n~ry~+`. .~a.:II~.Li.~l:~jr{~,W~v.•~~i~v:i Li ~iJll~l~l~~.ill~7j ~~e~ ~ ~~~, G~II t~ppii~~~i~ri Typ~t ~~1p~?iic~EidrZ l;l~~~iaer~ ~~l:r~~t ~;d~r~ss~ ~ ~~. a~ ~ s ~ ~ ~~~°a~Y ~~te of ~cti~~} The basis ~~~~he appeal is; ~~~~~~~" Y~.~~~(~ ~ b i tc 1C ~~ • c~c.-~u of mgr:; wpa~a ~ nMedad: ~i~as~ ~,tfach a~cEtiar~a! ~f~e~t~,~ ~l ~kr ~ ; ~pp~~~ant: ~ .. ~ ~~~ ~ Tr~~ ~ ~ ~~r~tac~ P~~~i~e: ~ ~ - ~~~ -"~~~~ ,_,...~ ~ E~pp~,an~ A~dr~ss~ Ai~r~~~a iti~ur~i~:ipal Cody 4At~~~~~ ~~-?~, Ap~a~aas acid ~alfs ~~ar ~~vi~'vY, ~rovf~ies tf~~t ~k~itf ~i~ tern ~~ ~} days a decision 4f t~ia Pi~ri~~i~~~~~t~ire~tur ar Zoni~~g Adrnir~ist~-a~or r~i~~y ~~ app~af~cf ~o, tf~~ f~larinl~~ Baar~, ~~id d~ctslo[~s of tl~~ P1~~r~in~ ~oar~ ar Hrsforf~al ~-dui~~ry ~~~rd ~~~y h~ a~~~~i~d to Eh~ ~if~r ~~~~oif, fri addition to the appeaf prods, decisions of the ~lanniric~ ~ir~ct~~ ar ~~riinrd, Admi~i,tr~at~r may ~~ oaf lid for revi~~~r ~~l~~irt t~~ ~~ D~ rims fo t~~ ~larining ward fay the Pfanrrir~~ ~aar~f pr by if~~ Cik~~ ~a~rici! grid c[~cisian~s ~f lf~~ Pianriin~ Baird ar tf~~ f-~istorical Advi~ar~yr hoard ~~iay h~ Gaffed for ~#~Vi~lhr ~y tl~~ ~if~ ~~unci~ ar a rn~n~fa~r of t~~.e ~i~f ~~~~ncii, A p~ac~ssir~~ f~ ~ ~~1 ~p,pp i~usf accompany t~~ ~~titiari fir A.ppaal. ~,io f~~ is r~~uiretf icr a fail far ~•~vi~v, ~~ ~ Sig~~~d~ ~~~~~:.,€~rft Si~t~G,ur~~; ~~~ ~ i -.~_ tr~~t G!i<4~ 1~~~ ~n!~} Receipt ~o,: _____.._...~~.~,..,. ~at~ ~~ceived St~~m~a ~: ~Sw"~l~''iiFJa~F~ i't~ S ~~f~~~rn.!~: ~iC~l ~~et i~'~ +r~~;~y.~ ~ 5 1 ~P1 It ~ ~ ,Y~ / .; ~F7'~J:~ I,7 .~.f1Ji•32 ~!1 y' aJ~r~~r~~3 1' :~S~i~!' !i ~~! ~1~:~"ili.'V i`~i ~+i :, r~ E.~ ~'K ~fc' 4 !' ~n tS:'.'1(?C ~'~r ~"~{•n ~J. _r r. ,~1~ City Council Attachment 2 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #6-A Q2.17-09 State of Ca:!'ifomia-The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT QF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Pernary # HRH # Trinornra! NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Cod Reviewer pad Page, ~ of 5 "Resource name{5) yr number~assigned by recorder} 2413 Buena Vista Ave. P'f. Other identifier: *P2. *a *b Location: ^ Not for Publication Unrestricted County: Alameda _ ~SGS l.5' 4uad: Oakland East, Calif. ~c. Address: 2314 Buena Vista Ave. d. l~ITM: Zone:10 mE1 Date; City: Alameda Zip: 94501 mN G.P.S.} e. Other LocaSonal Data: Assessors Parcel Number Ma ,Block, Lot :7x192-20 *P3a. ~esCripti0n: Describe resource and its mayor elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.} 2413 Buena Vista Avenue is Located on a rec#angular [at on the northeast side of Buena Vista Avenue, between Park and Everett streets. Built in 1890, 2413 Buena Vista Avenue is a ~-story aver raised basement wood-frame residence designed in the Queen Anne Co#tage style. The irregular-pCar~ buljding, clad inchannel-drag wood siding, is capRed by a combination hip and gabCe roof covered ~n asphalt shingles. The foundation and the chimney are brick. Entrances include a paneled parfially g[a~ed wood door. The primary facade includes 2 structiuai bays. Typical fenestration consists of double-hung woad-sash windows and one singCe- hung vinyl-sa~sl~ window; same windows are se# into an angled window bay. ~Cantinuedy *P3b. Resource ~4ttributes: Mist attributes a~d~ codes} HP2. Sin le Farnil Residence *P4. Resources Present: j~Building ^Structure ^Ob~ect ^Site ^Destrict ^Element of District ^Other P5b. Photo: (view and date} Primary southwest} fagade of 2413 Buena Vista Ave. 091 oi20os *Pfi. Date CansbvctedlAge and Sources: Historic 1890 George C. Gunn, Dacumenta#ion of Vfct`orrarr and Pvsf Vrctorran Resrden~a! and Gomme~iat Bulidin s, X854-19Q4 ~P7. Owner and Address: Bill Phua P.O. Box 10664 Oakland, CA 94519 *P8. Recorded by: Pa e ~ Tumbul~ [nc. CB/RS 724 Pine Street San Francesca, CA 94108 *P9. Date Recorded: 09117!2008 *P'(Q. Survey Type: Reconnaissance *P~1. Report Citablon: (Cite survey report and other sau~rces, ar enter °nane"} None *Atdcl~ntents: Q Kane ^ Location Map ^ Sic~ch Map ~ Confinuation Sheet ~ Building, Structure, and Object Reco~B ^ Arcl~aeologi+xE Record ^ Oisfifct Record ^ Linear Feature Record ^ M ing Station Record QRock Art Record ^ Art~act Record Q Phobcgraph Record ^ Other (nst) City Council DPR 5Z3A ~1195~ Attachment 3 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #fi-A 02-17-49 She of ~alifani~a ~ Tie ~eso~ces ~g~cy ~'n`~rarj~# , . . .,~ , r._- ~.~. .. . ,. _ .. , . , A .. , , . , , . ,. ,. ~ -_ ~nr~omlat Page 2 of 5 *Resaurce Name or # tAssfgr,ed by recorder} 24~ 3 Buena Usta Ave. *Recorded by; Pica e 8~ Turnbull *Date 09127~Z008 ®Continuafion ^ Update Pia. Descri~iorf, car~tinue~. The primary entrance features wood stairs that lead to the front porch and the front door, a wood parch railing, tamed parch posts topped with molded brackets, a molded door surround, and a frosted glass porch light. Other architectural and site features include molded window surrounds and window panels; and metal gutters, traces of a stickwork fn'eze, pierced brackets, and a simple cornice at the roofline. The front fang gable end, clad in flshscale shingles, contains a fixed wood-sash window with molded surround, rafted molding, and a dropped molded ornament. Elaborate shaped brackets appear to support the gable end. The rear facade features a projecting second floor supported by wand posts and dad in channel-drop wood siding. it is accessed via a wood staircase, which leads to a paneled woad door on the secand~ story. This door is usually boarded up. Typical fenestratlar~ consists o€ sma~ fixed wood-sash windows. The addition has minimal ornamentation and does not have brackets or a cornice at the roafline. At the rear, the basement is open tQ the back yard, which is currently used as an unpaved parking lot, A narrow wooden parch runs along the basement level. The Interior of 243 Buena Wista Avenue features the original room configuration and a variety of finishes, most non-original'. Floors are ~usred in lino(eu~ or shag carpet, Some walls ha~re woad wainscoting with sheetrack above; other walls are almost entirely sheetrock with woad baseba~ards below andlor crown molding above. Ceilings are of sheetrock. Uvindows and doorways feature molded surrora'nds. Aft doors and some dQOr hardware appear to be original, notable interior features indude a wood mantelpiece with decoratErre brackets and carving, and a bathtub enclosed by boards. The basement level is not habitable. The building appears to be in fair condifion. The inferior wails and ceiling are cracking in some areas, and a section of plaster in the living room has fallen to the floor. Much of the stickwork frieze has been removed, and the parch is significantly deteriorated. nc~ ~~7~ r~+ra=~ +Qw..~u~wri iniw,w.y~;ww Rear ~nordzeast) facade of 243 Buena Vista Ave. Source: Page ~ Turnbull ,. ... She of Cali[o~nia .The Resources ~t e~c 9 Y Primary # DEPAR`[~IIENT OF BARKS I~N~ R~Lt~i4'[[ON ~ BUILDiNG~ STR~JG'CUREr AND OBJECT RECORD *NRHP Status Cade 6Z Page 3 of 5 *Resource Name or # (assigned ~y recorders 2413 Buena Vista Ave. B1. Histarie name: None B2. Common name: 2413 Buena Vista Ave, B3. Original Use: Residential B4. Present use Vacant *g~, Architectural Style: Queen Anne Cottage *$~. Construction History: ~Canstructian date, altera~ons, and date of alterations 189Q: Constsi,Jcted.1941: Building reroofed.1958: 6uildirrg reraofed; gutters installed or repaired,1992: Plumbing work completed. SrnaI1 rear addition added between 1905 and 1945, perSanborn maps. *Bl. Moved' ~No ^ Yes Q Unknown Date: ___ Original Location: *H8. Related Features: B9a. Arcilite~t Unknown b. Builder: J. L. E~rard *B'i~. S~igniificance: Theme ~ Nine Area: NlA Period of 5ignifcance NIA ProperfY Type Residential ARplicable Criteria NIA Discuss impartan~ irr terrrrs of f~fstorical ar arcllitecttsral context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity} 2413 Buena Vista Avenue was constructed in 1890 as asingle-family residence for Mrs. lda IN. Hegelund. J. L. Etward constructed the building. at a cost of X1,204.2413 Buena Vista Avenue stands a hal~biock away from Park Street, which began developing as a commercial district in the mid-1860s as a result of railroad construction. ~Confinued} B1 ~. Additional Resource Attributes: List attributes and caries} *H~2. References: , - "Alameda, Cal." map (Alameda: The Alameda Semi-~leelciy Argus,188S~. - Buitdin~g peRrri~, City of Alameda Permit Center. - City- Directories,1889-9,1882, 1918, 192'1, 1930,194Q. -Greta butcher ar~d Stepf~en Rowland, Alameda (San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 20a5~, - "Enf~nce ~ San Francisco Bay, California, Survey of the Coast of the United S#ates Coast Survey Of~ce,1859};accessed through the David Rumsey Map Collection. ~Cont~ued7 813. Remarks: X814. Evalu~a#or. Cara Bertron and Ricf~ Sucre, Page & Turnbull, inc. *Qate of Evaluation: Se ember 2~p8 __ (This space reserved for oflrcial comments.) DPR ~~~8 ~'~9v~ i:l, • ' i::~,` ~':~ ~'~ ='"f',~,,F',•t'•~~i~;,:; ;.°,°~^ ~r~, •,5;,:;'y , ,'+~~ -~;.i4•~'; a ', _ •, ;-4.~r +,. • ti,. 1 I~ .. . e:~r,.il.,~. . . 'T~iual• '•.~: . ~: Page 4 of 5 *Resvurce Name or # Assigned by recarder~ 2413 Buena Vista Ave. *Recorded by; Page. Turnbull „_ *Date Se tember 2008 ®Continuatian ^ Update B1D. Signif cance ~Cantinued} 2413 Buena Vista Avenue was built in 1894. The 989 5anbom map shawl the building as a 1-story over basement dwelling. A small 1-story auxiliary building stands at the rear of the lat. At that time, the subject block and the blocks to the southwest comprised' a relatively well•developed residential neighborhood. The subject black held five houses, the black facing 2413 Buena Vista Avenue was built out with five single-family residences and two joined duplexes, and the adjacent blocks of Buena Vista Avenue and Poley.Street held some single-family houses.ln contrast, Park Street northeast of Buena Vista Avenue was sparsely de~relaped, except for a dwelling on the comer lot, and a nursery and boarding house across the street. Half a block southwest of the Park~Buena Vista intersection, a row of small s#ores stood next to a few single-family dwellings, a warehouse, a hotel, and stables. The other side of the street held a social hall, a boarding house, and several stores. The 1948 Sanborn reap shows the footprint of 24'i3 Buena Vista Avenue almost unchanged, with a small addition to the rear northwest comer, and the rear auxiliary building still standing. By this time, the subject block was filled in with l residences, and the blocks to the south and southwest were almost fully deveIaped with residences. The stretch of park Street around the intersection of Buena Vista Avenue held n7any auto-related industries such as sales, service, and parking lots, along with a few other cornrr~ercia~l and industrial uses. By '1981, 2413 Buena Vista Avenue and its rear auxiliary building appear unchanged on the Sanborn map, A parking lot replaced the bua{ding to the south of 2493 Buena Vista Avenue. The surrounding neighborhood remained residential, and Park Street retained its light industrial auto-focused businesses. In Febn~ary 1890, Ida W. Hegelund purchased the subJect property from Geraldine Clement, whose family had owned the land since 1&73, Hegelund constructed the subject house in 4890 and owned the property until her death in April 1902. Hegelund's estate held the property for Zl years. In August 1929, estate executrix Sorine E. Cox transferred the property to Jahn McMullin, who had lived in the house since at least 4920, Ckely as a renter. The property remained in the McMu~in family un#i12901, when it was sold to the Phua-Lee Family Living Trust. 2413 Buena Vista Avenue features few alterations. A small addition was added fo the northwest comer of the house prior to 1948, perhaps when the kitchen was modernized. Though the building is currently vacant, i# is still configured for residential use. Therefore, it retains integrity of design, association, and feeling. Because the building has not been moved, it also retains integritty of location. Although the house remains in a residential neighborhood close to a commercial district, i# is flanked by an auto service build'ng and a parking lot. Therefore, the builc~ng's integrity of setting has been compromised. Integrity of workmanship and rnatenals also have been compromised, as many of the intenor finishes have been altered or replaced, some exterior trim is deteriorated or missing, and one window has been replaced with a v'rny~ sash window. 4vera[l, the building retains histon'c integrity. Per the City of Alameda Historical Building Study List Design Integrity criterion, 2413 Buena Vista Avenue appears to have a moderate degree of design integrity, defined as "alterations which have been made aver time to the original rya#eriais and design features of the resource." As discussed above, the building retains integrity of overall design, but its integrity of workmanship and materials have beery compromised by deterioration and alterations. Therefore, 241.3 Buena Visa Avenue appears to retain design integrity; however, this alone is not sufficient to qual'dy the building for inclusion on the ,Historical Building Study List. 2413 Buena Vista Avenue does not appear to be associated wi#h events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history such that it would be e~gible far local, state, or national designation under National Register Criterion A ~CaGfarr~ia Register Criterion 1, ar the City of Alameda's Historical Significance criterion}.The house stands adjacent to the Park Street commercial corridor, which began devebping as the Town of Alameda's business district when Alameda's first commuter railroad, Cohen's Line, located a station on Gnco~ Avenue at Park Street in the early 18fiQs. The 1859 coast survey map shows alrnast na devebpment in tha# stretch of Park Street. Cohen's Line was completed in the early 1860s, and the Alameda Station homestead was subsequently platted between Harrison and Webb avenues and Park and Everett streets. An 1888 map shows conslderabie deve%pment along Park Street and in the Alameda Station Homestead residendal area, wig rows of small residences concentrated along the railroad I'rne. 2413 Buena Vista Avenue was built in 1890, wed after the initial railroac~re[ated growth. of the 1850s and 181Ds. Therefore, the house's assoaation with the railroad and subsequent development is not significant, 2413 Buena Vista Avenue does oat appear to be associated with any persons significant to the history of the State of California or the C~ of Alameda such that it would be eligible for Local, state, or national designation under Nadonal Reg~ter Criterion B ~Caf~Omia Register Criter%n z, or the Ci~+ of Ahameda's Historical Significance criterion}. Neither Ida vv. Hegelund nor any rnernbers o#the Mc~u~r fanml~r a to be significant frgures in focal, state, or natronai histor-, ~Confirrued~ St:of Ca~~vr~a~~ ~, DE~~~~` ~~~ ~PA ~ 1 I' I .i' ~sw~rces~Agency ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l?ritna #`~~ ~ ~ . ~ .... . . .~ .. . . Rage 5 of 5 Recorded by; Page & Turnbull B10. Significance Continued} Tnaorn~l ... *Resaurce Name or # Assigned by recarder7 *Date September2008 ®Continuatior 2413 Buena Vista Ave. ^ Update Hegelund was. a Danish immigrant who was 44when 2413 Buena Vista Avenue was built in 1890. In 1880, her husband J. R. Hegelund worked as an oyster dealer, and Mrs. Hegelund kept house; they lived at 190-193 Park Street. By 1900, Mrs, Hegelund was widowed and living in 2413 Buena Vista Avenue with her son, daughter, and grandson, The 1920 census shows 24'13 Buena Vista occupied by John and Lvttie McMullin and their five children. John McMullin was employed as a cement worker; by 193x, he worked as a boilermaker,in the shipyards, where two of his sons also worked at that time. Helen McMullin, John and Lotfle's youngest daughter, lived in the house unti12007. 2413 Buena Vista Avenue does not appear eligible for local, state, ar natbnal designation under National Register Criterion C ~Califomia Register Criterion 3, ar the City of Aiameda's Architectural Significance criterion} as an outstanding example of a period, type, style, or method of architecture, or the notable work of a master builder, designer, or arch~ect, It is designed in the Queen Anne Cottage style, a derivative of the Queen Anne style popular among the elite of the late 19 century. The Queen Anne style is characten~ed by its va~nety of features and combinafion of ornamentation. Typical features of the Queen Anne style include steeply-pitched roofs, irregular rooflines, gable projeeetions, cutaway bay windows, asymmetrical composi~ons, and swag and garland appliques. The result of this fusion of ornamentation and composition was a highly tex#ured and varied residence. 2413 Buena Usta Avenue features the pro~ech'ng gable, window bey, asymme#rical composition, and varied siding typical of Queen Anne residences. 5arne of its omamenta~bon ~s intact, and the house retains enough features to convey that it was built in the Queen Anne Cottage style in the late 19 century. However, the ornamentation #hat characterizes Queen Anne-style buildings has severely deteriorated on the house and some ornamentation has been removed. The architect is unknown. The design, materials, and method of construction do not appear unique among residential luildings of the same type, size, and era in Alameda. Overall, 2413 Buena Vista Avenue does not appear to be an outstanding or rare example of the Queen Anne Coftagestyle in Alameda. Per the City of Alameda Historical Building Study List Environmental Significance criterion, 2413 Buena Vista Avenue does not appear to achieve environmental significance, defined as "the cantinui#y or character of a street or neighborhood with a histor(cai resource's setting on the black, its landscaping, and its visual prominence as a landmark or symbo! of the city, neighborhood, or street." The building was originally abu#fed by two single-family dwefGngs that have been demolished and replaced by an auto service center and a parking lot. As a result, the bloclcface lacks continuity, and the res~denbal character of the block has been diminished. 2413 Buena Vista does not boast outstanding landscaping ar visual prominence as a landmark or local symbol. Therefore, 2413 Buena Vista Avenue does not appear to qualify for inclusion on the Historical Building Study [.ist under the Environmental Significance criterion. The CHRSC of "fiZ* assigned to this property means that it has been found ineligible far National Register, California Register, and Local designation through survey evaluation. This property was not assessed far its potential to yield infomnafion important in prehistory or history, per National Register Criterion D ~Caiifomia Regis#er Criterion 4}. BIZ. References ~Gontinued} • Virginia & Lee McAles#er, A Field Guide fa Amerr'can Houses (New York; Alfred A. Knopf, 2002}. -George Gunn, conversation with author, September 10, 2008, Alameda. - George C. Gunn, aocumentatian of Victorian and Posf Victorian Residential and Commercial Buridings, Cify of Aiameda,1854- f 904 Alameda: Alameda Historical Museum,1985~. - "MaR of Alameda, California. East Sheet Oakland: Thompson & Vtiiest,1878}; accessed through the aavid Rumsey Map Collection. - "Map of the City of Oakland: Berkeley, Oakland, and Brooklyn, Townships; and Alameda" San Francisco: H. S. Crocker ~ Co., 1891. - imelda Merlint Alameda: A Geograpfricai History Alameda: Friends of the Alameda Free Library, 1917}, - Property t~ansac:tion history. -Sanborn maps,189T, 7905,1932,1948,1987. - united States Federal Census,1880,1900, 9920. npR ~~~r fiendrick Van De PoI,PE 2225 Livi~agstor~ Lane, Stock[on, CA 95210 (209~63q-35$1 License C-15472 Transmittal date: 71X7108 Sent Via; US mail: Email; Fax; Ta: Bill Phua 141 ~Vood~and Way Piedrnon~, CA 94611 Project No: ProjQCt: 2413 Buena Vista Avenue Fa x No.: No, of pages with cover; Regarding: Structural Zns ection far 2413 Buena Vista Avenue, Alameda, CA Dear N1r. Phua, As per your request, I conducted an engineering inspection of the above~referenced property an June ~ 7, 2008 to conduct a visual inspection of the foundation, framing, and general integrity of the subject residence, The residence is 118 years old, single story woad frame, single family residence over basement, on a relatively flat lot. The foundation is brick. During our inspection I observed the following; 1. The entire foundation system is outdated, and does not appear to be reinforced with steel or concrete. Visible brick is failing and deteriorating. 2. There were no visible anchor bolts or shear wall system tying the house to the foundation. There are no shear walls anywhere. 3. The floor franvng and roof framing system is undersized and the f~ni.shed floors are uneven. 4. There is a lack of proper grading and drainage, especially at the rear. 5. Basement floor is cracked and uneven throughout. 6. Interior plaster walls and ceilings are cracked and falling apart throughout the house. 7. Plumbing fixtures and appliances are in poor condition and possibly unsafe. 8. Plumbing walls are rotting from leaking pipes, 9. windows are in poor condition and generally do not operate. 10. Exterior siding is in poor condition. 1 1. Roofing and gutters appear to be old and failing. 1 Z. The operational heating system consists of one gas heater in front of the frreplace. 13. The front deck is failing and is unsafe to walk on. None of the stair railings meet current code requirements. Structural Recommendations for upgrading the home: 1. Replace foundation with new concrete reinforced footings, holdowns, and anchor bolts. 2. Shear wall strengthening to cripple walls; remove and replace rotten studs and siding. Shear all walls with l12" plywood with Sd nails at dll~ spacing. City Council Attachment 4 to Public Flearins ~~~nd~ ltean ~6-A n~.~ ~.ne Hendrick~anDePoI,PE 2225 Livingston Lane, Stockton., CA 95210 (209J6.~9-3551 License C-~5~472 3. Remove and replace floor framing or sister new joists to the existing to meet current code requirements. Remove and replace sub-floor with 314" TAG plywood with 8d nailing at 6112, It is important to use a floor diaphragm that can transfer seismic loads to the cripple walls. 4. Remove exterior siding and replace all rotten studs. Install exterior grade,112" CDX plywood for shear walls at all locations. Install 2 layers of grade "d" paper over 1 ood . P Y~' and install new or reparred siding. 5. Remove and replace roof, install roof sheathing, and upgrade roof rafters to meet current code requirements. Again, it is important to use a roof diaphragm that can transfer seismic loads to the cripple walls. b. Remove and replace front deck ~. their entirety. Additional Recommendations for upgrading the home: 1. Grading and Drainage: connect new gutter and downspouts to solid pipe to betaken to the street or rear yard. Re-grade areas adj acent to the home to slope away from the house far I12" per foot far 5'. 2. Replace basement floor with 5" concrete slab over visqueen, sand, and a 4" layer of drain rock. 3. At main level of house and basement, remove all wall and ceiling fuushes for new electrical, plumbing, heating ducts, windows, insulation and shear walls. Repair all rotten wall framing, 4. Remove and replace all plumbing frxtures, appliances, fiaxn,aces, water heater. You specifically asked me how much of the structure could be retained while upgrading the home. I would respond that, due to the age and condition of the home, and due to the probability of a large eardaquake in the near future, I think that 10-15% of the home could remain as part of the upgraded structure. Respectfully Submitted Hendrick vanDePol, PE C-15472 The ~~I~ ~~~ Preservation. Society November 20, 2008 (By Electronic Transmission) Historical Advisory Board City of Alameda Planning Department 223 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, California X4501 Subject:-~-Proposed removal of 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the historic Building Study List ' Dear Boardmembers: The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society ~AAPS}has the follavving comn7.ents; 1, we support the project concept of redeveloping the Cavanaugh Motors site for retail use as part of the effort to buildup retail uses around the Alameda Marketplace and help revitalise the Park Street north of hincoln area, 2. ~V'e believe that, contrary to the staff recamrn.endation and the page and Turnbull report, the house at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue does have historic significance because, as an almost en~.rely intact Victorian queen Anne cottage, it does has set forth in the Study List eligibility criteria at Section 13-21.2 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance} "...embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, inherently valuable far a study of a period, type or method of construction..." xn addifion, the buildin anchors the east end of an important grouping of Victorian and early 20 century residences on the north side of Buena Vista Avenue, which balances a similar group an the south side of the street. The building thus also meets the Section 13-21.2 Study fist criteria by being part of a "...group of structures of particular historic significance to the City". Although, the building is separated from the rest of the north side group by the Marketplace parking lot, the resulting gap is not wide enough to destroy the visual linkage between this building and the other buildings on both sides of the street, On the other hand, removal of the building will significantly reduce the overall frontage length of the north side group and compromise the two-sided Victorian streetscape formed by the north and south side groups viewed together, 0. Box 1 b77 ~4larneda, C~ p45a~ 51 ~-986-923 City Council Attachment 5 to Public Hearing Agenda item #6-A DZ-1 ?-09 If this property is considered to have no historical significance, then a substantial number (perhaps 20%} of the other buildings on the Historic Building Study List could also be considered to have na historzc significance. we are concerned that removal of this building from the Study List will open a Pandora's Box threatening study List removal afother Victorian houses. In the recent past, buildings with less integrity and arguably less architectural interest afar example 1525 Morton Street} have been confirmed to have historical value. 3. The applicant's structural report appears to grossly overstate the amount of worl~ needed to rehabilitate the building. The report's recommendation to remove all of the exterior siding, which is probably old growth clear heart redwood, seems ludicrau~. The report's conclusion that only 10-15% of the structure would remain after rehabilitation is highly debatable, If the HAB believes that this conclusion is relevant to its decision, the report's findings should be conf~rrned by a second opinion from a design or construction professional with demonstrated experience with the California Historical Building Code and in the rehabilitation of old buildings. 4. Our preference would be for the building to be retained within its present black, perhaps relocated to the adjacent Alameda Marketplace paring lot (as part of a shared parking facility for the Market Place and Cavanaugh Motors Project} to form a more cohesive grouping with the Victorian residences to the east ofthe parking lot. If, however, removal of the structure is indeed necessary to ensure that the Cavanaugh Motors Project has adequate parking, we recommend that any HAB action to facilitate the building's removal include a condition that, prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant make a gavel faith effort to find a developer to relocate the building to anatlaer site using language similar to the following developed by the City of ~aklaad: Prier fo ~~ie ~SSUance of a den~alitior~ perrr~at The project applicant shall make a good faith effort to relocate the building located at insert project location to a site acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Division and to the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey. Good faith efforts include, at a minimum, the following; a, Advertising the availability of the building by: (l } posting of large visible signs (such as banners, at a minimum of 3' x 6' size ar larger} at the sites ~2} placement of advertisemen#s in Bay Area news media acceptable to the City; and (3} contacting neighborhood associations and for-prat and eat-for- profithousing and preservation organizations; b, Maintaining a lag of all the goad faith efforts and submitting that slang with photos ofthe subject building showing the large signs (banners} tv the Planning and Zoning Division; 2 c. Maintaining the signs and advertising in glace for a minimum of 90 days; aid d. Making the building available at na or nominal cost tthe amount to be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Survey} until removal Es necessary far construction of the replacement project, but in no case for less than a period of 90 days aver such advertisement. 5. 1f the building is removed from the Study List, it appears that its demolition ar removal will still require a Ce~if Cate of Approval from the HAB because it is a pre-1942 building. rt would therefore appear to have been mare efficient to bring the Certificate of Approval to the HAB concurrent with removal of the structure frarn the Study List. Staff believes that a Certificate of Approval is not required if the building were to be removed from the Study List. This would be true if the building were past- 1 g42, but Section 13-21.7 of the Historic Preservafion Qrdinance clearly requires a Certificate of Approval far demolition or removal of buildings constructed prior to 1942 as well as Study Lest structures, A City Attorney determination on this issue seems advisable. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact nee at 523-4411 ar chuckle alamedanet.net if you have questions ar would like to discuss these comments. l~~ Christoph Buckleyy ' ent Alameda chitectural s anon Society cc: AAFS Board and Preservation Action Committee members ~3y electronic transmission} Cathy woadbury, Punning and Building Director (By electronic transmission} Jan Biggs, Secretary Historical Advisory Board (By electronic transmission) Barbaxa Price, P~ Consulting (By electronic transmission} The . ~,~ _ rreservahon J Society ~By Electronic Transmission} Historical Advisory Board Cxty of Alameda Planning Department 22G3 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, California X4501 February 4, 200$ Sub~ect:~--Proposed Cerfi~cate of Approval for dernolitivn of 2413 Buena vista Avenue ~PLNOS-0211} Dear Baardmembers: This proposal is a classic example of the challenges of weighing histoxiG preservation against other concerns, such a,s in this case, revitalizing the Park Street north of Lincoln following the departure of the auto dealers. As stated in our previous letter dated November 20, 2008, the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society ~AAPS} believes that contrary to the Page and Turnbull reports the house at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue does have historic sigruf~cance because, as an almost entirely intact Victorian queen Anne cottage, it does, as stated in the City's historic preservation ordinance, "..,embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen, inherently valuable for a study of a period, type or method of construction..." Inaddition, the building anchors the east end of an important grouping of Victorian and early 20~ century residences vn the north side of Buena vista Avenue, which balances a similar group on the south side of the street. However, also as stated in our November 20, 2408 letter, AAPS suppoxts the project concept of redeveloping the Cavanaugh Motors site far re#ail use as part of the effort to buildup retail, uses around the Alameda Marketplace and help revitalize Park Street north of Lincoln, Therefore, if removal of the structure is indeed necessary to ensure that the Cavanaugh Motors Project proceeds, we recommend that the HAB approve the Certih.cate of Approval wxt6~ t~.e follo~viug t~vo conditxa~as: 1. That, prior to issuance of a de~noZxtro~ permit, tl~e app~icar~t make a good faith effort to,~nd a deveroper to rerocate the building to another site. The condition should also define what constitutes a "goad faith e~`vrt". As stated i~ our November 24, 2408 letter, provisions such as the fallowing used by the City of Oakland should be considered suggested changes to make these provisions ,P.~. fax .~b77 Alameda, CA 94501 City Council 51'O~p8~r9232 Attachment 6 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #6-A O~-~ ~-O~ - Alameda rather than Oakland-specific and relevant to 2413 Buena vista Avenue are shown in and underlined text}: Prior to the i~~suarxee of a demolition permit The project applicant shall make a good faith effort to relocate the building located at ' 24~ 3 Buena Vista Ave~~ue to a site acceptable to the ' ~ . I~istorical Advisor~Board. food faith efforts include, at a minunum, the following: ~a} Advertising the availability of the building by: ~1} posting of large visible signs such as banners, at a minimum of 3' x b' size ar larger) at the site; (2} placement of advertisements in Bay Area news media acceptable tp the Gib Planning and_Buitding~Department; and (3) contacting neighborhood associations and far-profit and not-far-profit housing and preservation organizations; fib) Maintaining a Ivg of all the good faith efforts and submitting that along with photos Qf the subject building showing the large signs (banners} tp the Planning and ` ' ' Building department; (c} Maintaining the signs and advertising in place for a minimum of 90 days; and ~d) Making the building available at na or nominal cost the amount to be reviewed by the Historical Adviso Board until removal is necessary for construction of the replacement project, but in no case for less than a period of 9D days after such adverkisement. At the HAB's December 4, 2o0S meeting, the applicant's representata,ve questioned the appropriateness of Prevision ~a~(1}, because it might compromise the building's security and invite architectural thieves. This may be a valid concern. we therefore recoiumend that in determining what constitutes a goad faith effort to have the building moved, the HA.B request a proposal franc the applicant and evaluate this proposal. 2. That prru~ to issuance of a dem~Iitivn peYmit, a $urrding pQrmit shalt be issued for the replacement pNajeet for the ~ava~a~gh rotors site. Thank yQU for the opportunity tQ comment. Please contact me at 523-x411 or cbuckle alamedan,et.net if yauhave questions or would like to discuss these comments. Y} Christop r l~uckl Chair AAP S P ervatia tion Committee 2 2/5/2b09 Jon Bi s -House at 2413 Buen ( ) gg a Vista Ave. Pale 1 From: Edward Kearse ~ssgret@hotmaiLcomy To: Jon Biggs ~jbiggs@ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 21412009 2:43 PM Subject: House at 2413 Buena Vista Ave. Attension: Jon Biggs. Hello my name is Mike Kearse of Eureka, California. I'am sending you this E-Mail about not destroying a great old house, the McMullin family home at 2413 Buena Vista Ave. I was born in 1946 and I have been going there ever since till it was said. Many famous people have been in that house, my cousins home many times. such as my father Eddie P Kearse a New York Yankees Ball player. The Gakland Qaks Baseball team members, Casey Stengel, Vince DiMaggio from the famous DiMaggios Brothers of San Francisco. There is many mare who have been there, My hope is far the house to be saved because it is part of the History of Alameda. My Uncle is Taney Corica who passed away and his cousin is the former Mayor of Alameda, Mayor Corica. When the house was bui[dt back in the 1890's it had Gas lighting and all the Gas pipes are still there in the attic to this day. [t is very much of all Redwood Construction and all the woad came from Humboldt County, I'am sure. When my cousins first moved in they were all young Children and lived there all there lives, Edward McMullin, John McMullin, Charles McMullin, Nancy McMullin they are all gone now except for Helen McMullin who s#ill lives in the great city of Alameda California. Please save the House, Thank You. Edward M Kearse SSG1E-fi U.S. ARMY FRET} Windows Live''"": Keep your life in sync. http:Ilwindowslive.camlhawitworks?ocid=TXT TAGLM_WL t1_altup~howitwarks 022Q49 City Council Attachment 7 to Public Hearing Agenda Item #6-A O~-~ ~-O~ CITY OFALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPLICANT'S APPEALS AND OVERTURNING ~ THE HISTORICAL ADVISORY BOARD'S DENIAL GF PLANNING APPLICA TIGN ~°. NUMBERS, PLNO8-0211 AND PLNOS-0970, REQUESTS TG DELETE 2413 B UENA ~ 6 VISTA AVENUE FROM THE ALAMEDA HISTGRICAL BUILDING STUDY LISTAND ~ ~ A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL TO ALLOW DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING ~a ~ ~ .~ ~ ~' WHEREAS, 2413 Buena Vista Avenue is fisted on the Alameda Historica! ~ Building Study List; and WHEREAS, the property owner is requesting that 2413 Buena Vista Avenue be deleted from the Alameda Historical Building Study list and a Certificate of Approval be granted to allow demolition of the structure; and WHEREAS, the General Plan designation is Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance classification is C-M Commercial Manufacturing}; and WHEREAS, the project is CategoricallyExemptpursuanttoCEQAGuidelines Section 15301, Permitting the removal of a structure from the Historical Buildin g Study list and demolition of the structure based on information that it is not a significant historical resource; and WHEREAS, Applicant has provided evidence indicating that the structure at 2413 Buena Vista Avenue is not a significant historic resource; and WHEREAS, Staff has conducted an independent review of this information in addition to a review of information available in the Planning and Building Department and has been to the site and inspected the structure; and WHEREAS, on December4, 2008the HistoricalAdvisoryBoardheld apublic hearing and reviewed the request including exhibits and documents and voted to deny the PLN08-0211, a request to remove the structure from the Historical Buildin g Study List ;and WHEREAS, on February 5, 2009 the HistoricalAdvisory Board held a public hearing and reviewed the request including exhibits and documents and voted to deny the PLNOS-0970, a request for a Certificate of Approval to allow demob#ion of the structure; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2005 and February 0, 2009 appeals of the Historical Advisory Board's decisions were filed; and Resolution #6-A 42.17-~9 WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on February 17, 2009 and examined all pertinent exhibits, documents and testimony; and WHEREAS, the City Council has made the fallowing findings relevant to the submitted appeals: 1. Based on the evidence considered, the subject structure is determined to have no particular historic significance to the City of Alameda because it does not reflect or exemplify the cultural, political, economic or social history of the Nation, State, or Community and is not associated with historic persons or events, nor does it embody distinguishing characteristics of an architectural specimen, type, or method of construction and is not the notable work of a master builder, designer, or architect, 2. Based on the evidence of qualified sources, the historical resource is incapable of earning an economic return on its value. NQU1J THEREFQRE BE IT RESQLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby grants the appeals overturning the Historical Advisory Board's denials and approves, Application No. PLN08-0211 to delete X413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Historical Building Study List and Application No. PLNOS-0910 to allow demolition of the structure sub}ect to the following conditions: 1. Staff is directed to file this revision to the Historical Building Study List with the City Clerk. 2. HQLD HARMLESS. The City of Alameda requires as a condition of this approval that the applicant, or its successors in interest, defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Alameda or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, offcers, and employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City concerning the subject property. The City of Alameda shall notify the applicantof anyclaim, action orproceeding and the Cityshall cooperate inthe defense. If the City fails to notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate in the defense, the applicant shall not hereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety ~90~ daysfol[owing the date of this decision plus extensionsauthorized byCalifarnia Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094,6. NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66420 ~d} ~1 }, these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactians. 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 66024 ~a}has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions. ****** i, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 1 lt~ day of Februa , 2x09, b the followin vote to wit; ~ y g AYES; NaES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: iN UviTNESS, VvHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 1Sth day of February, 2009. Lara Weisiger, City Cferk City of Alameda CITY aF ALAMEDA Memorandum To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Debra Kurita City Manager Date: February 17, 2009 Re: Introduce an Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XX to Chapter XIII Building and Housing} and Amending Subsection 30-1.12 Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities} of Section 30-1 Off-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations} of Chapter XXX Development Regulations} by Adding Subsection 30-7.12~c} to Allow for Reduction in Parking Requirements for Seismic Retrofit BACKGROUND A soft-story building is a multi-story building where one or more floors have windows, wide doors, large unobstructed commercial or parking spaces, or other openings in places where a shear wall would normally be required far stability as a matter of current earthquake engineering design. A typical soft-story building is a two to four story apartment building located over a parking garage or series of retail businesses. Soft-story buildings are vulnerable to collapse in moderate to severe earthquakes in a phenomenon known as soft-story collapse. Soft-story failure was responsible for nearly half of all units that became uninhabitable in California's Loma Prieta Earthquake of 1989, and is projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments ~ABAG} to cause severe damage and possible destruction of 160,000 units in the event of a more significant earthquake in the San Francisco Bay Area. A preliminary survey has revealed that Alameda has between 200 and 300 soft-story residential buildings containing up to 3,500 units. In May 2005, City Council directed staff to prepare residential seismic retrofit programs to address both wood-frame one and two-story residential buildings and salt-story residential buildings. In August 2006, an ordinance was adopted to provide voluntary retrofit standards for wood-frame, one and two-story residential buildings. The proposed ordinance addresses the second part of that May 2005 Council directive. ,, ~ r. ~' ~I~~~~OLInCI~ ,, .,Putil.ic~ Nearing .., Agenda item #6-B 02-1 T-~9 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council DISCUSSION February 17, 2009 Page 2 of 4 In October 2005, California Health and Safety Code Sections 19162 and 19163 were amended to expressly authorize local jurisdictions to adopt by ordinance retrofit standards for soft-story residential buildings that comply with a nationally recognized model code relating to the retrofit of existing buildings. To date, jurisdictions including Berkeley, Fremont, and Burbank have adopted ordinances to address soft-story residential buildings. Fremont has adopted an ordinance that mandates repair within a given time frame, whereas Berkeley and Burbank have adopted ordinances that establish retrofit standards but do not mandate retrofit. The proposed ordinance is largely modeled after Berkeley's ordinance and is consistent with the ABAG Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigative Plan. The ordinance establishes clear soft-story retrofit standards through the adoption of Chapter A4 2003 of the International Existing Building Code. The work program established under this ordinance leave in the following: • Identification of buildings subject to the Soft-Story Ordinance. Identification will be accomplished through research of permit records and site visits by Planning and Building Staff. • Notification of property owners that their building has been identified as a potentially hazardous soft-story building. • Establishment of a process to allow property owners an opportunity to appeal the Building Official's determination of a potentially hazardous soft-story building. • Requirement that the property owner complete a structural assessment within 18 months of notification. • Notification of tenants and interested parties through the posting of a warning sign at the conclusion of the 18 month assessment period. • Requirement that the tenants cooperate to allow necessary inspections. • Establishment of a 15-year exemption from a new potentially hazardous designation once retrofit work is completed. Building inspection staff have identified nearly all soft-story buildings in Alameda. Once the buildings have been identified, the process of notifying the praperty owners and allowing for appeals is estimated to take approximately six months. This extended period will allow existing staff to manage the influx of appeals and engineering reports. Engineering reports are to be submitted within 18 months of the date the owner is notified. Based on this timeline, it is anticipated that this project will be complete within two years. In an effort to assist eligible property owners with the required structural assessment, the Development Services Department ~DSD} is evaluating the use of Community Development Black Grant CDBG} funds to help offset some of the engineering costs resulting from the ordinance. Both residential rehabilitation and historic preservation are eligible activities under the CDBG program. The City has long made use of CDBG dollars to fund residential rehabilitation projects that benefit low and moderate-income households. CDBG regulations, which allow for residential rehabilitation for the Honorable Mayor and February 1l, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 3 of 4 purposes of preserving historic assets, may enable the City to make the program available to households that do not necessarily meet low and moderate-income guidelines. DSD staff anticipates development of a program that could assist multi- family property owners with a majority X51%~ low- and moderate-income tenants. The proposed program will be presented to the City Council as part of the annual CDBG Action Plan cycle in April 2009. PUBLIC NnTIFICATIGN Public outreach and notification for this proposed ordinance has been extensive. Since Gctober 2008, staff has met with the Customer Service Improvement Committee, the Rental Housing Association of Northern California, and the Local Government Relations Committee of the Alameda Association of Realtors, held two public workshops, attended by over 1 DD people, and appeared before the City Council under Council Referrals. Additionally, the October 2008 "Ask The Building official" article in the Alameda Journal introduced this issue to the public. The Alameda Sun has featured this proposed ordinance on the front page on three separate occasions. Based on input from this public outreach, a number of changes have been incorporated in the final version of this ordinance. Those changes include removal of the re uirement q to post a notice with the Alameda County Assessor, delay of notification to tenants until the engineering report is completed, delay of posting the building until the engineering report is completed, removal of property transfer as a trigger to submit the engineering report, fee reductions for early submittal of the engineering report, and a fee waiver if retrofit permits are issued prior to the due date of the engineering report. FINANCIAL IMPACT The anticipated fee charged to review and approve the engineering reports submitted for each soft-story building will cover costs associated with the implementation of this program. Fee reductions will be granted for those property owners who submit their required engineering report prior to the mandated 18-month deadline. A total fee reduction will be granted for reports submitted 15 months early, l5°/° for reports submitted 12 months early, 5D% for reports submitted nine months early, and 25% for reports submitted six months in advance of the mandated due date. The fee to review these engineering reports will be set at $150. As an incentive to accelerate the actual retrofit of the subject buildings, this ordinance incorporates a waiver of all permit fees, estimated to be an average of $1,200, for projects started within 18 months of notification. No reports will be required to be submitted prior to the annual adoption of the Master Fee Schedule. Therefore, the fee to cover the costs of reviewing these reports will be included in the Master Fee Resolution later this year. The current Master Fee Schedule already covers all the components included in a soft story retrofit. Any fiscal impact resulting from use of the CDBG program will be discussed as a park of the CDBG approval process. Honorable Mayor and February 17, 2gg9 Members of the City Council Page 4 of 4 MUNICIPAL CODE CRGSS REFERENCE In order to retrofit some buildings, internal framing may be required, which could reduce the existing parking. The AMC only permits parking reductions for limited instances, none of which currently apply here. Therefore, an accompanying minor modification to the parking standards is proposed that allows elimination of parking spaces where necessary far soft-story seismic retrofits for properties with five or more units, subject to the approval of the Planning and Building Director. ENVIRGNMENTAL REVIEW The proposed ordinance is Categorically Exempt from State CEQA Guidelines, pursuant to Section 1535 Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations. RECGMMENDATIGN Introduce an ordinance to amend the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Article XX to Chapter XIII Building and Housing} and amending Subsection 34-7.12 Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities} of Section 30-7 ~4ff-Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations} of Chapter XXX Development Regulations} by adding Subsection 30-7.12~c} to allow for reduction in parking requirements for seismic retrofit. Respectfully submitted, lit/ Cathy odbury Planning & Building irector Approved as to funds and account, Ann Mar' Ga ant Interim i ance Director ~~~~. By: Grego cFann Building Official CITY OF ALAMEDA ORDINANCE NO. New Series ~ AMENDING THE ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ~ ADDING ARTICLE XX TO CHAPTER XIII BUILDING ~ AND HOUSING AND AMENDING SUBSEC o ~, TION 30-7.12 ~ ~ o REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR ~ ~ EXISTING FACILITIES OF SECTION 30-7 OFF-STREET ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ PARKING AND LOADING SPACE REGULATIONS OF a } Q CHAPTER ~~~ DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, BY ~ ~ ADDING SUBSECTION 30-7.12~c~ TO ALLOW FOR REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC RETROFIT BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Alameda that: Section 1. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended by adding Article XX, Earthquake Retrofit Standards and Requirements for Soft-Story Residential Buildings, to Chapter XIII, Building and Housing, consisting of subsections 1 ~-80.1 through 13-80.15, which shall read as follows; ARTICLE ~. EARTHQUAKE HAZARD REDUCTION IN EXISTING WOOD FRAME RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WITH SOFT-STORY, 'WEAK OR OPEN FRONT WALLS 13-SO.I Purpose The provisions of this article are intended to promote public safety and welfare by reducing the risk of death or injury that may result from the effects of earthquakes on existing wood frame multi-unit residential structures with soft-story, weak or open front walls. The minimum standards contained in this Article shall substantially improve the seismic performance of these residential buildings, but will not necessarily prevent all earthquake damage. when fully followed, these standards will strengthen the portion of the structure that is most vulnerable to earthquake damage. This Article does not require alteration of existin g electrical, plumbing, mechanical, or fire safety systems unless they constitute a hazard to life or propert~r. Y3-SU.2 Scope The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all existing wood frame multi-unit residential buildings or portions thereof that contain five or more dwelling units that were permitted for construction prior to December 17,1955, where the ground floor portion of the wood frame structure contains parking or other similar open floor space that causes soft, weak, or open wall lines as defined in this Chapter, and having one or more levels above the ground floor. These buildings are hereinafter referred to as "soft-story" construction. Introduction of ordinance #6•B V~w~ I -OV The provisions of this Chapter shall apply equally to apartment buildings and condominiums. Buildings listed on national, state or local historical registers shall also comply with the provisions of this Chapter, At the Building Official's discretion, modif cations to the code requirements contained in this Chapter may be permitted when such modifications are consistent with the provisions of the State Historical Building Code. 13-80.3 Findings and intent. ~a} The City of Alameda is located within Design Category D & E, as defned in the 2007 California Building Code. fib} The City Council desires to lessen the risks to life and property of the residents of the City of Alameda posed by a maj ar earthquake along the Hayward Fault. ~c} Buildings with soft, weak or open front ground floor stories are recognized by engineers, and other seismic safety experts, as having potential for sustaining serious damage including collapse, in the event of strong earthquakes. ~d} Neither the International Building Code nor the California Building Standards Code contains provisions governing the earthquake retrofit of soft-story residential buildings. fie} In 2003, the International Code Counsel published the first edition of the International Existing Building Code IEBC}. Chapter A4 of that Code, entitled "Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Wood-Fame Residential Buildings with Soft, Weak, or open-Front Walls", which is the basis for this chapter, ~f} In 2005, California Health and Safety Code sections 191 ~2 and 19163 were amended to expressly authorize local jurisdictions the authority to adopt by ordinance, retrofit standards for soft-story residential buildings that comply with a nationally recognized model code relating to the retrofit of existing buildings or substantially equivalent standards, fig} The current nationally recognized model code for the retrofit of soft-story residential buildings is Appendix Chapter A4 of the 2003 IEBC. The provisions of this chapter, as amended by this ordinance, comply with or are substantially equivalent to Appendix Chapter A4 of the IEBC. ~h} These codes are not intended to provide structural performance equivalent to that provided by new construction built to the current Ci Buildin Code, rather these tY g codes identify and provide for improving the structures more vulnerable portions and, if identif ed improvements are made, can be expected to substantially reduce the likelihood of excessive building drift or collapse and substantially lessen the loss of human life, ~i} The establishment of aninventory ofsoft-story buildings and the notification of owners and residents is a necessary first step in developing a mitigation program and will provide the basis for obtaining input from affected parties for any future mandatory retrofit program. (j} Although the general vulnerability of such buildings is known, determining the seismic adequacy of each of the structures and the appropriate elements of a retrofit to remedy vulnerabilities requires a detailed evaluation by an licensed engineer. ~k} Such an evaluation is also necessary for the City to identify fully the risks to the city and its inhabitants and to determine the feasibility of programs to address the vulnerabilities. ~l} This ordinance requires the establishment of an inventory of potentially hazardous, wood frame, multi-unit ~5 units or more} residential structures with soft- story,weak oropen front walls; provides for notification of the owners, residents, and users of such buildings; adopts Appendix Chapter A4 of the 2003 IEBC and requires owners to provide analysis of their building's seismic adequacy. 13-80.4 Adoption and modifications of Chapter A4 of the 2003 IEBC. Chapter A4 of the 2003 International Existing Building Code ~"IEBC"}, as published by the International Code Council is hereby adopted by reference, except where this chapter provides alternative language. For purposes of this Chapter, the standards in the IEBC shall be used for the analysis of seismic weakness and to formulate the elements of work required to remedy any identified weaknesses. 13-80.5 Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings. Multi-unit wood frame residential buildings with five or more residential units identif ed by a survey conducted by the City as containing a Soft, weak, or Open Front Ground Floor shall be defined and or designated as soft-story buildings and placed on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings, The Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings shall be maintained and revised as necessary by the Building Official. A copy shall be available for inspection in the office of the Buildin Off cial. g 13-80.6 Notification of Owners and administration ~a} Contents of Notice and Order. when the Building Official determines that a building is within the scope of this Chapter, the Building Official shall issue a Notice and Order as provided herein. The Notice and Order shall specify that the building has been determined by the Building Official to be within the scope of this Chapter, placed on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings, and, therefore, is required to meet the seismic analysis and other provisions of this Chapter. The Notice and Order shall set forth the owner's obligations under this chapter, the time Limits for compliance, and appeal rights. The Building Official's determination shall be final at the end of 60 days unless a timely appeal is filed as provided below. fib} Service of Notice and order. The Notice and Order shall be in writing and may be given either by personal delivery thereof to the owner or by deposit in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the owner of the property as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the county, or as known to the Building Official, as well as to the following, if known or disclosed from official public records: the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust or other lien or encumbrance of record; the owner or holder of any lease of record; and the holder of any other estate or legal interest of record in or to the building or the land on which it is located. The failure to serve any person required herein to receive service shall not invalidate any proceeding hereunder as to any person duly served or relieve any such person from any duty or obligation imposed by the provisions of this section. 13-80.7 Appeal of Notice and order to Building ~fficiai Any person entitled to service of notice under Section 13-SO.6 ~a} may request the Building Official to reconsider a determination to include a building on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings by submitting information that the building's ground floor is not soft, weak, or open as defined by the applicable standard, that the building has been substantially reconstructed in accordance with the 1977 or later Uniform Building Code, The appeal to the Building Official shall be filed within 60 days from the date of the service of such Notice and Order of the Building Official. I3-S0.8 Appeal of Decision of Building official ~a} Any person entitled to service of notice under Section 13-SO.6 ~a}may appeal the decision of the Building Official to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board Board} by f ling a written Application for Appeal Hearing with the Secretary of the Board within ten X10} days of service of the Building Official's determination under Section I3-SO.7. fib} The fee for filing an appeal shall be established by resolution of the City Council. The appeal fee shall be required at the time that the appeal is filed. Appeal forms shall not be accepted without the appropriate appeal fee. ~c} The appeal shall contain the following information: 1. The specific identification of the subject property. 2. The name, address, telephone number, date and signature of all appellants. 3. The appellants}' legal interest in the property. 4. A statement in ordinary and concise language of the grounds for the appeal and all material facts in support thereof. 5. The address to which all notices shall be sent. 6. The verification under penalty of perj ury of at least one ~ I }appellant as to the truth of the matters stated in the appeal. ~d} The Secretary to the Board shall serve, or cause to be served, a written Notice of Hearing in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certif ed, return receipt requested, addressed to all appellants at the address designated in the Application for Appeal Hearing. Such notice shall be served at least ten ~l 0}days prior to the time set for the hearing. The Notice of Hearing shall contain the date, time and place of the hearing. Service shall be deemed complete on the fifth day after service. fie} The Secretary of the Board shall set a date for a hearing not less than ten X10} days nor more than sixty (60} days from the service of the Notice of Hearing, unless the Board determines good cause exists for an extension of time. ~~ The Board or employee, upon giving notice of aforesaid, shall file an affidavit or declaration certifying the date of mailing the Notice of Hearing, and file it in the records of the Building official. fig} Failure of the person f ling the appeal to appear at the hearing after notice has been served shall be deemed a waiver of the hearing. ~h} . The Board shall determine whether the building is aloft-story building . ~i} The Board shall prepare a written Statement of Decision, which shall contain findings of fact for each decision of the Board. ~h} The Secretary of the Board shall serve, or cause to be served, a copy of the decision of the Board on the owner any person entitled to service of notice under Section 13-SO.b ~a}. 13-80.9 Analysis of structural seismic adequacy. within 18 months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings, the owner of each building on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings shall submit an Initial Screening and a detailed seismic engineering evaluation report prepared by a qualified California licensed structural or civil engineer that analyzes the structural ability of the building to resist the seismic effects of earthquakes and the extent to which the building meets the standards for structural seismic adequacy as set forth in Appendix Chapter 4 of the 2003 IEBC, as modified by this ordinance, identifies any hazardous exterior design elements, describes the elements of work needed to remedy the identified weaknesses, and provides other relevant information as requested by the Building off cial. This Chapter does not require the retrofit of any building and does not require the submittal of plans of the type required with an application for a building permit. The purpose of the analysis is to investigate the structural systems of a building that resist forces imposed by earthquakes and to determine if any individual portion or combination of these systems is inadequate to prevent a collapse or partial collapse or other damage hazardous to life. 13-80.8 Fees ~a} Engineering Report Review Fees. Engineering report review fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Review fees shall be reduced as follows: 100a/o for qualifying reports submitted within 3 months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory, 75°/a for qualifying reports submitted within 6 months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory, 50% for qualifying reports submitted within 9 months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory, and 25% for qualifying reports submitted within 12 months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings. fib} Plan Review and Inspection Fees. Plan review and inspection fees shall be established by resolution of the City Council. All plan review and inspection fees shall be waived for soft-story retrofit projects for which permits are issued prior to 1 S months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings. 13-80.11 Uwners' and tenants' obligations. ~a} obligation of owners to notify tenants and post building. Within 1 S months of the date of service of the notice of inclusion on the Inventory of Patentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings, the owner of each building on the Inventory of Potentially Soft-Story Buildings shall; 1. Notify each tenant in writing and notify each new tenant at a change of tenancy, that the building is included on the Inventory of Potentially Soft- Story Buildings. 2. Post in a conspicuous place within five feet of each main entrance of the building, and maintain until the building is removed from the Inventory of Potentially Soft-Story Buildings, a clearly visible warning sign not less than S" by 1 D" the following statement, with the f rst two words printed in 50-point bold type and the remaining words in at least 30-point type: "Earthquake warning. This is a soft-story building with a soft, weak, or open front ground floor. Occupants and Visitors may not be safe inside or near such buildings during an earthquake." 3. Mail, within thirty X30} days of service, a copy of each tenant notif cation form in compliance with this section and a completed proof of service addressed to: Building official, Planning and Building Department, 2263 Santa Clara Ave, Alameda, CA 94501. fib} Obligations of tenants to cooperate. Each tenant of a building on the Inventory of Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Buildings shall cooperate with the owner and the owner's agents, including but not limited to engineers, contractors, and inspectors, to accomplish the required analysis. Yn so doing, tenants shall allow reasonable access to the building and their unit or space as needed and as permitted by California Civil Code Section 1954. 13-80.12 Removal of building from the inventory. A building shall be removed from the inventory under the following circumstances: ~a} A determination by the Building Official that the building does not contain a Weak, Soft, or open Front Story and meets the applicable standards; or fib} The satisfactory completion of a seismic retrofit and appropriate inspections bringing the Soft, Weak, or open Front Story of the building up to the requirements of the applicable standards of Chapter A4 of the 2003 IEBC; or ~c} A determination by the Building Official or a decision on appeal that the building is not a building with Soft, Weak, ar Open Front Stories; or ~d) Lawful demolition of the building. 13-80.13 Compliance schedule for submittal of seismic analysis. ~a} Deadlines. All owners of potentially hazardous soft-story buildings shall submit the required analysis of structural seismic adequacy in accordance with this Chapter no later than 18 months from notice by the City. fib} Acceleration of deadline. Notwithstanding subdivision ~a} ofthis section, this deadline shall be accelerated, and the owner shall submit the required analysis of structural seismic adequacy, whenever any one or more of the following occurs: 1. The building will undergo a remodel, alteration, addition or structural repairs valued at more than $1 OO,OOO, except for repairs found by the Building off vial to be required for routine maintenance or emergency. 2. The use of the building changes such that Section 110 of the 2007 California Building Code applies. 3. The building is identif ed by the Building Official as an Unsafe Building as def ned in Section 115 of the 207 California Building Code or AMC Section 13-10,2.4, ~c} Extensions of deadline. The Building off cial may extend the deadline for the required analysis by up to six ~6} months if the owner submits to the Building Official a detailed written statement requesting the extension, explaining why it should be granted and clearly documenting the reasons therefore in accordance with the requirements of this part. Extensions granted under this part shall not extend deadlines far correction of any other violations of any other ordinances. ~d} Required findings. In order to grant an extension, the Building Official must find that: 1, The building does not present an imminent threat to life safety of occupants or the public, based on a report from a California licensed structural or civil engineer; 2, The owner has demonstrated there are unique and exceptional circumstances that prevent compliance, 13$0.14 Fifteen year exemption for retrofitted buildings Any building, or any portion of a building that is identified under this Chapter as being a Potentially Hazardous Soft, weak, Open Front Story Building and is retrof tted in compliance with the applicable standards or the City of Alameda Building Code shall not, within a period of 15 years, be identified as a Potentially Hazardous Soft-Story Building because of a Soft, weak, or Open Front Story pursuant to any local building standards adopted after the date of the building retrofit unless such building no longer meets the standards under which it was retrofitted. 13-80.15 Violation and remedies. ~a} rt shall be unlawful for any person, business or corporation to maintain, use or occupy a building that is not in compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. For purposes of this section, any person includes an owner, lessor, sublessor, manager, or person in control of a building subject to this Chapter, but shall not include tenants in residential units. fib} All remedies available to the City for correcting violations of any other Chapter in this Code shall be available to remedy violations of this Chapter. The remedies described herein are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available for violation of this Chapter. Section 2. The Alameda Municipal Code is amended by adding Section 30- 7.12. ~c} Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities of Chapter ~X~, Development Regulations to read as follows: 3o-7.~Z Reduction in Parking Requirements for Existing Facilities ~c7 Additional parking spaces serving existing multi-family dwellings may be eliminated from properties with f ve ~5} or more units, with the approval of the Planning and Building Director, if needed to seismically retrofit these structures to meet health and safety requirements. Section 3. ~f any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council of the City of Alameda herby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional. Section 4. All former ordinances or parts thereof conflicting or inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance hereby adopted, to the extent of such conflict only, are hereby repealed. Section 5, The City Clerk of the City of Alameda is hereby directed to cause this ordinance to be published in the Official Newspaper of the City of Alameda. Section G. This ordinance and the rules, regulations, provisions, requirements, orders and matters established and adopted hereby shall take effect and be in full force and effect 3 0 days after the date of its f nal passage and adoption. Presiding Officer of the Council Attest: Lara ~Ueisiger, City Clerk ~ ~~~~~ f, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was duly and regularly adopted and passed by Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 1lt" day of February, 2009 by the followin vote to wit: g AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: 1N WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 18t"day of February, 2009. 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: February 1l, 2009 Re: Discuss Alternative Uses for the Mif Albright Golf Course and Provide Direction BAC KG RG U N D The Mif Albright Golf Course is an approximately 12-acre site located within the Chuck Corica Golf Complex. The site was first opened in 1982 and was intended to provide a shorter alternative to the existing full-size courses. Its shorter configuration greatly reduced the overall amount of time required to complete a round of golf and was a much more suitable alternative for beginning players, or for those not interested in playing afull-sized course. In the fall 2001, the National Golf Foundation was selected by the City to conduct an Operational Review of the entire golf complex operation. A major component of their report focused on bath the number of rounds played and the associated revenues and expenditures for the Mif Course. The National Golf Foundation recommended closing the course because of a steady decline in both the rounds played and associated revenues, coupled with a steep rise in the cost to maintain and operate the facility. In an attempt to avoid closure, a number of promotional events and price reductions were instituted during 2008. After careful review, it was determined that while these efforts did increase play slightly, due to reduced green fees, they also decreased the overall revenue, resulting in even larger shortfalls. In addition, the East Bay Municipal Utility District ~EBMUD} has initiated strict water restrictions in light of the worsening drought. These restrictions require a 30°/o reduction in water use far golf courses. This action severely limited the City's ability to properly irrigate the site. In light of the continued downward trend in the rounds played and revenue generated, along with the continued rise in operational expenditures and strict water use limitations, the facility was closed on November 30, 2008, and the City Council requested that staff provide some potential alternative uses for the site. DISCUSSION Staff has reviewed a number of potential uses for the site, ranging from athletic fields to dog parks to BMX bike courses to passive recreation areas. In order to pro_ ject the most City, Council Agenda Item #6-C oz-~ 7.0~ Honorable Mayor and February 1l, 2009 Members of the City Council Page 2 of 3 feasible alternatives for the site, staff from the Recreation & Park Department has been working closely with the Planning Department to identify the space available and to offer suggested alternatives. The Planning Department has prepared a possible configuration for four athletic fields; a copy of this configuration is attached. Outlined below are a number of alternatives for the site along with projected construction costs and associated ongoing maintenance expenditures. Also included are some potential neighborhood concerns. The site contains a large number of memorial trees that have been donated over the past 25 years, and their ultima#e disposition is of interest to the community, . Ongoing Maintenance Potential Potential Use Construction Es#imate Cost Estimate Neighborhood Annual Concerns Athletic Fields ~2 turf} SoccerlFootball $1.5-2 Million $140,000 Noise,Traffic, & Softball Parkin Athletic Fields ~2 all- Noise, Traffic & weather $3-4 Million $70,000 Parkin Do Park $250,000 $50,000 Noise & Parkin Grafitti, Noise & BMX Bike $400,000-$600,000 $40,000 Parkin Passive Park ~trailslpicniclplay area} $150,000 $15,000 Noise & Parkin 0 en S ace Minimal $30,000 Noise & Traffic Note: Cost estimates will vary according to amenities selected. Of the potentia! uses outlined above, the Recreation & Park Department either currently operates these types of facilities or similar ones with the exception of the open space alternative. Since the Recreation & Park Department does not have experience operating or maintaining open space areas, staff has contacted the East Bay Regional Park District ~EBRPD} to discuss the potential of their organization operating such a site. The EBRPD did not express any interest in operating such a facility, citing concerns regarding maintenance costs and their focus on providing more outdoor wilderness experiences. FINANCIAL IMPACT The impacts of any of the potential projects can only be determined once an option is selected. Funds for construction of one or more of these facilities are not available from the City's present capital project funds. Any grant or other outside revenues secured would still require operations and maintenance funds #o be budgeted as increased expenditures in the General Fund. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council RECOMMENDATION February 1l, 2009 Page 3 of 3 Discuss alternative uses for the Mif Albright Golf Course and provide direction. Respectfully submitted, Approved as to funds and account, Dale Lillard, Director Ann Marie allant Alameda Recreation, Parks & Golf Operations Interim Fi a ce Director D L: bf Attachments}: 1. Configuration of Athletic Fields ~~' ~'7 . ~ .~ ti~ ~` ~ `` ,. ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , :.~ ~ ~' ~ ,. ~~ . ~s . i ' ;~ i _~ J . _ ~. r `r ` '~ 1 ~ ~ ` ~~ 1 F ~ 1 .._. , • ~' t .~ ~ ~ ~ \ r . \ f` ~ \ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~•~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a I ' ~ '41 r ~I ~f ;~ ;~ i t~ ~;} °i I, i v- a~ ~ ~ ~~ { 1 .s.w 1 Tm~~~ ~ 6 . ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ 6 ~~. ~ ~ . G ~ ~~ e ~ ~ . ~ ~ 6 b ' ~u.M ~'no ¢~rn ~~ ~'~' ..~^~~ ~, ~~ f~ =w ;'n~~~ . . 'n ~'~ ti, .e ~-~~ l.:J -- 1 . I~ ~ ~ . ~- ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ j~ I ~ Jul ~ v ~ ~ p ~ i~. ~O ~' a o ~ ~ ,. a . --. 1 ~ ' Y V~ 4 .rti ~,.. V ~~ y~~ City Council Attachment to Agenda item #fi-C ~Z-17-a9